# Farmers's practices and attitudes towards artificial fed lambs and their mortality in meat systems

Xavier Boivin, Pauline Malarange, Anne Jarousse, Jean-Marc Gautier,

Christophe Mallet, Frédéric Bouvier, Marie-Madeleine Mialon, Florence

Kling-Eveillard, Laurence L.A. Guilloteau

► To cite this version:

Xavier Boivin, Pauline Malarange, Anne Jarousse, Jean-Marc Gautier, Christophe Mallet, et al. Farmers's practices and attitudes towards artificial fed lambs and their mortality in meat systems. 7. International conference on the assessment of animal welfare at farm and grip level. WAFL 2017, Sep 2017, Ede, Netherlands. Academic Publishers, 280 p., 2017, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group level. 10.3920/978-90-8686-862-9. hal-01607069

HAL Id: hal-01607069

https://hal.science/hal-01607069

Submitted on 2 Jun 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike 4.0 International License
Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on the Assessment of Animal
Welfare at Farm and Group level
Proceedings of the
7th International Conference
on the
Assessment of Animal Welfare
at Farm and Group level

WAFL 2017

Ede, The Netherlands
September 5-8, 2017

edited by:
Ingrid C. De Jong and Paul Koene
Buy a print copy of this book at

**www.WageningenAcademic.com/WAFL2017**

EAN: 9789086863143

e-EAN: 9789086868629

ISBN: 978-90-8686-314-3

e-ISBN: 978-90-8686-862-9

DOI: 10.3920/978-90-8686-862-9

First published, 2017

© Wageningen Academic Publishers

The Netherlands, 2017

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Wageningen Academic
Publishers

This work is subject to copyright. All rights
are reserved, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned. Nothing
from this publication may be translated,
reproduced, stored in a computerised
system or published in any form or in any
manner, including electronic, mechanical,
reprographic or photographic, without prior
written permission from the publisher:
Wageningen Academic Publishers
P.O. Box 220
6700 AE Wageningen
The Netherlands
www.WageningenAcademic.com
copyright@WageningenAcademic.com

The individual contributions in this
publication and any liabilities arising from
them remain the responsibility of the
authors.

The publisher is not responsible for
possible damages, which could be a result
of content derived from this publication.
# Welcome to WAFL 2017!

The on-farm assessment of animal welfare is entering a new phase. For many years its application was limited mainly to scientific studies on the effects of various husbandry practices. But times are changing and animal welfare is increasingly considered to be an integral part of sustainable livestock production, and not just a legislative burden to agriculture in Europe. Initiatives such as the OIE Standards and the more recent ISO Specification on Animal Welfare Management aim to improve welfare at a global level, and food chains in many parts of the world are now considering and implementing animal friendlier ways of production. These developments require welfare to be assessed by the food business operators themselves, taking welfare assessment out of the laboratory, and putting it into farming practice.

The 7th international conference on Welfare Assessment at Farm and Group Level is organised by Wageningen University & Research, in collaboration with Van Hall Larenstein university of applied sciences. We consider it an honour to host WAFL 2017 in the Netherlands this year. We have made an effort to support the developments described above, by providing an opportunity for business and science to meet and work on innovative and practical ways to improve animal well-being.

There are many people who have contributed to this year's conference. You can find their names on the following pages. Without their help WAFL 2017 would not have been possible – thank you very, very much! We are also grateful for the professional support we received from Joke Scholte (ArtoFakt), Mike Jacobs (Wageningen Academic Publishers) and Oane de Hoop (OanEvents) who made our lives so much easier.

On behalf of the organising committee, we would like to welcome you to WAFL 2017 and wish you a stimulating and enjoyable conference.

Hans Spoolder

Bas Kemp
# Acknowledgements

**Scientific committee:**

Ingrid de Jong (chair)
Eddie Bokkers
Paul Koene
Kees van Reenen
Inonge Reimert
Frank Tuyttens

**Organising committee:**

Hans Spoolder (chair)
Bart Gremmen
Ingrid de Jong
Bas Kemp
Bas Rodenburg

**Innovation day committee:**

Bas Rodenburg (chair)
Bas Kemp
Vincent Pompe
Hans Spoolder
## Reviewers

Bart Ampe

Xavier Boivin

Eddie Bokkers

Iris Boumans

Laura Boyle

Marc Bracke

Stephanie Buijs

Andy Butterworth

Irene Camerlink

Sylvie Cloutier

Mike Cockram

Melanie Connor

Antoni Dalmau

Elske De Haas

Carolien De Lauwere

Laura Dixon

Cathy Dwyer

Bernadette Earley

Sandra Edwards

Esther Ellen

Bas Engel

Inma Estevez

Emma Fabrega-Romans

Mark Farnworth

Jenny Gibbons

Bart Gremmen

Peter Groot Koerkamp

Derek Haley

Moira Harris

Sabine Hartmann

Marie Haskell

Mette Herskin

Sarah Ison

Per Jensen

Ellen Jongman

Bas Kemp

Ute Knierim

Akke Kok

Khelle Kristensen

Fritha Langford

Christine Leeb

Joop Lensink

Helene Leruste

Pol Llonch

Jill Mackay

Maja Makagon

Xavier Manteca

Jeremy Marchant Forde

Jessica Martin

Rebecca Meagher

Marie-Christine Meunier-Salaün

Mara Miele

Birte Nielsen

Hanneke Nijland

Tomas Norton

Niamh O'Connell

Keelin O'Driscoll

Severine Parois

Tom Pike

Wendy Rauw

Bas Rodenburg

Vicky Sandilands

Peter Sandoe

Lysanne Snijders

Elsbeth Stassen

Janice Swanson

Jan Tind Sørensen

Simon Turner

Frank Tuyttens

Nanda Ursinus

Anna Valros

Heleen Van De Weerd

Frank Van Eerdenburg

Kees Van Reenen

Stephanie Van Weyenberg

Elsa Vasseur

Antonio Velard

Kathalijne Visser

Nina Von Keyserlingk

Susanne Waiblinger

Dan Weary

Laura Webb

Christoph Winckler
# Sponsors of the WAFL 2017 conference

## Double Gold sponsor:

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Ministry of Economic Affairs

## Silver sponsor:

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

HATCHTECH
PROVIDING SUPERIOR CHICK QUALITY

## Bronze sponsors:

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
## Tuesday 5 September Innovation Day

9:00 – 9:30 Reception, coffee

9:30 – 9:45 Welcome and introduction

9:45 – 10:30 **Keynote Daniel M. Weary (UBC Canada)**

Innovations to improve animal welfare: what have we reached and what should we aim for?

10:30 – 12:00 **Pitch presentations welfare innovations**

Joep Driessen, Jan Hulsen* and Wiebe Veenstra

Keep cow and calf health and stress-free with cowsignals cuddle box

Elske N De Haas*, Jerine A.J. Van Der Eijk, Lydia E. Nieuwe Weme, Bram Van Mil and T. Bas Rodenburg

Phenolab: ultra-wide band tracking of individual group housed laying hens

Steen H. Møller*, Britt I.F. Henriksen and Anna F. Marsbøll

Full-scale implementation of Welfur-Mink in Europe – only certified pelts will be sold from 2020

Maikel Timmerman, Marion Kluivers-Poodt, Inonge Reimert, Herman Vermeer*, Ruud Barth, Gert Kootstra, Johan Van Riel and Kees Lokhorst

Creating Resilience in Pigs Through Artificial Intelligence (CuRly Pig TAIL)

Margit Dall Aaslyng, Helle Daugaard Larsen*, Glenn Brink Nielsen and Per Black

Measuring tail length and tail bites on pig carcasses

Anne Van Den Oever*, Liebregts Bas and van de Ven Lotte

Q-perch helps fight poultry red mite

M.F. Mul*, J.W. Van Riel, P.G.W. Groot Koerkamp, M. Dicke, G. Schoeber and D. Fetter

The automated mite monitoring tool for advancing integrated pest management for Dermanyssus gallinae

Paul Jackson

Innovative concept building design using passive technology to improve resource efficiency

David Speller

OPTIFarm broiler management

Paul Koene

Adding social network information to automated dairy cow management

Elnaz Khatami

Improving animal health and welfare by on-line SCC monitoring instrument ‘LUCI’

M.A.W. Ruis, A. Mens, R. Zanders and J. Katoele*

Feeding live black soldier fly larvae and effects on health, welfare and production of laying hens

Carla Van Der Pol

HatchCare, the poultry incubator with feed, light, and water

12:00 – 12:30 Plenary discussion

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch

13:30 – 16:00 Innovation market

16:00 – 17:00 Plenary discussion and voting innovation award

17:00 – 22:00 Drinks and dinner, welcome reception WAFL congress
## Wednesday 6 September 2017

7:30 – 8:30 Registration & coffee

8:30 – 9:00 Opening & welcome

**Session:** Sustainability and animal welfare

**Chairperson:** Elsa Vasseur

9:00 – 9:45 **Keynote** Imke de Boer

Future food systems: implications for animal welfare

9:45 – 10:00 **Carolina A. Munoz***, **Angus J.D. Campbell**, **Paul H. Hemsworth** and **Rebecca E. Doyle**

On-farm ewe welfare and its relationship with farmer management styles

10:00 – 10:15 **Luiza Toma**, **Marie J. Haskell***, **Andrew P. Barnes** and **Alistair W. Stott**

Relationship between animal welfare, production and environmental performance of dairy farms

10:15 – 10:45 Coffee break (& posters)

**Session:** Sustainability and animal welfare / Free papers

**Chairperson:** Jan Tind Sørensen

10:45 – 11:00 **Evelien De Olde***, **Eddie Bokkers** and **Imke De Boer**

The evaluation of animal welfare in sustainability assessment tools

11:00 – 11:15 **Lukas Tremetsberger**, **Jochen Kantelhardt** and **Christoph Winckler***

Animal health and welfare state and technical efficiency of dairy farms: possible synergies

11:15 – 11:30 **Sajeev Erangu Purath** Mohankumar*, **Kian Mintz-Woo**, **Barbara Amo and** **Wilfried Winiwarter**

Ethical and agronomical considerations towards a sustainable pig housing system

11:30 – 11:45 **X. Boivin***, **P. Malarange**, **A. Jarousse**, **J.M. Gautier**, **C. Mallet**, **F. Bouvier**, **M.M. Mialon**, **F. Kling-Eveillard** and **L.A. Guilloteau**

Farmers' practices and attitudes towards artificial fed lambs and their mortality in meat systems

11:45 – 12:00 **Helena Telkanranta*** and **Anna Valros**

Could pigs have unidentified behavioural needs that warrant inclusion in future welfare assessments?

12:00 – 13:30 Lunch

**Session:** Animal welfare in society

**Chairperson:** Daniel Weary

13:30 – 14:15 **Keynote** Noelle Aarts

The art of dialogue

14:15 – 14:30 **Katherine E. Koralesky*** and **David Fraser**

Dairy industry stakeholder perceptions of British Columbia's emergency slaughter program

14:30 – 14:45 **Sarah Gauly**, **Marie Von Meyer-Höfe**, **Achim Spille** and **Gesa Busch***

Does the background matter – people's perception of pictures of pigs in different farm settings
14:45 – 15:00 **Lenka Van Riemsdijk*, Paul T.M. Ingenbleek, Gerrita Van Der Veen and**
**Hans C.M. Van Trijp**
Addressing the social dilemma in animal-friendly product choice with positioning
strategies

15:00 – 15:15 **Karianne Muri*, Per Arne Tufte and Randi Oppermann Moe**
Sheep farmers’ behavioural attitudes are associated with intrinsic motivation
and job satisfaction

15:15 – 15:30 **Manika Rödiger*, Meike Janssen and Ulrich Hamm**
Multi-level animal welfare labels reflect consumer preferences: insights from a
systematic review

15:30 – 16:30 **Tea & posters**

16:30 – 18:00 **Workshops**

Workshop 1 **Hanneke Nijland**
Workshop animal farming and consumption

Workshop 2 **Bas Engel and Bart Ampe**
Sensible statistics in animal welfare research

Workshop 3 **Sophie de Graaf, Leonie Jacobs, Olga Szczodry and Frank Tuyttens**
Towards a unified definition of animal welfare among animal welfare scientists

Workshop 4 **Björn Forkman**
Welfare Quality: current state-of-the-art and a look into the future

Workshop 5 **Paul Koene, Jose Kok and Jens Krause**
Zoo Animal Welfare: are we happy together?
Thursday 7 September 2017

**Session:** Social networks in animal welfare

**Chairperson:** Janice Siegford

<table><tr><td>8:30 – 9:15</td><td><strong>Keynote</strong> Jens Krause<br/>Social network analysis: opportunities and challenges for applications in wild and domestic animal populations</td></tr><tr><td>9:15 – 9:30</td><td><strong>Yuzhi Li*, Haifeng Zhang, Lee Johnston and Wayne Martin</strong><br/>Understanding tail biting in pigs through social network analysis</td></tr><tr><td>9:30 – 9:45</td><td><strong>Borbala Foris*, Manuela Zebunke, Jan Langbein and Nina Melzer</strong><br/>Relationship between personality and social behaviour in dairy cattle</td></tr><tr><td>9:45 – 10:00</td><td><strong>Simone Foister*, Andrea Doeschl-Wilson, Rainer Roehe, Laura Boyle and Simon Turner</strong><br/>Can aggressive network structures at mixing be used to predict lesion outcomes in pigs?</td></tr><tr><td>10:00 – 10:15</td><td><strong>Jen-Yun Chou*, Emma M. Baxter and Lesley A. Smith</strong><br/>Effect of environmental enrichment on the social contact patterns of group housed sows</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>10:15 – 10:45</td><td>Coffee break (&amp; posters)</td></tr></table>

**Session:** Welfare assessment / Genetics and animal welfare

**Chairperson:** Jim Webster

<table><tr><td>10:45 – 11:00</td><td><strong>Timothy Giles*, Scott Hulme, Paul Barrow, Nathalie Le Floc'h, Anne-Marie Chaussé, Panagiotis Sakkas, Tommy Van Limbergen, Suso Mendez, Joaquín Morales and Neil Foster</strong><br/>Identification of genes which are associated with production diseases in pigs and chickens</td></tr><tr><td>11:00 – 11:15</td><td><strong>P.K. Mathur*, R.H. Vogelzang, H.A. Mulder and E.F. Knol</strong><br/>Genetic selection to enhance animal welfare using meat inspection data from slaughter plants</td></tr><tr><td>11:15 – 11:30</td><td><strong>Juan P. Steibel*, Rodolfo J.C. Cantet and Janice M. Siegford</strong><br/>Modelling intensity of interaction to estimate direct and indirect genetic effects</td></tr><tr><td>11:30 – 11:45</td><td><strong>Leonie Jacobs*, Evelyne Delezie, Klara Goethals, Bart Ampe, Luc Duchateau and Frank Tuyttens</strong><br/>Development and application of a pre-slaughter welfare monitoring protocol for broilers</td></tr><tr><td>11:45 – 12:00</td><td><strong>Nienke Van Staaveren*, Bernadette Doyle, Edgar G. Manzanilla, Julia A. Calderón Díaz, Alison Hanlon and Laura A. Boyle</strong><br/>Validation of lesions on the carcass as indicators of pig welfare on farm</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>12:00 – 14:00</td><td>Lunch &amp; Posters</td></tr></table>
**Parallel session 1: Welfare assessment**
**Chair: Marie J. Haskell**

14:00 – 14:30

**Short keynote**
Peter Sandøe*,
Thomas Bøker Lund,
Björn Forkman and
Matt Denwood

Should the
contribution of
one more lame
cow depend on
how many other
cows on the farm
are lame?

14:30 – 14:45

Daniela Haager*,
Christine Leeb and
Christoph Winckler

Validation of hock
lesions as welfare
indicator in dairy
cows

14:45 – 15:00

Sabine Hartmann*,
Verena Wesian,
Christoph Winckler,
Christine Berger,
Marlene Berger,
Edina Scherzer and
Christine Leeb

Implementation
of animal-based
measures within
an animal-welfare
labelling scheme
for steers

15:00 – 15:15

Marianne Villettaz
Robichaud, Jeffrey
Rushen, Anne Marie
De Passillé, Elsa
Vasseur*, Derek
Haley, Karin Orsel
and Doris Pellerin

Association
between animal
welfare standards
and farm
profitability on
Canadian freestall
dairies

15:15 – 15:30

Asja Ebinghaus*,
Silvia Ivmeyer,
Vanessa Lauks,
Laura Santos,
Kerstin Brügemann,
Sven König and Ute
Knierim

How to measure
dairy cows´
responsiveness
towards humans
in breeding
and welfare
assessment?

**Parallel session 2: Welfare assessment**
**Chair: Keelin O'Discroll**

**Short keynote**
Fanny Pandolfi*,
Ilias Kyriazakis,
Katja Stoddart, Nina
Wainwright and
Sandra E. Edwards

Welfare
benchmarking
for commercially
farmed pigs in the
UK

Gwendolyn
Rudolph, Sabine
Dippel, Davide
Bochicchio, Sandra
Edwards, Barbara
Früh, Mirjam
Holinger, Diane
Holmes, Gudrun
Ilmann, Denise
Knop, Armelle
Prunier, Tine
Rousing, Christoph
Winckler and
Christine Leeb*

Does animal
health and welfare
of organic pigs
differ between
husbandry
systems?

Tom Van Hertem*,
Tomas Norton,
Daniel Berckmans
and Erik Vranken

The relation
between
impaired gait
and automated
monitoring of
broiler flock
activity levels

Mona Franziska
Giersberg*, Birgit
Spindler and Nicole
Kemper

Assessment of
plumage and
integument
condition in dual-
purpose breeds
and conventional
layers

Stephanie Buijs*,
Christine Nicol,
Francesca Booth,
Gemma Richards
and John Tarlton

Effects of
automated
monitoring
equipment
on laying hen
behaviour
<table><tr><td>15:30 – 15:45</td><td>Frida Lundmark*,<br/>Charlotte Berg and<br/>Helena Röcklinsberg</td><td>Private animal<br/>welfare standards –<br/>opportunities and<br/>risks</td><td>Lauren C. Dawson*,<br/>Cate E. Dewey,<br/>Elizabeth A. Stone,<br/>Michele T. Guerin<br/>and Lee Niel</td><td>Development of<br/>an animal welfare<br/>assessment<br/>scheme for use in<br/>companion animal<br/>veterinary clinics</td></tr><tr><td>15:45 – 16:00</td><td>Olga Szczodry*,<br/>Bart Ampe, Wouter<br/>Kraan, Emilie-Julie<br/>Bos, Annelies Van<br/>Nuffel and Frank<br/>Tuyttens</td><td>Using data<br/>from electronic<br/>sow feeders for<br/>investigating the<br/>effect of lameness<br/>on feeding<br/>behaviour</td><td>Maud Bonato*,<br/>Tonny Muhvali, Anel<br/>Engelbrecht, Irek<br/>Malecki and Schalk<br/>Cloete</td><td>Positive human-<br/>bird interactions<br/>improve welfare<br/>and production<br/>performance in the<br/>ostrich</td></tr><tr><td>16:00 – 16:15</td><td>Hanne Kongsted*<br/>and Jan Tind<br/>Sørensen</td><td>Abattoir<br/>data provide<br/>information on<br/>pig welfare at herd<br/>level in different<br/>production<br/>systems</td><td>Yu Zhang*,<br/>Laureline<br/>Guinnefollau and<br/>Clive Phillips</td><td>Effect of gaseous<br/>ammonia on<br/>eating and<br/>ruminating<br/>behaviour in<br/>sheep in simulated<br/>transport by sea</td></tr><tr><td>16:15 –<br/>16:30</td><td>Herman Vermeer*<br/>and Johan Van Riel</td><td>Enforcement of<br/>‘open standards’<br/>for animal welfare<br/>– climate in pig<br/>houses</td><td>Irena Czycholl*,<br/>Kathrin Büttner,<br/>Philipp Klingbeil,<br/>Michela Minero,<br/>Emanuela Dalla<br/>Costa, Francesca<br/>Dai and Joachim<br/>Krieter</td><td>Evaluation of the<br/>AWIN welfare<br/>assessment<br/>protocol for horses<br/>regarding animal-<br/>based indicators</td></tr></table>
Friday 8 September 2017

Session: Avoiding bias in science

Chair: Christoph Winckler

9:00 – 9:45 **Keynote** Jelte Wicherts

The weak spots of contemporary science and how to strengthen it

9:45 – 10:00 Nina Dam Otten*, Tine Rousing and Björn Forkman

Influence of professional affiliation on expert's views on animal welfare criteria

10:00 – 10:15 L. Friedrich*, I. Czycholl, N. Kemper and J. Krieter

Reliability of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment protocol for sows and piglets

10:15 – 10:45 Coffee break (& posters)

Session: Welfare assessment / Free papers

Chair: Stephanie Buijs

10:45 – 11:00 Penny Lawlis* and Tina Widowski

Training outcomes for animal based measures

11:00 – 11:15 Tine Rousing*, Peter T. Thomsen and Jan Tind Sørensen

Qualitative and quantitative animal behaviour measures in on-farm welfare assessments for pig herds

11:15 – 11:30 Laura Boyle*, John Mee and Joanna Marchewka

Risks to welfare associated with changes in infrastructure and management in expanding dairy herds

11:30 – 11:45 Kendy Teng*, Brecht Devleesschauwer, Charline Maertens De Noordhout, Paul McGreevy, Peter Bennett, Jenny-Ann Toribio and Navneet Dhand

Welfare-adjusted life years: combine welfare compromise and premature death to a whole

11:45 – 12:00 Catalina Medrano-Galarza*, Stephen Leblanc, Andria Jones-Bitton, Trevor Devries, Anne Marie De Passillé, Jeffrey Rushen, Marcia Endres and Derek Haley

Interdependence of management and automated milk feeders to ensure dairy calf health

12:00 – 12:30 Closing session

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch (in a bag)
# Scientific abstracts

## Session 1. Sustainability and animal welfare

<table><tr><td>Future food systems: implications for animal welfare<br/>Imke De Boer</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>On-farm ewe welfare and its relationship with farmer management styles<br/>Carolina A. Munoz, Angus J.D. Campbell, Paul H. Hemsworth and Rebecca E. Doyle</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Relationship between animal welfare, production and environmental performance of dairy farms<br/>Luiza Toma, Marie J. Haskell, Andrew P. Barnes and Alistair W. Stott</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>The evaluation of animal welfare in sustainability assessment tools<br/>Evelien De Olde, Eddie Bokkers and Imke De Boer</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Animal health and welfare state and technical efficiency of dairy farms: possible synergies<br/>Lukas Tremetsberger, Jochen Kantelhardt and Christoph Winckler</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>Ethical and agronomical considerations towards a sustainable pig housing system<br/>Sajeev Erangu Purath Mohankumar, Kian Mintz-Woo, Barbara Amon and Wilfried Winiwarter</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>A vision for sustainable farm animal production<br/>Melina Caroline Tensen</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>Is compliance with animal welfare standards associated with improved profitability on dairy farms?<br/>Marianne Villettaz Robichaud, Jeffrey Rushen, Anne Marie De Passille, Elsa Vasseur, Derek Haley and Doris Pellerin</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>The effects of sensors and robots on human animal relationship on farm<br/>Florence Kling-Eveillard, Nathalie Hostiou, Emeline Ganis and Valérie Courboulay</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Development of a monitoring tool for measuring and validating the sustainability of dairy farms<br/>Tomke Lindena, Lavinia Flint, Heike Kuhnert, Birthe Lassen and Hiltrud Nieberg</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>A sustainable option for tie-stalls: providing year-long exercise helps improve dairy cow welfare<br/>Santiago Palacio, Steve Adam, Renée Bergeron, Doris Pellerin, Anne Marie De Passillé, Jeff Rushen, Derek Haley, Trevor Devries and Elsa Vasseur</td><td>47</td></tr></table>
Clipping the toenails of day-old ostrich chicks: beneficial or detrimental? 48

Anel Engelbrecht, Schalk Willem Petrus Cloete, Adriaan Olivier, Kenneth Joubert and Maud Bonato

Hidden animals: animal welfare indicators within assessments of sustainability 49

Christy Goldhawk, Roger Cady, David Heckman, Shabbir Simjee and Matthew Salois

Monitoring body temperature and activity in sows using a sensor-based telemetric system 50

Elaine Van Erp-Van Der Kooij, Judith B. Roelofs, Jay S. Johnson, Dag Hovden and Lucas P.J.J. Noldus

The impact of health problems in dairy cows on greenhouse gas emissions: a case study with mastitis 51

Pim F. Mostert, Eddie A.M. Bokkers, Corina E. Van Middelaar and Imke J.M. De Boer

Occurrence of lameness during a 6-month period in four Danish dairy herds 52

Karina B. Gleerup, Hans Houe, Björn Forkman, Mette S. Herskin and Peter T. Thomsen

Effects of some factors on calves' viability and growth 53

Radu Ionel Neamt, Dinu Gavojdian, Florin Cristian Neciu, Ludovic Toma Cziszter and Daniela Elena Ilie

Economic and environmental impact of dry period length in dairy cows 54

Akke Kok, Corina Van Middelaar, Pim Mostert, Ariëtte Van Knegsel, Bas Kemp, Imke De Boer and Henk Hogeveen

Relation between the prevalence of claw lesions in Flemish dairies and the perception of the farmers 55

Béke Nivelle, Sanne Van Beirendonck, Jos Van Thielen and Bert Driessen

Comparison of AW indicators & body weight of beef cattle in a silvopastoral system and natural grass 56

Stella Huertas, Pablo Bobadilla, Frank Van Eerdenburg, Déborah César and Hernán Bueno

Manipulation and slaughter of American bison (Bison bison) in European farms 57

Hilde Vervaecke

Inclusion of poplar trees in pasture-based pig systems to reduce the heat load of lactating sows dur 58

Malene Jakobsen, Sarah-Lina Aagaard Schild, Anne Grete Kongsted and Heidi Mai-Lis Andersen

Smothering in UK free-range laying hens: research from the McDonald's sustainable egg supply group 59

Ann Catherine Rayner, David Brass, Tom Willings, Peter Garbutt and Ashleigh Bright
Comparison of loose housing and individual housing of sows in early gestation within 4 sow herds

Theo Geudeke

60

First results: are there links between Welfare Quality® and sustainability indicators of dairying?

Sylvia Warnecke, Harald Schmid, Karen Schröder, Richard Beisecker, Jan Brinkmann, Helmut Frank, Peter Hinterstoißer, Regine Koopmann, Solveig March, Hans Marten Paulsen, Jörn Sanders, Maximilian Schüler and Kathrin Wagner

61

Preliminary results on the practice of tail docking in Merino Fine Wool sheep in South Africa

Anna J. Scholtz, Elizabeth Du Toit and Schalk W.P. Cloete

62

On-farm assessment of welfare in dairy farming and its impacts on measures of sustainability

Stephan Ebschke and Eberhard Von Borell

63

Development of furnished cages reusing conventional cages for laying hens

Tsuyoshi Shimmura, Naoko Maekawa, Satoshi Hirahara and Toshio Tanaka

64

Dominance effects on grazing patterns in horses in nature reserves

Hilde Vervaecke, Johan Miechielssens, Jan Van Uytvanck and Maurice Hoffmann

65

Assessing sustainability of welfare improvement in working equids in Petra, Jordan

Ashleigh Brown

66

Association of transition health with early culling in dairy cows under pasture-based systems

Pilar Sepúlveda-Varas and Constanza Hernández-Gotelli

67

Implicit presence of animal welfare features in agricultural economic policy assessment models

Bouda Vosough Ahmadi

68

Restraint of sows during lactation is a risk for preweaning mortality and increased hair cortisol

Liat Morgan, Eyal Klement, Jerry Meyer, Shiri Novak, Weissam Abu-Ahmad, Ofer Doron, Shakked Navon and Tal Raz

69

## Session 2. Animal welfare in society

The art of dialogue

Noelle Aarts

70
<table><tr><td>Dairy industry stakeholder perceptions of British Columbia's emergency slaughter program<br/>Katherine E. Koralesky and David Fraser</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>Does the background matter? People's perception of pictures of pigs in different farm settings<br/>Sarah Gauly, Marie Von Meyer-Höfer, Achim Spiller and Gesa Busch</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>Addressing the social dilemma in animal-friendly product choice with positioning strategies<br/>Lenka Van Riemsdijk, Paul T.M. Ingenbleek, Gerrita Van Der Veen and Hans C.M. Van Trijp</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>Sheep farmers' behavioural attitudes are associated with intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction<br/>Karianne Muri, Per Arne Tufte and Randi Oppermann Moe</td><td>74</td></tr><tr><td>Multi-level animal welfare labels reflect consumer preferences: insights from a systematic review<br/>Manika Rödiger, Meike Janssen and Ulrich Hamm</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>Antibiotic use: balancing consumer concerns and animal welfare<br/>Fiona Gwendolen Roberts, John Kirkpatrick and Gerald Crown</td><td>76</td></tr><tr><td>Supply chain's lack of response to emerging needs for clenbuterol-free meat: a case study in Mexico<br/>Miriam Elizabeth Perez-Luna</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td>Role of agricultural colleges in framing future farmers' perception of animal welfare<br/>Inger Anneberg, Peter Sandøe and Jesper Lassen</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>Citizens perceive broiler welfare differently from poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians<br/>Mariska Van Asselt, E. Dinand Ekkel, Bas Kemp and Elsbeth N. Stassen</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>Ambition and reality of the EU animal welfare legislation on long distance animal transport<br/>Julia Havenstein</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>A framework for review of private animal health and welfare standards in QA programmes<br/>Laura Boyle, Joanna Marchewka, Alison Hanlon and Simon More</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>Animal welfare in traditional mountain dairy cattle farms: how do consumers perceive complexity?<br/>Anna Zuliani, Lars Esbjerg, Klaus G. Grunert and Stefano Bovolenta</td><td>82</td></tr></table>
Farmer apprentices' learning on animal welfare during farm practice is influenced by host farmers

Mette Vaarst and Inger Anneberg

83

Do villagers trigger farmers' perceptions of animal welfare standards?

Nina Purwins, Tim Viergutz and Birgit Schulze-Ehlers

84

Brazilian citizens: expectations for dairy cattle welfare and awareness of contentious practices

Clarissa Silva Cardoso, Angelica Roslindo, Marina A.g. Von Keyserlingk and Maria José Hötzel

85

## Session 3. Social networks in animal welfare

Social network analysis: opportunities and challenges for applications in wild and domestic animal populations

Jens Krause

86

Understanding tail biting in pigs through social network analysis

Yuzhi Li, Haifeng Zhang, Lee Johnston and Wayne Martin

87

Relationship between personality and social behaviour in dairy cattle

Borbala Foris, Manuela Zebunke, Jan Langbein and Nina Melzer

88

Can aggressive network structures at mixing be used to predict lesion outcomes in pigs?

Simone Foister, Andrea Doeschl-Wilson, Rainer Roehe, Laura Boyle and Simon Turner

89

Effect of environmental enrichment on the social contact patterns of group housed sows

Jen-Yun Chou, Emma M. Baxter and Lesley A. Smith

90

Access to an outdoor run in dairy goats: effects on activity and social behaviour

Nina M Keil, Joanna Stachowicz, Lorenz Gygax, Beat Wechsler and Edna Hillmann

91

Social networks in dairy cattle: potential implications for the transmission of Leptospira spp.

Inès De Freslon, Beatriz Martinez-Lopez and Gustavo Monti

92

Real-time location system to uncover the contact structure of group-housed sows

Maike Will, Kathrin Büttner, Tobias Kaufholz, Christine Müller-Graf, Thomas Selhorst and Joachim Krieter

93

Social network analysis of high- and low-productive dairy cows

Paul Koene, Pieter Hogewerf and Bert Ipema

94
## Session 4. Avoiding bias in science

<table><tr><td>The weak spots of contemporary science and how to strengthen it<br><i>Jelte Wicherts</i></td><td>95</td></tr><tr><td>Influence of professional affiliation on expert's views on animal welfare criteria<br><i>Nina Dam Otten, Tine Rousing and Björn Forkman</i></td><td>96</td></tr><tr><td>Reliability of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment protocol for sows and piglets<br><i>L. Friedrich, I. Czycholl, N. Kemper and J. Krieter</i></td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td>Training outcomes for animal based measures<br><i>Penny Lawlis and Tina Widowski</i></td><td>98</td></tr><tr><td>Qualitative and quantitative animal behaviour measures in on-farm welfare assessments for pig herds<br><i>Tine Rousing, Peter T Thomsen and Jan Tind Sørensen</i></td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td>Recording behaviour directly vs from video during on-farm behaviour tests<br><i>Christina Veit, Marie Albers and Sabine Dippel</i></td><td>100</td></tr></table>

## Session 5. Welfare assessment

<table><tr><td>Development and application of a pre-slaughter welfare monitoring protocol for broilers<br><i>Leonie Jacobs, Evelyne Delezie, Klara Goethals, Bart Ampe, Luc Duchateau and Frank Tuyttens</i></td><td>101</td></tr><tr><td>Validation of lesions on the carcass as indicators of pig welfare on farm<br><i>Nienke Van Staaveren, Bernadette Doyle, Edgar G. Manzanilla, Julia A. Calderón Díaz, Alison Hanlon and Laura A. Boyle</i></td><td>102</td></tr><tr><td>Should the contribution of one more lame cow depend on how many other cows on the farm are lame?<br><i>Peter Sandøe, Thomas Bøker Lund, Björn Forkman and Matt Denwood</i></td><td>103</td></tr><tr><td>Validation of hock lesions as welfare indicator in dairy cows<br><i>Daniela Haager, Christine Leeb and Christoph Winckler</i></td><td>104</td></tr><tr><td>Implementation of animal-based measures within an animal-welfare labelling scheme for steers<br><i>Sabine Hartmann, Verena Wesian, Christoph Winckler, Christine Berger, Marlene Berger, Edina Scherzer and Christine Leeb</i></td><td>105</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Association between animal welfare standards and farm profitability on Canadian freestall dairies<br>Marianne Villettaz Robichaud, Jeffrey Rushen, Anne Marie De Passillé, Elsa Vasseur, Derek Haley, Karin Orsel and Doris Pellerin</td><td>106</td></tr><tr><td>How to measure dairy cows' responsiveness towards humans in breeding and welfare assessment?<br>Asja Ebinghaus, Silvia Ivemeyer, Vanessa Lauks, Laura Santos, Kerstin Brügemann, Sven König and Ute Knierim</td><td>107</td></tr><tr><td>Private animal welfare standards – opportunities and risks<br>Frida Lundmark, Charlotte Berg and Helena Röcklinsberg</td><td>108</td></tr><tr><td>Using data from electronic sow feeders for investigating the effect of lameness on feeding behaviour<br>Olga Szczodry, Bart Ampe, Wouter Kraan, Emilie-Julie Bos, Annelies Van Nuffel and Frank Tuyttens</td><td>109</td></tr><tr><td>Abattoir data provide information on pig welfare at herd level in different production systems<br>Hanne Kongsted and Jan Tind Sørensen</td><td>110</td></tr><tr><td>Enforcement of 'open standards' for animal welfare – climate in pig houses<br>Herman Vermeer and Johan Van Riel</td><td>111</td></tr><tr><td>Welfare benchmarking for commercially farmed pigs in the UK<br>Fanny Pandolfi, Ilias Kyriazakis, Katja Stoddart, Nina Wainwright and Sandra E. Edwards</td><td>112</td></tr><tr><td>Does animal health and welfare of organic pigs differ between husbandry systems?<br>Gwendolyn Rudolph, Sabine Dippel, Davide Bochicchio, Sandra Edwards, Barbara Früh, Mirjam Holinger, Diane Holmes, Gudrun Illmann, Denise Knop, Armelle Prunier, Tine Rousing, Christoph Winckler and Christine Leeb</td><td>113</td></tr><tr><td>The relation between impaired gait and automated monitoring of broiler flock activity levels<br>Tom Van Hertem, Tomas Norton, Daniel Berckmans and Erik Vranken</td><td>114</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment of plumage and integument condition in dual-purpose breeds and conventional layers<br>Mona Franziska Giersberg, Birgit Spindler and Nicole Kemper</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>Effects of automated monitoring equipment on laying hen behaviour<br>Stephanie Buijs, Christine Nicol, Francesca Booth, Gemma Richards and John Tarlton</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>Development of an animal welfare assessment scheme for use in companion animal veterinary clinics<br>Lauren C. Dawson, Cate E. Dewey, Elizabeth A. Stone, Michele T. Guerin and Lee Niel</td><td>117</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Positive human-bird interactions improve welfare and production performance in the ostrich<br>Maud Bonato, Tonny Muhvali, Anel Engelbrecht, Irek Malecki and Schalk Cloete</td><td>118</td></tr><tr><td>Effect of gaseous ammonia on eating and ruminating behaviour in sheep in simulated transport by sea<br>Yu Zhang, Laureline Guinnefollau and Clive Phillips</td><td>119</td></tr><tr><td>Evaluation of the AWIN welfare assessment protocol for horses regarding animal-based indicators<br>Irena Czycholl, Kathrin Büttner, Philipp Klingbeil, Michela Minero, Emanuela Dalla Costa, Francesca Dai and Joachim Krieter</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of following recommendations for tie stall configuration on outcome-based measures of welfare<br>Véronique Bouffard, Anne Marie De Passille, Jeffrey Rushen, Elsa Vasseur, Clem Nash, Haley Derek and Doris Pellerin</td><td>121</td></tr><tr><td>Refinement of broiler chicken welfare outcomes using Delphi methodology<br>Ana Paula Oliveira Souza and Carla Forte Maiolino Molento</td><td>122</td></tr><tr><td>Broiler chicken meat inspection data in Southern Brazil: an animal welfare approach<br>Ana Paula Oliveira Souza, Cesar Augusto Taconelli, Nicolle Fridlund Plugge and Carla Forte Maiolino Molento</td><td>123</td></tr><tr><td>Behavioural traits of undocked heavy pigs receiving different enrichment tools<br>Eleonora Nannoni, Luca Sardi, Marika Vitali and Giovanna Martelli</td><td>124</td></tr><tr><td>A model to induce cannibalism outbreak on pigs based on frustration of exploratory behaviour<br>Marie-Christine Meunier-Salaün, Diana Quent, Aurélie Thivat and Valérie Courboulay</td><td>125</td></tr><tr><td>Developing a Japanese animal welfare certification system for dairy cows<br>Tetsuya Seo and Mika Kitamura</td><td>126</td></tr><tr><td>Salivary CgA as a new biomarker of stress in pigs<br>D. Escribano, Md. Contreras, N. Casal, E. Fàbrega, J.J.Cerón, X. Manteca and F. Tecles</td><td>127</td></tr><tr><td>Welfare risk assessment plans – identification and characterization of potential risks and benefits<br>Saskia S. Arndt and Vivian C. Goerlich-Jansson</td><td>128</td></tr><tr><td>A co-elaborative tool to assess growing pigs welfare<br>Valérie Courboulay, Marie-Christine Meunier-Salaün, Françoise Pol and Marie Stankowiak</td><td>129</td></tr><tr><td>Barren environments increase ‘wakeful’ inactivity in veal calves<br>Laura Webb, Bas Engel, Kees Van Reenen and Eddie Bokkers</td><td>130</td></tr></table>
Welfare and quality check – customized system for monitoring animal welfare 131

Lene Meinert, Leif Lykke, Helle Daugaard Larsen, Lars Ole Blaabjerg, Margit Dall Aaslyng, Lars Kristensen and Susanne Støier

Nesting behaviour of broiler breeders 132

Anne Van Den Oever, Bas Rodenburg, Liesbeth Bolhuis, Lotte Van De Ven and Bas Kemp

assessing animal welfare in costa rican dairy herds based on the Welfare Quality® protocols 133

Alice Mercedes Di Giacinto, Frank Eerdenburg, Sandra Estrada-König, Mariano Rojas-González, Jaime Murillo-Herrera and Juan José Romero-Zúñiga

Is the reticular temperature a useful indicator of heat stress in dairy cattle? 134

Stefanie Ammer, Christian Lambertz and Matthias Gauly

Training observers in the use of an equine welfare assessment tool: benefits of hands-on experience 135

Cordelie Dubois, Derek Haley, Trevor Devries, Penny Lawlis and Katrina Merkies

Selection of meat inspection data for animal welfare index 136

Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Matthew James Denwood and Hans Houe

Assessment of injuries of laying hens at slaughter and its informative value concerning cannibalism 137

Helen Louton, Angela Schwarzer, Laura Herr, Elke Rauch, Shana Bergmann, Sven Reese and Michael Erhard

Comparing welfare assessment results from Welfare Quality and a Finnish healthcare scheme for cattle 138

Mikaela Mughal, Lilli Frondelius, Matti Pastell, Heli Lindeberg, Erja Tuunainen and Jaakko Mononen

Risk factors associated with skin and vulva lesions in Danish loose-housed gestating sows and gilts 139

Vibe Pedersen Lund, Anne Marie Michelsen, Franziska Hakansson, Marlene K. Kirchner, Nina D. Otten, Matthew J. Denwood and Björn Forkman

BOVIWELL: an easy-to-use tool to evaluate on-farm welfare of cattle 140

Nicolas Nocture and Mathieu Pissot

Use of routinely collected herd data to classify dairy herds for claw health associated welfare 141

Henriëtte Brouwer, Thomas Dijkstra, Heleen Worm, Yvonne Van Der Vorst and Gerdien Van Schaik

Use of indicators of dairy cow welfare in the EU 142

Terence Cassidy and Patrick Caruana
Pre-weaning environment affects adult pigs' emotional state 143

Oceane Schmitt, Keelin O'Driscoll, Laura Boyle and Emma M. Baxter

Impact of grazing on dairy cow welfare - first results of the Welfare Quality® protocol 144

Kathrin Wagner, Jan Brinkmann, Solveig March, Peter Hinterstoißer, Sylvia Warnecke, Maximilian Schüler and Hans Marten Paulsen

An app assessing animal welfare through animal-based measures 145

Léa Michel, Cécile Guillon-Kroon, Tristan Doublet, Laure Bignon, Valérie Courboulay, Nathalie Bareille, Raphaël Guatteo, Marie-Christine Salaün and Amélie Legrand

Evaluation of an automated monitoring system to assess laying hens' use of the outdoor range 146

Stephanie Buijs, Christine Nicol, Francesca Booth, Gemma Richards and John Tarlton

Date of assessment affects the WelFur-assessment of mink in the winter- and growth period 147

Anna Feldberg Marsbøll, Britt Ingeborg Foseide Henriksen, Bente Krogh Hansen and Steen Henrik Møller

US pork producer perceptions of issues affecting the management, performance, and well-being of pigs 148

Sarah H. Ison, Ronald O. Bates, Juan P. Steibel, Catherine W. Ernst and Janice M. Siegford

NSAIDs do not mitigate piglet castration pain based on behavioural and activity monitoring 149

Abbie V. Viscardi, Brianne Mercer, Julia Whatley, Hailey Hoffman and Patricia V. Turner

Benchmarking in a Swedish welfare assessment system for dairy cattle 150

Louise Winblad Von Walter, Karin Alvåsen and Marie Mörk

Does giving access to grass silage improve health of growing-fattening pigs in organic farms? 151

Mirjam Holinger, Barbara Früh, Peter Stoll, Michael Kreuzer and Edna Hillmann

Validation of a scoring system for footpad dermatitis in broiler chickens 152

Sophia Heitmann, Jenny Stracke, Henning Petersen, Birgit Spindler and Nicole Kemper

Welfare assessment in beef cattle: a multidisciplinary approach 153

Martina Tarantola, Ilaria Biasato, Elena Biasibetti, Davide Biagini, Pierluigi Capra, Franco Guarda, Marta Leporati, Barbara Miniscalco, Silvia Mioletti, Andrea Salaroglio, Marco Vincenti and Maria Teresa Capucchio

Brief sensorial restriction lamb-ewe and behaviour in young 154

Patricia Mora-Medina, Agustín Orihuela Trujillo, Daniel Mota-Rojas, Emilio Arch-Tirado, Patricia Roldan-Santiago, Carlos Vázquez-Cruz, Angélica M. Terrazas-García and Marcelino Rosas-García
Simulating pigs to understand their feeding behaviour and to improve their welfare 155

Iris J.M.M. Boumans, Imke J.M. De Boer, Gert Jan Hofstede and Eddie A.M. Bokkers

Effects of holding time before milking on behaviour of dairy cows and milk hygiene quality 156

Fredy García, Diana Flórez, Aldemar Zúñiga and Jaime Cubides

A shared and practical method for welfare assessment in poultry and rabbit: EBENE 157

Laure Bignon, Amandine Mika, Claire Mindus, Joanna Litt, Christophe Souchet, Virginie Bonnaud, Chloé Picchiottino, Laura Warin, Gaelle Dennery, Coline Brame, Vanessa Guesdon and Isabelle Bouvarel

Development and pilot study of a welfare assessment protocol for dairy calves 158

John Barry, Emer Kennedy, Riona Sayers, Imke De Boer and Eddie Bokkers

Health and welfare status of pregnant dairy goats according to the farming system in France 159

Jenna Coton, Elodie Dubois, Christophe Aubert, Christophe Mallet, Eric Delval, Alain Boissy, Jaquemine Vialard and Virginie Michel

A method to develop an effective animal welfare protocol: laboratory mice 160

Ivone Campos-Luna, Amy Miller, Andrew Beard, Francoise Wemelsfelder and Matthew Leach

On-farm self-monitoring of animal welfare in poultry flocks 161

Sarina Fetscher, Robby Andersson, Christiane Keppler, Sabine Petermann, Elke Rauch, Birgit Spindler, Rita Zapf and Ute Knierim

Dairy cattle welfare assessment in Israel 162

Gilad Faktor

Validation of the EBENE method's measures for laying hens housed in cages 163

Claire Mindus, Laure Bignon, Amandine Mika, Virginie Bonnaud, Cécile Levrault, Vanessa Guesdon and Isabelle Bouvarel

Validation of the EBENE method's measures for standard broiler 164

Amandine Mika, Laure Bignon, Virginie Bonnaud, Claire Mindus, Chloé Picchiottino, Christophe Souchet, Laura Warin, Vanessa Guesdon and Isabelle Bouvarel

Housing lame dairy cows in hospital pens – do they benefit from the stay? 165

Katrine K. Fogsgaard, Peter T. Thomsen, Margit B. Jensen, Peter Raundal and Mette S. Herskin

Examining the reliability of a horse hoof condition score 166

Sarah Catherine Kuyken and Lauren Margaret Hemsworth
<table><tbody><tr><td>Heart rate measures in goats affected by small ruminant lentivirus (SRLV): a pilot study<br>Alekandra Górecka-Bruzda, Katarzyna Barłowska, Michał Czopowicz, Danuta Słoniewska and Emilia Bagnicka</td><td>167</td></tr><tr><td>Evaluating 'Animal Welfare Payments' of the EUs Common Agricultural Policy<br>Angela Bergschmidt, Jan Brinkmann, Christine Renziehausen and Solveig March</td><td>168</td></tr><tr><td>Mountain summer pasturing improves behavioural measures of welfare of dairy cows<br>Maruša Kraševec, Anna Zuliani, Marta Brščić, Matthias Mair, Christine Leeb, Christoph Winckler and Manja Zupan</td><td>169</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment of aggressive behaviour when mixing rabbit does after parturition – preliminary results<br>Laura Simarro, Amparo Martínez-Talaván, Mariam Pascual and Arantxa Villagrá</td><td>170</td></tr><tr><td>Productive parameters in rabbit does housed individually and in semi-group systems: first results<br>Laura Simarro, Amparo Martínez-Talaván, Mar Martínez and Arantxa Villagrá</td><td>171</td></tr><tr><td>Seasonal effects on animal welfare assessment in dairy cattle<br>Daniel Gieseke, Lisa Dierkes, Susanna Montag, Christian Lambertz and Matthias Gauly</td><td>172</td></tr><tr><td>Ad libitum feeding of lactating mink or access to additional water for kits did not improve welfare<br>Britt I.F. Henriksen and Steen H. Møller</td><td>173</td></tr><tr><td>On-line benchmarking of welfare assessments on dairy farms to help producers to improve welfare<br>Megan Jewell, Marguerite Cameron, Javier Sanchez, Michael Cockram, Greg Keefe, Shawn McKenna and Jonathan Spears</td><td>174</td></tr><tr><td>Do my pigs have welfare problems: a proposal for an on-farm self- monitoring<br>Lars Schrader, Irena Czycholl, Joachim Krieter, Christine Leeb, Martin Ziron and Rita Zapf</td><td>175</td></tr><tr><td>Development of a customer-specific broiler welfare assessment programme<br>Ingrid De Jong, Gerben Hofstra and Jan Jaap Hamming</td><td>176</td></tr><tr><td>Indicators for on-farm self-monitoring of animal welfare – a proposal for implementation in cattle<br>Jan Brinkmann, Silvia Ivmeyer, Andreas Pelzer, Christoph Winckler and Rita Zapf</td><td>177</td></tr><tr><td>Indicators for a result-oriented approach for animal welfare policies and organic farming<br>Solveig March, Jan Brinkmann, Christine Renziehausen and Angela Bergschmidt</td><td>178</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Assessing the behavioural response of dogs to humans in a household environment<br>Megan Hayes and Lauren Hemsworth</td><td>179</td></tr><tr><td>Determining cattle learning and behavioural response to a virtual fence<br>Sabrina Lomax and Cameron Clark</td><td>180</td></tr><tr><td>Qualitative behavioural assessment of Bos indicus bulls following castration<br>Teresa Collins, Catherine Stockman, Anne Barnes, Timothy Hyndman, Michael Laurence, Gabrielle Musk, Heidi Lehmann, Craig Johnson, Karina Gleerup and Patricia Fleming</td><td>181</td></tr><tr><td>Margin of error of the WelFur fox good health score in the current semi-random sampling method<br>Tarja Koistinen, Juhani Sepponen, Hannu T Korhonen, Eeva Ojala and Jaakko Mononen</td><td>182</td></tr><tr><td>Seeking alone time: do cows seek isolation at and after calving?<br>Gosia Zobel, Frances Huddart, Jim Webster and Kathryn Proudfoot</td><td>183</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment of animal welfare during the collection process of depopulation for end of lay hens<br>Christopher Gerpe, Ariane Stratmann and Michael Jeffrey Toscano</td><td>184</td></tr><tr><td>Correlation between criterion scores of WelFur fox assessment and Qualitative Behaviour Assessment<br>Jaakko Mononen, Eeva Ojala and Tarja Koistinen</td><td>185</td></tr><tr><td>Effect of colostrum and group housing management on diarrhoea in milk fed organic dairy calves<br>Mari Reiten, Tine Rousing and Jan Tind Sørensen</td><td>186</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment of the welfare of carriage horses in Yogyakarta Province, Indonesia<br>Tri Satya Mastuti Widi, Muhammad Danang Eko Yulianto, Eshan Kusumawicitra and Amien Fahrianto Adi</td><td>187</td></tr><tr><td>Evaluation of EEG to procedural pain of tail docking with and without analgesic intervention<br>Charissa Harris, Peter White and Sabrina Lomax</td><td>188</td></tr><tr><td>Evaluation of the AWIN assessment protocol for horses in experimental conditions and in farms<br>Christine Briant, Pauline Dany, Jean-Marie Yvon, Fabrice Reigner, Philippe Barrière, Mickaël Riou, Anne-Lyse Layné, Léa Lansade, Michela Minero, Emanuela Dalla Costa and Marianne Vidament</td><td>189</td></tr><tr><td>Behavioural measures for commercial broiler production<br>Ann Catherine Rayner, Ashleigh Bright, Siobhan Mullan and David Main</td><td>190</td></tr></table>
The development of a welfare assessment tool for the Australian Fur Seals at Melbourne Zoo
Ellen Jongman and Rebecca Kite
191

Reflections on AssureWel: utilising welfare outcome assessment to improve farm animal welfare
Sophie Elwes, Kate Still, Siobhan Mullan, Sophie Collins, David Main and Jess Stokes
192

Animal welfare in Danish pig herds
Björn Forkman, Nina D. Otten, Mari Reiten, Anne Marie Michelsen, Franziska Hakansson, Vibe P. Lund, Marlene K. Kirchner, Matthew J. Denwood, Tine Rousing, Hans Houe and Jan T. Sørensen
193

A Kinect based 3D cow scanner for the evaluation of body characteristics
Jennifer Salau, Jan Henning Haas, Kathrin Buttner, Wolfgang Junge and Georg Thaller
194

Evaluation of an online training tool for animal-based measures of cattle welfare
Josef Schenkenfelder, Christoph Winckler and Christine Leeb
195

EBENE: a new welfare assessment method co-built with stakeholders tested in free-range laying hen
Cecile Levrault, Laure Bignon, Claire Mindus, Antoine Collin, Hélène Leruste, Karin Sahmer, Isabelle Bouvarel and Vanessa Guesdon
196

Practical and affordable implementation of Equine Welfare Quality type protocol in riding-schools
Machteld Van Dierendonck
197

The use of pain faces for real-time assessment of pain in Bos indicus bull calves after castration
Karina B. Gleerup, Teresa Collins, Gabrielle C. Musk, Timothy H. Hyndman, Heidi S. Lehmann, Craig B. Johnson and Michael Laurence
198

Welfare assessment on 40 dairy goat farms in Germany
Katrin Sporkmann, Solveig March, Jan Brinkmann and Heiko Georg
199

CowsAndMore a new decision support system to enhance the animal welfare status of their cows
Andreas Pelzer, Katharina Dahlhoff, Anna Lena Ahring, Wolfgang Büscher and Otto Kaufmann
200

Feeding acidified milk to Holstein calves: assessment of calf behaviour and welfare
Amber Adams Progar, Aaron Deml, Ryan Pernu, Heather Young and Jennifer Callanan
201

Comparison of behaviours and vocal signals of alpacas during handling and painful stimuli
Beatriz Zapata, Oscar Acevedo, Javier Perez De Arce and Paulina Soto
202
Results of qualitative behaviour assessment reflect social tension in dairy goats
Susanne Waiblinger, Dorit Mersmann and Francoise Wemelsfelder
203

The influence of male pigs on animal welfare on the day of slaughter
Helle Daugaard Larsen, Lars Ole Blaabjerg and Dennis Brandborg Nielsen
204

Assessment of the multi-criteria evaluation system of the Welfare Quality® protocol for growing pigs
Irena Czycholl, Kathrin Buttner, Christiane Kniese, Lars Schrader and Joachim Krieter
205

Identification of areas with poor welfare in Danish dairy herds
Nina Dam Otten, Victor Henrique Silva De Oliveira, Mari Reiten, Anne Marie Michelaen, Franziska Hakansson, Vibe Pedersen Lund, Marlene Katharina Kirchner, Matthew James Denwood, Tine Rousing, Björn Forkman, Hans Houe and Jan Tind Sørensen
206

Alternatives to castration and their long-term effects on salivary cortisol concentrations in piglet
Jinhyeon Yun, Anna Ollila, Claudio Oliviero, Mari Heinonen, Anna Valros and Olli Peltoniemi
207

a method for cleaning electroencephalography data in conscious sheep
Charissa Harris, Peter White and Sabrina Lomax
208

Evaluation of the welfare of dual purpose cattle in Michoacán, Mexico
Luis Rojas, Jaime Mondragon, Anastacio García and Marcia Del Campo
209

Effects of a virtual fence on individual and social behaviour and welfare of dairy cows
Paul Koene, Pieter Hogewerf and Bert Ipema
210

Calf management extension programme to improve calf welfare on British dairy farms
Jenny Gibbons and Andrew Dodd
211

EuroDairy: sharing experiences and best practice of dairy cattle welfare assessment across Europe
Jenny Gibbons, Marija Klopčič, Luc Mirabito and Willem Koops
212

## Session 6. Genetics and animal welfare

Identification of genes which are associated with production diseases in pigs and chickens
Timothy Giles, Scott Hulme, Paul Barrow, Nathalie Le Floc'h, Anne-Marie Chaussé, Panagiotis Sakkas, Tommy Van Limbergen, Suso Mendez, Joaquín Morales and Neil Foster
213

Genetic selection to enhance animal welfare using meat inspection data from slaughter plants
P. K. Mathur, R.H. Vogelzang, H.A. Mulder and E. F. Knol
214
Modelling intensity of interaction to estimate direct and indirect genetic effects
Juan P. Steibel, Rodolfo J.C. Cantet and Janice M. Siegford 215

Metabolites as new genetic selection tools to enhance behaviour in pigs
Lisette E. Van Der Zande, Inonge Reimert, Pramod K. Mathur and Egbert F. Knol 216

Genetic correlations between skin lesions and growth traits in group housed pigs
Kaitlin E. Wurtz, Janice M. Siegford, Ronald O. Bates, Catherine W. Ernst and Juan P. Steibel 217

Which genes are best indicators for lesion age determination on the pig carcass –
a preliminary study
Marika Vitali, Sabine Conte, Giovanna Martelli, Martin Lessard and Luigi Faucitano 218

## Session 7. Free papers

Farmers' practices and attitudes towards artificial fed lambs and their mortality in
meat systems
X. Boivin, P. Malarange, A. Jarousse, J.M. Gautier, C. Mallet, F. Bouvier, M.M. Mialon,
F. Kling-Eveillard and L.A. Guilloteau 219

Could pigs have unidentified behavioural needs that warrant inclusion in future
welfare assessments?
Helena Telkanranta and Anna Valros 220

Risks to welfare associated with changes in infrastructure and management in
expanding dairy herds
Laura Boyle, John Mee and Joanna Marchewka 221

Welfare-adjusted life years: combine welfare compromise and premature death to
a whole
Kendy Teng, Brecht Devleesschauwer, Charline Maertens De Noordhout, Paul McGreevy,
Peter Bennett, Jenny-Ann Toribio and Navneet Dhand 222

Interdependence of management and automated milk feeders to ensure dairy calf
health
Catalina Medrano-Galarza, Stephen Leblanc, Andria Jones-Bitton, Trevor Devries,
Anne Marie De Passillé, Jeffrey Rushen, Marcia Endres and Derek Haley 223

Effect of lactation system and floor type on aggressive behaviour of rabbit does
housed in groups
Cristina Zomeño, Marco Birolo, Francesco Gratta, Andrea Zuffellato, Gerolamo Xiccato and
Angela Trocino 224

The motivation-based calving facility
Maria Vilain Rørvang, Mette S. Herskin and Margit Bak Jensen 225
The relationship between response to humans and social aggression in pigs 226

Carly I. O'Malley, Kaitlin E. Wurtz, Juan P. Steibel, Ronald O. Bates, Catherine W. Ernst and Janice M. Siegford

Effect of heat stress on piglet welfare – application of a non-invasive gut permeability marker 227

Nicole Reisinger, Simone Schaumberger, Ilse Dohnal, Barbara Doupovec, Veronika Nagl and Gerd Schatzmayr

Using sensors to monitor behaviour at the dairy farm 228

Frank Van Eerdenburg, Peter Hut, Gerrit Hooijer, Arnold Harbers, Elsbeth Stassen and Jan Hulsen

Intratesticular alfaxalone and lidocaine for induction of anaesthesia during castration in piglets 229

Trina M. Hancock and Nigel A. Caulkett

Immune response of suckled beef calves to dam vaccination against bovine respiratory disease 230

Bernadette Earley, Katie Tiernan, Amanda Dunn, Steven Morrison, Sinead Waters and Mark McGee

Illumina MiSeq 16S amplicon sequence analysis of bovine respiratory disease associated bacteria 231

Dayle Johnston, Paul Cormican, Matthew McCabe and Bernadette Earley

Commercialising an automated GPS-based virtual fencing system for livestock 232

Dana Campbell, Jim Lea, William Farrer, Sally Haynes and Caroline Lee

Management of cull dairy cows: consensus of an expert consultation in Canada 233

Jane Stojkov and David Fraser

Long distance transport of unweaned calves in practice: welfare concerns 234

Cecilia Pedernera, Iris Baumgärtner, Sabrina Gurtner and Lesley Moffat

Restlessness of dairy cows before calving 235

Marisanna Speroni, Gloria Dellavedova, Rosanna Falconi and Andrea Summer

A farmer survey report on calf mortality rates Southern Brazil 236

Vilmar Fruscalso, Gabriela Olmos and Maria J. Hötzel

Nasal wipes: a welfare refinement for sampling influenza virus in pigs 237

Charlotte James, Helen Everett, Vivien Coward, Ute Weyer, Bryan Charleston, Ian H. Brown and Sharon M. Brookes

Animal welfare in free-roaming Konik polski horses 238

Tadeusz Jezierski, Aleksandra Górecka-Bruzda, Joanna Marchewka and Zbigniew Jaworski
<table><tr><td>Effects of space allowance on the stepping responses of sheep to motions simulating sea transport<br>Grisel Navarro and Clive Phillips</td><td>239</td></tr><tr><td>The effect of straw bales on foot pad dermatitis in broilers<br>Ida J. Pedersen, Fernanda M. Tahamtani, Anja B. Riber and Björn Forkman</td><td>240</td></tr><tr><td>BeTi - Berger Tierwohl: implementing animal health and welfare planning on commercial pig farms<br>Katharina Schodl, Roswitha Heigl, Christoph Winckler and Christine Leeb</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td>Salivary HSP70 as a putative biomarker of heat stress in high yielding dairy cows<br>Viktor Jurkovich, Elsa Lamy, Lénia Rodrigues, Ana Geraldo, Fernando Capela E Silva, Cristina Pinheiro, Mikolt Bakony, Liliana Cachucho, Flávio Silva, Catarina Matos and Alfredo Pereira</td><td>242</td></tr><tr><td>Changes in tail posture, a possible early warning sign of tail biting<br>Helle Pelant Lahrmann, Kellie Spooner, Rick D'Eath, Christian Fink Hansen, Marie Erika Busch and Björn Forkman</td><td>243</td></tr><tr><td>Platform use in lactating dairy goats relates to production and behavioural responses to novelty<br>Gosia Zobel, Heather Neave and Jim Webster</td><td>244</td></tr><tr><td>Synchronisation of behaviour of bulls on pasture and in pens<br>Jaakko Mononen, Leena Tuomisto and Arto Huuskonen</td><td>245</td></tr><tr><td>Natural extracts in weaned piglets nutrition<br>Grazia Pastorelli, Mario Pellacini and Barbara Pizzi</td><td>246</td></tr><tr><td>Cross-sucking and intersucking in dairy buffaloes<br>Giuseppe De Rosa, Fernando Grasso, Marialuisa Pisani, Mariarosa Salese, Maria Serrapica and Fabio Napolitano</td><td>247</td></tr><tr><td>Rumen mucosa alterations in intensively finished fattening cattle<br>Marta Brscic, Flaviana Gottardo, Claudio Ceccato, Eliana Schiavon, Marlene Kirchner and Giulio Cozzi</td><td>248</td></tr><tr><td>Salivary alfa-amylase in horses with simple colonic obstruction: a pilot study<br>María Dolores Contreras-Aguilar, Fernando Tecles, Damián Escribano, María Martín-Cuervo and Jose Joaquín Cerón</td><td>249</td></tr><tr><td>Abnormal behaviour and posture amongst horses transported long distances across the EU for slaughter<br>Hannah Westen</td><td>250</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Encouraging farmers to improve animal welfare – the possible role of behavioural economics<br>Carolien De Lauwere, Marcel Van Asseldonk, Ron Bergevoet, Eva Van Den Broek and Nico Bondt</td><td>251</td></tr><tr><td>A novel use of rumination behaviour to monitor oestrus in dairy cows on pasture<br>Ana Carolina Strappini, Fernanda Araneda and Gustavo Monti</td><td>252</td></tr><tr><td>Systematic review on animal welfare indicators in dairy cattle to identify those of highest validity<br>Maiken Mondon, Merle Roswitha and Christa Thöne-Reineke</td><td>253</td></tr><tr><td>Communicating animal welfare in agriculture: public and private information and dialogue<br>Diane Ryland</td><td>254</td></tr><tr><td>Development of a sampling scheme to measure ammonia, temperature and humidity in sheep export by sea<br>Yu Zhang, Allan Lisle and Clive Phillips</td><td>255</td></tr><tr><td>Positive reinforcement training in pigs; methodology and cost effectiveness analysis<br>Kate Mala Ellen, Amanda Nevel and Ute Weyer</td><td>256</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>Innovation day</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Innovation in animal welfare science<br>Daniel M. Weary</td><td>258</td></tr><tr><td>Keep cow and calf health and stress-free with cowsignals cuddle box<br>Joep Driessen, Jan Hulsen and Wiebe Veenstra</td><td>259</td></tr><tr><td>Phenolab: ultra-wide band tracking of individual group housed laying hens<br>Elske N De Haas, Jerine A.J. Van Der Eijk, Lydia E. Nieuwe Weme, Bram Van Mil and T. Bas Rodenburg</td><td>260</td></tr><tr><td>Full-scale implementation of WelFur-Mink in Europe – only certified pelts will be sold from 2020<br>Steen H. Møller, Britt I.F. Henriksen and Anna F. Marsbøll</td><td>261</td></tr><tr><td>Creating Resilience in Pigs Through Artificial Intelligence (CuRly Pig TAIL)<br>Maikel Timmerman, Marion Kluivers-Poodt, Inonge Reimert, Herman Vermeer, Ruud Barth, Gert Kootstra, Johan Van Riel and Kees Lokhorst</td><td>262</td></tr><tr><td>Measuring tail length and tail bites on pig carcasses<br>Margit Dall Aaslyng, Helle Daugaard Larsen, Glenn Brink Nielsen and Per Black</td><td>263</td></tr></table>
Q-perch helps fight poultry red mite 264

Anne Van Den Oever, Liebregts Bas and van de Ven Lotte

The automated mite monitoring tool for advancing integrated pest management for *Dermanyssus gallinae* 265

M.F. Mul, J.W. Van Riel, P.G.W. Groot Koerkamp, M. Dicke, G. Schoeber and D. Fetter

Innovative concept building design using passive technology to improve resource efficiency 266

Paul Jackson

OPTIFarm broiler management 267

David Speller

Adding social network information to automated dairy cow management 268

Paul Koene

Improving animal health and welfare by on-line SCC monitoring instrument 'LUCI' 269

Elnaz Khatami

Feeding live black soldier fly larvae and effects on health, welfare and production of laying hens 270

M.A.W. Ruis, A. Mens, R. Zanders and J. Katoele

HatchCare, the poultry incubator with feed, light, and water 271

Carla Van Der Pol
Future food systems: implications for animal welfare

Imke De Boer

Wageningen University & Research, Animal Production Systems group, the Netherlands;

imke.deboer@wur.nl

The challenge to produce enough nutritious food for a growing and more prosperous population in a sustainable way is currently broadly acknowledged. It is now also largely undisputed that the animal sector uses a great deal of our natural resources, and contributes significantly to environmental issues. Furthermore, the way we keep our animals is debated in many countries across the world, because of concerns about among others the welfare of our production animals. My aim is to show different narratives about the future role of animals in an environmentally sustainable food system, as outlined in the scientific literature, and to discuss their implications for animal welfare. One dominant narrative is ‘we need to produce more animal-source food (ASF) with less environmental impact’. Research that addresses this so-called production-narrative aims to improve the environmental efficiency of ASF production, and contributes to what is currently known as sustainable intensification of animal production. Solutions suggest, for example, a transition from grass-based to mixed feed-crop livestock systems, breeding of high yielding animals, use of growth stimulators and prevention of diseases. Although disease prevention is beneficial for animal welfare, the focus on increasing life-time productivity implies trade-offs with health and reproduction performance, and the possibility to express species specific behaviour. Another dominant narrative is ‘we need to consume less or even no ASF, or ASF with a lower environmental impact’. Research that addresses this so-called consumption-narrative focuses on changing human consumption patterns by reducing or avoiding consumption of ASF, or shifting from ASF with a high impact, such as beef, to ASF with a lower impact, such as chicken, fish or insects. Although eating less ASF is beneficial from an overall welfare perspective (as welfare can be seen as the end-product of incidence (number of animals), severity (level of welfare), and the time animals are exposed to this level of welfare), the welfare of remaining animals is not addressed in this narrative. A relatively new narrative is ‘animals are essential for resource-efficient food production, as they can convert biomass inedible for humans into nutritious ASF’. Research that addresses this so-called circular-narrative shows that natural resources are used most efficiently if animals are fed mainly on biomass inedible for humans, also referred to as leftovers. The amount of ASF that can be obtained from leftovers, however, depends on their type and availability (e.g. by-products food industry, food waste, crop residues, grass from marginal land), and their utilization potential by the animals. According to this circular narrative, low-yielding ruminants grazing marginal land can be more resource-use efficient than high-yielding ruminants fed grain and maize silage (best from the production narrative). Similarly, slow-growing chickens fed on insects or leftovers can be more resource-efficient than fast-growing chickens fed on grain. The circular narrative, therefore, offers most potential to produce in an environmentally-friendly and animal-friendly way. It however also implies that developed countries have to significantly reduce their consumption of ASF.
**On-farm ewe welfare and its relationship with farmer management styles**

Carolina A. Munoz¹, Angus J.D. Campbell², Paul H. Hemsworth¹ and Rebecca E. Doyle¹

¹The University of Melbourne, Animal Welfare Science Centre, Australia, ²The University of Melbourne, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Science, Australia;
cmunoz@student.unimelb.edu.au

This study investigated the relationship between on-farm ewe welfare and farmer management styles in 25 sheep flocks in Victoria, Australia. One hundred ewes (aged 2-5) were assessed at each farm. Animals were managed extensively in a year-round outdoor system and farm visits were conducted after weaning (spring/summer 2016). The ewes were assessed by six valid animal-based measures: body condition score (BCS), fleece condition, skin lesions, tail length, dag score and lameness. Management-based measurements were collected through an interview with the farmers or farm managers. All measurements were collected by a single observer. To examine the relationship between ewe welfare and management, farmers were classified as having a 'passive' or 'proactive' management style. Farmers who do not measure the body condition of their ewes, do not maintain mortality records and do not scan for pregnancy, or scan but do not manage single and multiple ewes differently were classified as passive. Flock sizes ranged from 430 to 9,400 (2,714±2,147). Overall, 56% (n=14) of the farmers were classified as passive and 44% (n=11) as proactive. No differences were found in the average BCS of passive (2.9±0.25) and proactive flocks (2.8±0.19). However, a binomial generalized linear model showed that passive farmers had more ewes in inadequate BCS (too thin or too fat according to industry recommendations) (P=0.004), and more ewes needed further care in passive flocks (due to flystrike, severe lameness, etc.) compared to proactive flocks (P=0.017), indicating that farmers with passive management style have more ewes at risk of welfare compromise. This study constitutes the first investigation of sheep welfare and its relationship with management styles in Australia. These data will be further investigated to develop an intervention strategy to improve sheep welfare and productivity, with the ultimate goal of ensuring sustainability for the sheep industry.
**Relationship between animal welfare, production and environmental performance of dairy farms**

Luiza Toma, Marie J. Haskell, Andrew P. Barnes and Alistair W. Stott

SRUC, United Kingdom; marie.haskell@sruc.ac.uk

Sustainability is thought of as consisting of three pillars: economic, social and environmental, and the concept can apply to farms as well as to societies. Farming systems are under pressure to reduce their environmental impact, but as they are businesses, farms must remain economically viable. Social concerns about animal welfare also influence the care and management of livestock. Little work has been done to investigate the relationship between production, environmental output and animal welfare outcomes of farms. In our study we visited 42 dairy farms across Scotland. The Welfare Quality® protocol was carried out on these farms. Data were collected on economic aspects, such as quantity of milk sold and labour, and on the environmental aspects required for a 'carbon footprint' estimation, which included fertiliser, land and fuel use. To simultaneously assess the welfare, environmental and productive performance of these farms, we developed Data Envelopment Analysis models. The models assess production efficiency (where high efficiency is defined as high production with low costs) while accounting for welfare and environmental impacts. The results provided a ranking of the farms based on their capacity to maximise welfare and production while minimising environmental footprint. Subsequently, the relationship between efficiency, welfare and environmental impacts was assessed by regressing the efficiency score for each farm against a number of variables such as no. of mastitis treatments, veterinarian visits and membership of biodiversity schemes using a Tobit approach. Significant differences were found between efficiency scores of farms by welfare score at principle level (good feeding, good housing, good health, appropriate behaviour) with scores ranging between 0.196 and 1. The results also indicate that animal health variables (mastitis treatments) and environmental characteristics (biodiversity schemes membership) have a significant effect on efficiency (all P<0.05).
The evaluation of animal welfare in sustainability assessment tools

Evelien De Olde, Eddie Bokkers and Imke De Boer

Wageningen University & Research, Animal Production Systems Group, the Netherlands;
eveliendeolde@gmail.com

A large number of sustainability assessment tools have been developed to gain insight into the sustainability performance of farms. The assessment results could be used by farmers to identify actions towards sustainable development in agriculture. An increase in research interest, market demand and changing consumer expectations has contributed to a rapid growth in the number of sustainability assessment tools. The tools vary, however, strongly in their scope (e.g. sector, geography, sustainability dimensions) and characteristics such as assessment time, data requirements, auditor, scoring and aggregation method. This diversity has resulted in concerns whether sustainability assessment tools provide valid and reliable conclusions on the sustainability performance of farms. In this study, we compared the approaches and assessment results of four sustainability assessment tools (RISE, SAFA, IDEA and PG) for the theme animal welfare. Our findings showed that each tool presents its own approach to assess animal welfare at farm level by using different indicators, auditors, and scoring and aggregation methods. Moreover, the comparison of assessment results revealed that the tools present different conclusions on the performance of a farm on animal welfare. This does not only cause confusion but also affects the trust in, and reliability of, sustainability assessments. The findings show the need to critically reflect on current approaches to assess animal welfare and sustainability at farm level. Increasing the validity and reliability of sustainability assessments is needed to use sustainability assessment tools for functions such as certification and benchmarking.
**Animal health and welfare state and technical efficiency of dairy farms: possible synergies**

Lukas Tremetsberger¹, Jochen Kantelhardt² and Christoph Winckler¹

¹University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Division of Livestock Sciences, Austria, ²University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Institute of Agriculture and Forestry Economics, Austria; christoph.winckler@boku.ac.at

The present study investigated the association of animal health and welfare state as well as changes thereof with technical efficiency in a sample of 34 Austrian dairy farms. Health and welfare were assessed twice using the Welfare Quality® (WQ) assessment protocol for dairy cattle. Following a baseline welfare assessment, health and welfare planning was conducted on the farms. This included the identification, selection and implementation of measures in housing and management to improve health and welfare. One year after implementation, farms were reassessed to detect changes in the health and welfare state. Technical efficiency (TE), i.e. the degree to which farms combine inputs to produce outputs, was assessed using data envelopment analysis with herd size, annual labour and concentrate use as production factors and milk yield as output. This method formulates a best-practice frontier over all observed data points (farms). Efficient farms lie on the frontier and the other farms are radially measured against this frontier with TE scores ranging from 0 to 1 (fully efficient farms). For the analysis of efficiency changes after the one year implementation period, the Malmquist index was used. Regression analysis revealed that farms with a higher health state achieved significantly higher technical efficiencies (efficiency increase of 5 percentage points with increase in WQ principle score ‘Good health’ by 10; slope=0.00518; P=0.026). However, the implementation of measures increasing health and welfare states did not directly increase the farms’ technical efficiency: across all farms, technical efficiency remained fairly stable and there were no significant associations in Malmquist indices and changes in the health and welfare state. Our study shows that data envelopment analysis is a valuable method for analysing the relationship between animal welfare and farm success and our results indicate substantial potential synergies between these two aspects.
**Ethical and agronomical considerations towards a sustainable pig housing system**

Sajeev Erangu Purath Mohankumar¹, Kian Mintz-Woo², Barbara Amon³ and Wilfried Winiwarter⁴

¹University of Graz, FWF-DK Climate Change, Austria, ²University of Graz, Institute for Philosophy, Austria, ³ATB Liebniz, Germany, ⁴IIASA, Austria; em.sajeev@uni-graz.at

Choices over different animal housing systems affect the welfare of animals, the environment and the economics of farming. In agronomic studies, animal welfare is usually measured in terms of biological functioning (reproductive fitness and lack of disease). We argue that biological functioning alone is insufficient to capture animal welfare, and extend the analysis to other forms of welfare such as hedonistic utility (pleasure and pain) and allowances for animal behaviour (playing and foraging). Moreover, there exist significant trade-offs on emissions (ammonia: NH₃ and greenhouse gases: GHGs) and costs from changing housing systems to improve animal welfare. An explicit consideration of the ethical aspects in pig housing systems along with its implications on emissions and costs are rare in current literature. The objective of this study is to critically explore and advance the discussion on animal welfare and apply that to pig housing in conjunction with analysing its repercussions on emissions and costs. We focus on the following pig housing systems: (1) fully or partially slatted; (2) deep-litter (provision of straw); and (3) a hybrid straw-flow system. Welfare, emission and cost changes associated with different housing systems are calculated based on a meta-analysis of published literature relative to a reference system. Results show that switching from a commonly employed slatted floor to a deep litter system improves pig welfare, but increases GHGs (by +172 g CO₂ e/pig/day), NH₃ (by +7 g NH₃/pig/day) and costs (by 4%). Hybrid housing systems such as straw flow which incorporate the natural behaviour of pigs in housing design can improve animal welfare while reducing both GHGs (by -333 g CO₂ e/pig/day) and NH₃ (by -5 g NH₃/pig/day) relative to a slatted floor system. The results presented here are relevant in light of a push towards improved animal welfare, and demonstrate that sustainable solutions are possible that satisfy issues concerning environmental protection, animal welfare and economic costs.
**A vision for sustainable farm animal production**

Melina Caroline Tensen

RSPCA Australia, Australia; mtensen@rspca.org.au

In the debate about feeding a growing world population and in which livestock industries see an opportunity to increase the scale or the intensity of their operations rarely is consideration given to the effect this might have on farm animal welfare. Livestock farming practices can adversely impact welfare by failing to provide animals with their basic needs, such as adequate space and the freedom to express innate behaviours. If we are to raise animals for food or fibre, surely we can do so without compromising their welfare? What if we first address the glaring deficiencies in today's food supply chain? Up to 50% of all food produced for human consumption is wasted either at harvest, during storage and transport, or at the retail and consumer end of the supply chain. In addition to food wastage, the livestock industry's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions poses a challenge to the sector. Poor lifestyle and eating choices contribute to a significant public health concern affecting our population. So, are we going to produce ever more food with more animals and more resources and at any cost? Or, is it possible to consider an alternative food supply chain that truly encompasses the concept of sustainability? Is it possible to work together towards achieving a sustainable livestock production system that creates a high-value product reflective of the true cost of production and that sees no party disadvantaged – least of all the animals we farm for food?
**Is compliance with animal welfare standards associated with improved profitability on dairy farms?**

Marianne Villettaz Robichaud¹, Jeffrey Rushen², Anne Marie De Passille², Elsa Vasseur³, Derek Haley⁴ and Doris Pellerin¹

¹Laval University, Canada, ²University of British Columbia, Canada, ³MacDonald College, Canada, ⁴University of Guelph, Canada; jeffrushen@gmail.com

Farmers are often concerned that meeting animal welfare standards may be costly, but there are good reasons to assume that improved welfare may increase profitability. We examined whether meeting Canadian animal welfare standards for tie-stall dairy farms was associated with changes in productive performance of cows. Tie-stall farms (n=100) were evaluated on whether they passed or failed the dairy industry animal welfare standards based on the recorded prevalence of leg and neck lesions, lameness, dirtiness, body condition score (BCS), and placement of the electric trainer. Recorded data was also obtained from each farm on farm profitability measures: average milk production, somatic cell count (SSC), calving interval, breedings per year, % culling, and % of cows in third lactation or higher. Univariate regression and multivariate regression was used to analyse the association between passing each welfare criterion and the indicators of farm profitability. Passing the criterion for lameness prevalence interacted with the % of primiparous cows on the farm to affect annual milk production (P<0.001), which increased with a higher % of primiparous cows on farms that passed the criterion. When milk production genetic index and the % of primiparous cows was controlled for, farms passing the lameness criterion produced 289 kg less milk per year. SSC was higher on farms passing the criterion for neck lesions (P=0.02) but lower on farms passing the criterion for flank dirtiness (P=0.05), BCS (P=0.02) and electric trainer placement (P=0.03). Cow longevity was significantly associated with passing the criterion for electric trainer placement with farms passing having more cows in 3rd+ lactation (P=0.03). Passing individual components of the welfare assessment tended to be associated with some indicators of improved profitability, but the relationships were complex suggesting that there is no simple relationship between animal welfare and farm profitability.
The effects of sensors and robots on human animal relationship on farm

Florence Kling-Eveillard¹, Nathalie Hostiou², Emeline Ganis¹ and Valérie Courboulay³

¹Institut de l'Elevage, ASTRE, France, ²INRA, UMR Métafort, France, ³IFIP - Institut du Porc, France; valerie.courboulay@ifip.asso.fr

The digital revolution arrives on farm and leads to the development of the ‘precision livestock farming’ (PLF). Sensors collect data about the animals (milk quality, physical activity, etc.). These data are interpreted by computers and given back to the farmer through connected devices to help him to make decisions. Robots may be associated to the sensors. The aim of this study was to identify if PLF deteriorates the human-animal relationship and to analyse farmers’ satisfaction with these tools. A survey was carried out in 25 farms in France: dairy farms with a milking robot or a heat detector, pig farms with an automatic feeder, poultry farms with a housing management system or an automated weighing system. Semi-directive interviews were conducted with the farmers to collect data on their initial motivation to adopt the equipment, the way it was introduced on farm, the changes that occurred in their work and in the contact with the animals, and the pros and cons. A qualitative content analysis was conducted. A typology mixing the type of farmer-animal relationship and the use of the precision tools was built, using a multiple correspondence analysis followed by a hierarchical clustering analysis. Most farmers mentioned that their job became more modern and that the work was easier with these tools. The digital data bring a different view on animals, focusing on problematic animals. Some pig and cattle farmers continued to spend time to observe their animals and used specific practices to tame the animals, with a view to facilitate the work and reduce animal stress. Others delegated all the decision or the task to the equipment, reducing the contact with the animals. Three profiles were identified showing a diversity of relations between the farmer and his animals. Finally, some farmers expressed limits regarding the place of new technologies on farm, such as the risk of losing their own autonomy or their ability to observe animals and detect problems.
# Development of a monitoring tool for measuring and validating the sustainability of dairy farms

Tomke Lindena¹, Lavinia Flint¹, Heike Kuhnert², Birthe Lassen¹ and Hiltrud Nieberg¹

¹Thuenen Institute, Farm Economics, Germany, ²Land und Markt, Germany;
tomke.lindena@thuenen.de

Sustainability is gaining more and more importance in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural goods. This also applies to the German dairy industry. In the past, sustainability initiatives were focused mainly at the dairy factory level, but nowadays, dairy farms are also taken into account by food retailers, international food companies, society and consumers. Against this background an initial sector-specific concept for the sustainable development of dairy production in Germany was developed. Around 30 dairy factories are involved in the recently initiated (February 2017) pilot project as practice partners. The so-called ‘Dairy Sustainability Tool’ is a basic tool and a starting point to create awareness for a more sustainable development among a large number of dairy farms. It is a monitoring tool for dairy farms which measures and validates a broad range of sustainability criteria. Those criteria and their respective ratings were discussed and agreed transdisciplinarily upon with different stakeholders from the dairy business. The selected criteria, including their assessment, needed to be scientifically defined and validated in such a way that they can be measured and collected at a reasonable cost and time period by the farmers, using a written questionnaire. As a result, the questionnaire contains 60 sustainability-related criteria covering the areas of economics (10), ecology (17), social issues (9) and animal welfare (24). The overall objective of the pilot project is to promote a trustworthy and credible dialogue and process for the sustainable development of dairy farming. Therefore, the tool will be put in practice on a large scale for the first time; its feasibility and recognition at all stages of the value chain will be checked; and furthermore, the tool will be further developed based on the knowledge gained. The resulting dataset is unique as it provides detailed information about relevant sustainability aspects of a large number of dairy farms. The concept, focusing specifically on the animal welfare criteria, will be presented at the conference.
**A sustainable option for tie-stalls: providing year-long exercise helps improve dairy cow welfare**

Santiago Palacio¹, Steve Adam², Renée Bergeron³, Doris Pellerin⁴, Anne Marie De Passillé⁵,
Jeff Rushen⁵, Derek Haley⁶, Trevor Devries³ and Elsa Vasseur¹

¹McGill University, Animal Science, Canada, ²Valacta, Research & Development, Canada,

³University of Guelph, Animal Bioscience, Canada, ⁴Université Laval, Sciences Animales, Canada,

⁵University of British Columbia, Dairy Research and Education Center, Canada, ⁶University of Guelph, Ontario Veterinary College, Canada; elsa.vasseur@mcgill.ca

Exercise access offers potential health and welfare benefits and evidence suggests that dairy
cows may have a preference for the outdoors even during winter. Providing exercise year-round
could be a sustainable option for tie-stall farms, answering concerns surrounding restriction
of movement, however, the benefits of year-round exercise for tie-stall cows are not well
documented. The objectives of this study were to evaluate how year-round exercise (access to
pasture and/or winter outdoor yard) and stall improvements (e.g.: tie-rail adjustment) affected
outcome measures of welfare of lactating dairy cows housed in tie-stalls. Over 12 months, 20
cows/farm in 8 farms with year-round exercise and 4 without were visited and their welfare
was assessed in each of the 4 visits. Visit 1 was conducted towards the end of the pasture season
(Sept.), visit 2, 9-30 days after stall improvements were applied (Dec.), visit 3, at the end winter
(April), and visit 4, 1 year after visit 1. Assessments of cow welfare consisted of animal and
housing based measures. Farms were grouped based on whether they provided exercise or not
and cows grouped on whether they were in modified or unmodified stalls. Differences in the
outcome measures were analysed with a mixed linear model. On visit 1, there were 31 and 13%
fewer cows with neck and knee injuries respectively in exercise farms (P<0.01). During visit 2,
we found 19% (P<0.05) fewer cows with neck injuries in exercise farms. On visit 3, farms that
provided exercise had 16 and 20% fewer cows with hock injuries and lameness, respectively
(P<0.05). During visit 4, access to exercise reduced the number of cows with hock injuries
by 39% (P<0.05). Our results showed that providing access to year-round exercise for cows
kept in tie-stalls can improve the overall welfare of the animals by reducing body injuries and
lameness prevalence.
Clipping the toenails of day-old ostrich chicks: beneficial or detrimental?

Anel Engelbrecht¹, Schalk Willem Petrus Cloete¹,², Adriaan Olivier³, Kenneth Joubert⁴ and Maud Bonato²

¹Department of Agriculture, Animal Sciences, South Africa, ²University of Stellenbosch, Animal Sciences, South Africa, ³Klein Karoo International Ltd, Research, South Africa, ⁴VAACCS Blood Bank, Veterinary Anaesthesia, Analgesia & Critical Care Services, South Africa; maudb@elsenburg.com

The practice of clipping the toenails of day-old ostrich chicks has been adopted to decrease toenail-related injuries. Although the toenails regrow, clipping is presumed to be painful due to the presence of spongy bone tissue where the nail is clipped. The effect of clipping the toenails on welfare and production was therefore investigated in two trials to determine whether this practice was beneficial or detrimental. Toenails of day-old chicks were clipped with an electrical debeaker according to standardised methodology. Treatments were applied to groups of approximately 12 chicks each and replicated five times. Data were analysed according to a completely randomised design based on group means. In Trial 1, growth, survival and skin lesions were compared between control chicks with intact toenails, chicks with toenails clipped once (day-old) and chicks with toenails clipped twice (day-old and month-old). In Trial 2, the ratio of heterophils to lymphocytes (H/L) in bloodsmears was used to assess stress as a result of toenail clipping with and without the use of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), as well as a topical anaesthetic, compared to control chicks. All the chicks which toenails were clipped had a withdrawal reaction directly after the toenails were clipped, despite the use of a NSAID, compared to control chicks subjected to a sham clipping, where no such reaction was noted. However, no differences in welfare as assessed with a welfare score based on movement and vocalisation were found 24 h after the procedure (P>0.05). Growth and survival were also not influenced by treatment (P>0.05), while the number of toenail-related lesions on skins was reduced in clipped birds in Trial 1 (P<0.05). In Trial 2, no treatment differences were evident in H/L ratios, either with or without the use of analgesics (P>0.05). Based on these results it seemed that clipping the toenails of day-old ostrich chicks did not compromise their long-term welfare and production.
**Hidden animals: animal welfare indicators within assessments of sustainability**

Christy Goldhawk, Roger Cady, David Heckman, Shabbir Simjee and Matthew Salois
Elanco Animal Health, USA; goldhawk_christy@elanco.com

Widespread integration of animal welfare requires alignment with sustainable practices, and integration of welfare indicators beyond marginal niche markets. A starting point would be broader recognition of welfare indicators connected to assessments of economics, environment, and social components of sustainable supply chains. While often labelled as an issue of socially acceptable farming practices, the biological process of food animal production indicates a connection to environment and economic factors. Examples from methods currently used in environmental and economic assessments highlight consistent use of welfare indicators that overlap with welfare assessment frameworks – namely mortality and morbidity. These indicators are used to evaluate effects of production practices on utilization of land, water, and feed resources, as well as outputs like manure and animal products (e.g. meat, milk, eggs). Inherently, these indicators may also represent negative welfare states of individuals in systems due to suffering from disease states, as well as potential indirect effects on the welfare of other animals, domestic and wild, that are dependent on shared ecosystem resources. Data on the effects of human and animal interactions connects positive welfare during handling of dairy cattle to improved worker safety and potential reduction of use of environmental resources. As understanding of positive welfare states continues to grow, it is important to also grow the understanding of connection to economic viability, environmental responsibility, and social accountability. Positive reinforcement of animal welfare as integral to sustainable food production can be achieved by supporting integration of welfare indicators in connection with more than just social acceptability, while reducing biases towards narrowly focused single-dimension evaluations of animal. Supporting the importance of these indicators, as well as comprehensive assessments of welfare solutions, will improve the ability for food businesses to safeguard good animal welfare in sustainable global food supply chains.
**Monitoring body temperature and activity in sows using a sensor-based telemetric system**

Elaine Van Erp-Van Der Kooij¹, Judith B. Roelofs², Jay S. Johnson³, Dag Hovden⁴ and Lucas P.J.J. Noldus⁵

¹HAS University of Applied Sciences, Applied Biology, the Netherlands, ²HAS University of Applied Sciences, Animal Husbandry, the Netherlands, ³Purdue University, USDA-ARS Livestock Behavior Research Unit, USA, ⁴TeleMetronics Biomedical, the Netherlands, ⁵Noldus Information Technology BV, the Netherlands; l.verp@has.nl

Precision livestock farming technology can improve estrus detection accuracy and increase sow conception rates, leading to higher production efficiency and less labour. Furthermore, PLF technology can be used as early detection system for ill sows, improving animal health and welfare. Illness and estrus influence body temperature and activity of sows. Therefore a sensor-based telemetric system monitoring body temperature and activity was tested. First, Teplant2 sensors (TeleMetronics Biomedical), containing a temperature sensor, 3D accelerometer, radio transmitter and battery, were validated under lab conditions for temperatures 35-45 °C, using a water basin with Julabo heater and validated P600 thermometer. Sow movements (walking, standing up, lying down) were simulated to validate activity measurements by attaching the sensor to a stick. Second, activity was recorded for 30 minutes with sensors attached to the neck and back of 3 sows, and activity for 3 days around estrus was recorded manually for 4 gilts and 4 other sows. Temperature results of sensors, heater and thermometer correlated highly in lab conditions (linear regression, R²=0.96; slope 1.1). Simulated activities and sensor values corresponded consistently. In farm conditions, sow activity was measured reliably with the sensor attached externally. Sows showed more activity the day before insemination (manual observations, P<0.05 for standing up, lying down, sitting down and walking backward, increase 2.4±2.6, 4.6±4.4, 3.3±3.7 and 4.7±4.9 respectively), which makes this parameter a good predictor for estrus. In a follow-up study where the same sensors were used intra-vaginally in 12 gilts, temperature decreased (-0.26 °C) and activity increased (+38%) significantly at estrus, with both parameters measured reliably with the sensors. We conclude that monitoring activity and body temperature is a promising tool for estrus detection in sows and potentially in monitoring sow health and welfare.
# The impact of health problems in dairy cows on greenhouse gas emissions: a case study with mastitis

Pim F. Mostert, Eddie A.M. Bokkers, Corina E. Van Middelaar and Imke J.M. De Boer

Wageningen University, Animal Production Systems group, the Netherlands; eddie.bokkers@wur.nl

The dairy sector is responsible for 4.4% of global human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Climate change caused by GHG emissions and limited amount of resources, e.g. land and fossil energy, urge to produce food as efficient as possible. Health problems are expected to affect these emissions. Clinical mastitis (CM) in dairy cows, for example, is a major health and therefore welfare problem which has an average incidence of 27% in the Netherlands. CM results in inefficient production because of a decreased milk production and fertility, and an increased risk of culling. This study aimed to estimate the impact of health problems on GHG emissions using CM in the Dutch situation as a case study. A dynamic stochastic simulation model was developed and combined with life cycle assessment (LCA). Cows received a parity (1-5+), a potential milk production and a risk ratio for CM. Cows could get a maximum of 3 cases of CM in one lactation, which were caused by gram positive or gram negative bacteria, or other pathogens. Based on the number of cases of CM and pathogen combination, cows had a reduced daily milk yield, discarded milk if treated with antibiotics, a prolonged calving interval, and an increased risk of culling. Subsequently, LCA was used to quantify the impact of CM on GHG emissions per ton fat-and-protein-corrected milk (kg CO₂e/t FPCM) from cradle to farm gate. Preliminary results indicate that per case of CM, GHG emissions increased by 6.2% (55.5 kg CO₂e/t FPCM) on average. Emissions increased by >34% (>300 kg CO₂e/t FPCM) for cows that died on the farm because of CM. Reducing health problems, such as CM, is effective to diminish GHG emissions from milk production. Moreover, cow welfare and farmer's income will improve. Therefore, reducing health problems contribute to sustainable development of dairy production.
**Occurrence of lameness during a 6-month period in four Danish dairy herds**

Karina B. Gleerup¹, Hans Houe², Björn Forkman², Mette S. Herskin³ and Peter T. Thomsen³

¹University of Copenhagen, Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Denmark, ²University of Copenhagen, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Denmark, ³Aarhus University, Department of Animal Science, Denmark; kbg@sund.ku.dk

Despite negative consequences on animal welfare and economy, not much is known about the frequency of cows repeatedly showing lameness in dairy herds. The objective of this study was to describe the occurrence of lameness during a 6-month period in four Danish dairy herds (sampled by convenience). Lameness was evaluated over a period of 26 weeks. In each herd (224-338 Danish Holstein cows in loose housing systems with cubicles), all lactating cows were lameness scored on a 5-point scale every second week. In each herd, all observations were made by the same observer (one observer in herd A, another observer in herds B, C and D). Not all cows could be located on every visit, and only cows (n=898) with at least 10 out of 13 observations were included in the analysis. In the four herds, A: 2%, B: 43%, C: 30% and D: 40% of the cows were never observed lame (i.e. scored 1 or 2) during the study, while A: 94%, B: 37%, C: 56% and D: 40% of the cows were observed lame (i.e. scored 4 or 5) at least once during the six months period. The proportion of cows that were observed lame during at least 7 of the 10-13 observations was A: 24%, B: 1%, C: 11% and D: 3%, respectively. Most cases of lameness are caused by hoof disorders, many of which are painful. In this study we found that some cows were observed lame on more than half of the visits and although substantial variation was found between herds, the large proportion of lame cows and many individual cows being lame at many scorings, constitute a welfare problem.
**Effects of some factors on calves' viability and growth**

Radu Ionel Neamt¹, Dinu Gavojdian¹, Florin Cristian Neciu¹, Ludovic Toma Cziszter¹,² and
Daniela Elena Ilie¹

¹Research and Development Station for Bovine Arad, Romania, ²Banaț's University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Timișoara, Faculty of Animal Science and Biotechnologies, Romania; cziszterl@animalsci-tm.ro

The aim of this study was to analyse the effects of dam size, type of birth, calving ease, calf sex and season on calf viability and body weight. Study was carried out on 397 Romanian Spotted cows and their 407 calves from the Research and Development Station for Bovine Arad, Romania. Two multifactorial regression models were employed. The first one was to evaluate the influence of cows' body size (body weight, rump length, width at hips and at pins) on calf viability (viable, morbid, non-viable), type of birth (single, twin) and calving ease (eutocic, dystocic). The second was to assess the effect of calf sex (male, female), calving season (summer, winter), calving ease, and type of birth on calf viability and body weight. Cows having larger rump size produced more viable calves (285 viable vs 88 morbid vs 34 non-viable), and more eutocic calvings (310 eutocic vs 97 dystocic) than cows with smaller rump (P≤0.05). Rump size was significantly higher in cows producing twins compared to those calving singles (55.2 vs 54.1 cm length, 57.8 vs 56.2 cm width at hips, and 37.1 vs 36.1 cm width at ischia, P≤0.05). Cow body weight had no significant effect on calving, calf viability and type of birth (P>0.05). Calf weight at birth was higher in summer than in winter (36.8 vs 35.4 kg, P≤0.001), in males than in females (38 vs 33.8 kg, P≤0.001), in singles than in twins (36.7 vs 32.8 kg, P≤0.001), and in eutocic than in dystocic calvings (35.7 vs 36.3 kg, P≤0.05). Dystocia at calving increased the morbidity and mortality rates of calves (P<0.05). Higher incidence of morbidity and mortality was recorded in twins vs singles (P<0.01). Calf viability and body weight could be assessed based on dam rump size, type of birth, calving ease, calf sex and season of calving. This enable farmer to take a decision regarding calf welfare at an early age and act appropriately.
Economic and environmental impact of dry period length in dairy cows

Akke Kok<sup>1,2</sup>, Corina Van Middelaar<sup>2</sup>, Pim Mostert<sup>2</sup>, Ariëtte Van Knegsel<sup>1</sup>, Bas Kemp<sup>1</sup>, Imke De Boer<sup>2</sup> and Henk Hogeveen<sup>3</sup>

<sup>1</sup>Wageningen University, Adaptation Physiology group, the Netherlands, <sup>2</sup>Wageningen University, Animal Production Systems group, the Netherlands, <sup>3</sup>Wageningen University, Business Economics group, the Netherlands; akke.kok@wur.nl

Shortening or omitting the dry period of dairy cows can improve cow welfare through fewer
management changes and improved metabolic health in early lactation, at the cost of milk
production. Part of the milk losses are compensated by additional milk before calving. The aim
of this study was to model how a transition to a dry period of 28 or 0 days vs a dry period of
56 days affects net financial flows at herd level and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of milk.
The evaluation included financial flows from milk, meat, calves, feed, and youngstock, and
greenhouse gas emissions from feed production, enteric fermentation, and manure storage. In
the stochastic model in R, dry period length affected milk yield, calving interval, and the risk
of culling for fertility. Values for these parameters were derived from data from commercial
dairy farms that shorten or omit the dry period since 2010/2011. Other parameters were based
on literature. Herds of 100 cows were simulated at cow level for 5 years following the change
in dry period length (n=40 herds per scenario). Total herd milk yield in the first year was not
different among different dry period lengths (ANOVA, P>0.05), whereas a dry period of 28
days on average reduced yield by 2.9% from the second year onwards (P<0.05); and no dry
period reduced yield by 7.0% in the second year (P<0.05), and by 3.7% from the third year
onwards (P<0.05). At herd level, dry periods of 28 and 0 days in comparison with 56 days
reduced net financial flows by €949 and €1,680 per year and resulted in similar greenhouse
gas emissions per unit milk.
**Relation between the prevalence of claw lesions in Flemish dairies and the perception of the farmers**

Béke Nivelle¹, Sanne Van Beirendonck¹, Jos Van Thielen¹,² and Bert Driessen¹

¹KU Leuven, Bioengineering Technology TC, Group Animal Welfare, Geel, Belgium, ²Thomas More Kempen, Geel, Belgium; beke.nivelle@kuleuven.be

Claw lesions are an important reason for compromised animal welfare and culling and cause major financial losses in Flemish dairies. Farmers aren't always aware of the prevalence and impact of claw problems on their dairy. The aim of this study was to address the prevalence of claw lesions in lactating cows in Flanders. Therefore farmers were asked to complete a survey involving the management and housing practices they apply. Next they were asked to estimate the prevalence of the following claw problems among lactating animals on their farm: interdigital dermatitis (ID), digital dermatitis (DD), sole haemorrhages (SoH), white line disease (WLD), sole ulcer (SU), interdigital phlegmon (IP), swollen heels (SH) and footrot (FR). Forty dairies (16.4%) were selected to be visited to assess the claw health. The selection was based on access to pasture, number of lactating cows, estimate of ID and DD and herd production level. These 40 dairies are representative for all respondents of the survey. On each farm at least 15 (fixed number) animals were examined. Selection was based on parity, lactation stage and milk production corrected for age, season of calving and lactation stage. ID was scored according to Döpfer et al., while other lesions were scored on a 4-point scale. Mobility, body condition, leg condition, hygiene, claw hook and length etc. were also determined. About 33.0 (+14.6)% of the selected animals were clinically lame. There was a significant (P<0.05) correlation between estimated and determined prevalence of SH (r²=0.42; P<0.05), acute DD lesions (M1, M2 and M4.1; r²=0.40; P<0.05) and IP (r²=0.73; P<0.001) in contrast to ID, overall DD lesions, SoH, WLD, SU and FR. These results show that farmers could estimate the obviously visible lesions, but had difficulties estimating lesions for which detailed inspection of the claw was necessary.
**Comparison of AW indicators & body weight of beef cattle in a silvopastoral system and natural grass**

Stella Huertas¹,², Pablo Bobadilla¹,², Frank Van Eerdenburg³, Déborah César¹ and Hernán Bueno¹,⁴

¹OIE Collaborating Centre on Animal Welfare and Livestock Production Systems, Uruguay,
²Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la Republica, Instituto de Biociencias, Uruguay,
³Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Utrecht University, Dept. of Farm Animal Health, the Netherlands,
⁴Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de la Republica, Departamento de Producción Animal y Pasturas, Uruguay; frankvaneerdenburg@hotmail.com

Animal production systems that combine trees and pasture are considered silvopastoral systems (SPS). Studies performed mainly in Central America and with *Bos taurus indicus* breeds, concluded that SPS have the potential to improve animal welfare and productivity of livestock farms while contributing to the sustainability of these systems. SPS are of recent implementation in temperate weather countries like Uruguay, where *Bos taurus taurus* breeds are predominant and the main landscape, where the beef cattle are kept, is the natural grassland (NG). SPS produces, besides the beef, obtained wood from the tree plantations. The objective of this preliminary study was to determine if these benefits also apply in temperate regions. The study was conducted on two extensive beef farms in the southern part of Uruguay. In each farm, two groups of Hereford steers (n=20) were allocated randomly to SPS (*Eucaliptus globulus* plantation) and NG without tillage, adjacent paddocks (20 hectares each), in summer time from October 2015 to May 2016. Both farms were visited every 45 days to compare welfare and health indicators as well as body weight. Welfare indicators were individually recorded according to the Welfare Quality® protocol for cattle in the farm facilities prior to the entrance on the scale where each animal was weighed. A mixed model was used to analyse weight as response variable. Categorical variables were compared with Fisher's exact test. Preliminary results indicate that in both SPS and NG the welfare of the cattle is at a high level, showing no significant differences (P<0.05) between groups. Further research is needed to determine if SPS could improve even more the welfare of beef cattle, considering findings in other countries. Having this and the additional profit from wood production, SPS becomes an interesting complement to the sustainable beef production.
# Manipulation and slaughter of American bison (Bison bison) in European farms

Hilde Vervaecke

Odisee University College, Agro- and Biotechnology, Belgium; hilde.vervaecke@odisee.be

Approximately 6,000 American bison are bred on ranches in Europe for meat. Bison are wild non-domesticated animals that are kept extensively year-round but that require regular handling in order to comply with sanitary regulations. We surveyed the methods of manipulation and slaughter and the incidence of reported meat quality problems. The survey includes data on 18 ranches, in France (n=11), Belgium (n=3), Switzerland (n=2), the UK (n=1) and Poland (n=1). On average, each breeder had 72 adult bison (range=21-182) and slaughtered on average 16 bison per year (SD=10.47), 75% males and 25% females, at an average age of 30 months (20-42 months). All breeders had manipulation cages and corrals. Half of the breeders transported the bison dead after shooting and subsequent bleeding on the farm, either in the corral, in the field or in the trailer; the other half transported the animals live (average distance of 48 km) to the slaughterhouse, where they were either killed by firearm in the trailer or otherwise in the slaughter facilities. 53% of the breeders had their animals killed by fire-arm, 26% of the breeders had their animals killed by cutting after captive-bolt stunning and one fifth of the breeders (21%) has allowed for un-stunned cutting in the past. The latter was used in slaughterhouses where previous attempts to stun had been unsuccessful. Breeders that had used a captive-bolt noted that up to 40% of the animals needed re-stunning due to the thickness of the skull. There was no link between reported meat-quality and killing method. Some farmers developed very efficient stress-reducing practices for handling and killing bison. Bison on-farm killing by shooting was the most humane method with the highest instant success rate and no transport stress. Slaughterers and veterinarians need more information on effective stunning techniques for bison.
# Inclusion of poplar trees in pasture-based pig systems to reduce the heat load of lactating sows dur

Malene Jakobsen, Sarah-Lina Aagaard Schild, Anne Grete Kongsted and Heidi Mai-Lis Andersen
*Sciene and Technology, Aarhus University, Department of Agroecology, Agricultural Systems and Sustainability, Denmark; malene.jakobsen@agro.au.dk*

Inclusion of poplar trees in pasture-based pig systems to reduce the heat load of lactating sows during hot periods. On a global scale, the demand for organic pork is increasing. Organic pig production is associated with positive aspects such as animals being able to perform species-specific behaviour, and a low use of antimicrobics. However, the current Danish organic production system with sows on grass-clover pastures poses animal welfare challenges during the hot season as indicated by a recent pilot study we did where 85% of sows were severely sunburned on ears. In the pasture-based system, the farrowing huts are the only possibility for sows to seek protection from the sun. Studies indicate that during hot days, the huts may reach temperatures exceeding the level of sow thermal comfort zone and there is a need for providing sows with alternative shading possibilities. The aim of this study was to investigate whether access to poplar trees could reduce the heat load of lactating sows. We investigated two different pasture-based systems in which each sow had access to an area with either no trees or 32 trees. Sow sunburn was assessed on different body parts as: (1) no sunburn; (2) visible redness of skin; (3) severe redness of skin; (4) visible wounds or flaking skin. In addition, sow respiration frequency was recorded on day two prior to expected farrowing until day seven post farrowing. Fifty-eight sows were observed during summer 2015 and 20 sows during winter until autumn 2017. Preliminary results show that during the summer 2015, sow respiration rate was lower in the area with poplar trees compared to the farrowing hut (30 and 46 breaths per 60 seconds, respectively). However, of sows with access to poplar trees 44.4% had visible wounds and flaking skin on ears and 14.1% severe redness of ears. We suggest that inclusion of trees in pasture-based systems represents an area with reduced heat load but the amount and/or location of trees were not able to prevent severe sunburn.
**Smothering in UK free-range laying hens: research from the McDonald's sustainable egg supply group**

Ann Catherine Rayner¹, David Brass², Tom Willings³, Peter Garbutt⁴ and Ashleigh Bright¹

¹FAI, United Kingdom, ²The Lakes Free Range Company Ltd, United Kingdom, ³Noble Food Ltd, United Kingdom, ⁴McDonald's Restaurants, United Kingdom; annie.rayner@faifarms.com

Since 2008, McDonald's Restaurants UK has collaborated with FAI Farms and their two egg suppliers to form a sustainable egg supply group (SESG). SESG tackle sustainability challenges under a 3Es framework of ethics, environment and economics. Smothering occurs when birds group together, resulting in death from suffocation. Smothering presents an ethical and economic concern. Responding to this concern, and recognising that little published research was available, SESG initiated research to further understand smothering. A preliminary study supported anecdotal evidence that smothers cause significant mortality and established three categories of smothering: panic smothers (PS), nestbox smothers (NBS), and recurring smothers (RS). PS are caused by sudden disturbances, they're isolated incidences involving large numbers (>20) of birds. NBS occur when multiple birds visit a nestbox simultaneously. RS recur throughout lay, involving small (1-10) numbers of birds per incidence. A SESG questionnaire based study was the first to determine incidence of smothering in commercial UK laying hen flocks and to explore associations with housing and management practices. Questionnaires were sent to farm managers from McDonald's two free-range egg suppliers, representing 35% of the UK free-range egg industry. A 50% and 100% response rate was achieved (n=206). Smothering was found to be common with 61.2% of farm managers reported smothering in their last flock. Mortality due to smothering was reported at 1.6%. Smothering was confirmed to be unpredictable with no clear effective reduction strategies in use. GLM procedures found breed (P=0.008) and nestbox manufacturer (P=0.014) to predict NBS. Nestbox manufacturer (P=0.009), feeding oyster, grit or grain on the litter (P<0.001) and range use on a sunny day (P<0.001) predicted the combined category, PSRS. Smothering illustrates the delicate balance of breed, housing and management for free-range laying hens. We hope that this research will stimulate further work exploring solutions to smothering.
# Comparison of loose housing and individual housing of sows in early gestation within 4 sow herds

Theo Geudeke

GD Animal Health, Deventer, The Netherlands, Pig Health, the Netherlands;

t.geudeke@gdanimalhealth.com

In the Netherlands group housing of pregnant sows is mandatory from four days after insemination. Group housing allows sows to show a more natural and social behaviour with positive implications for animal welfare. However, the pig industry is reluctant to house sows in groups in early gestation. Group housing might result in poor reproductive performance and impaired welfare due to stress related to hierarchy fighting, food competition and (limited) space allowance. In this respect, research so far never compared group housing and individual housing of sows in early gestation under field conditions within farms. Four well managed sow herds with good reproductive results were selected. The farms had a housing system with lockable free access stalls. Within each farm 10 to 14 groups of sows that were inseminated within the same week, were divided into paired groups of 10 to 25 sows that were either loose housed or housed individually during the first four weeks after insemination. Paired groups (n=60) were equally divided in terms of age and body condition and housed in adjacent groups. In all groups information was recorded and analysed on pregnancy rate and litter size. Pregnancy rates (at day 35) did not differ significantly between loose housed sows (93.1%) and individually confined sows (93.3%). Also litter size did not differ (15.80 vs 15.75 total born). Within the four farms in this study no differences were seen between group housing and individual housing of sows. As suggested by other investigations, stockmanship and animal handling are likely more important than housing system when it comes to animal welfare and reproductive performance in sow herds. This study was approved by an authorized Animal Experiment Commission and financed by the Dutch pig industry.
**First results: are there links between Welfare Quality® and sustainability indicators of dairying?**

Sylvia Warnecke¹, Harald Schmid², Karen Schröder³, Richard Beisecker⁴, Jan Brinkmann¹, Helmut Frank², Peter Hinterstoßer¹, Regine Koopmann¹, Solveig March¹, Hans Marten Paulsen¹, Jörn Sanders³, Maximilian Schüler¹ and Kathrin Wagner¹

¹Thünen Institute of Organic Farming, Germany, ²Technische Universität München, Chair of Organic Agriculture and Agronomy, Germany, ³Thünen Institute of Farm Economics, Germany, ⁴Ingenieurbüro für Ökologie und Landwirtschaft, Germany; sylvia.warnecke@thuenen.de

Parameters of animal health and welfare and environmental performance of farms are possibly
correlated. This study's aim is to illustrate those relationships as they became apparent from
initial farm analyses for 9 of 38 dairy farms of a German farm network (www.pilotbetriebe.de).
We assessed the status of dairy cow welfare using the Welfare Quality® Assessment protocol
for cattle and completed it with medical treatment data. Farm management was analysed with
the model REPRO e.g. with focus on N loss and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Scores
(in italics) were assigned to the results. For example, a conventional farm of the network (48
dehorned cows, cubicles with rubber mats, slatted floor, no outdoor access, 1.6 livestock units/
ha, ration based on maize and grass silage, farm-grown concentrates and imported soybeans)
had an overall welfare score of acceptable. At criteria level, absence of prolonged hunger (59.3)
pointed out a link between welfare and sustainability: Despite feed import, milk yield was
rather low (7,250 kg ECM/cow/a, 0.59) and GHG emissions were high (1,269 g CO₂/kg ECM,
0.26). Reason was that feed quality produced on farm was low although energy input into plant
production was high (15.4 GJ/ha, 0.46) at high energy efficiency (12.8, 0.88). Humus balance
was negative (-226 kg C/ha, 0). Results of such status-quo analyses were discussed in farmer-
advisor-scientist workshops within the frame of the farmer's objectives to find improvement
measures. Those were put into scenarios for REPRO. We expect to see a high potential for
the conjunct improvement of animal health and welfare and environmental performance for
individual farms.
# Preliminary results on the practice of tail docking in Merino Fine Wool sheep in South Africa

Anna J. Scholtz<fnref n="1" />, Elizabeth Du Toit<fnref n="2" /> and Schalk W.P. Cloete<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="3" />

The tails of most South African sheep breeds are docked routinely. Arguments for docking are: appearance (mainly based on human preference), an improved reproduction; reduced faecal contamination of the breech region; greater marketability; improved weight gain and ease of shearing. Tail docking is also performed in wool sheep to avoid welfare problems associated with breech blowfly strike. However, tail docking is a key welfare issue, shown to cause pain and distress, regardless of the technique used or the age of the lamb. This study assessed the impact of tail docking in 173 fine wool Merinos at Tygerhoek research farm during the 2016 lambing season. The tails of lambs in the control group were left intact while the tails of lambs in the docked group were docked with a hot iron at the third palpable joint at roughly 3 weeks of age. Lambs were randomly allocated to either treatment within sexes. The docked and control groups did not differ for mean birth weight, indicating no bias on size due to sampling. Survival from docking to weaning at 16 weeks of age, weaning weights and breech blowfly strikes were recorded. Proportions were assessed with either χ<fnref n="2" /> methods or the Fisher's exact probability test (FET) in the case of low frequencies. Weaning weights were analysed with least-squares procedures. Weaning weights (respectively 26.9±0.6 and 26.9±0.5 kg for the docked and control groups) and lamb survival (respectively 92.0 and 91.8%) did not differ between the experimental groups. The percentages of ram lambs that were struck were 8.3 and 6.0% for the docked and the control groups respectively (FET=0.69). Corresponding percentages for ewe lambs were 2.6 and 6.3% (FET=0.62). The overall frequencies of lambs suffering from breech strike across sexes did not differ between groups (5.3 vs 6.1%; χ<fnref n="2" />=0.014; P=0.91). Preliminary results suggest that tail docking had no evident advantage in any of the traits measured.

<footnote n="1">¹Institute for Animal Production: Elsenburg, Private Bag X1, Elsenburg 7607, South Africa,</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Institute for Animal Production: Tygerhoek, P.O. Box, Riviersonderend 7250, South Africa,</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Department of Animal Sciences, University of Stellenbosch, Matieland 7600, South Africa;
ansies@elsenburg.com</footnote>
**On-farm assessment of welfare in dairy farming and its impacts on measures of sustainability**

Stephan Ebschke and Eberhard Von Borell

Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Germany; stephan.ebschke@landw.uni-halle.de

A welfare assessment tool for dairy farms was developed as an extension of an already existing analytical programme based on scientific principles ('REPRO') mainly used for the evaluation of process sustainability in arable farming. Our approach was to link on-farm animal welfare indicators to ecological implications. Twenty three German dairy farms (of which 5 were organic) of various regions were analysed for nutrient flow and emission sources relative to specific housing and management conditions. The assessment of animal welfare was based primarily on already existing valid and practicable methodologies such as WQ*, 'Cows and More' as well as other benchmarking tools based on critical control points. In detail, evaluation was based on four weighted indicator groups, listed in increasing order: housing environment (resource/management based), yield (management/animal based), health (management/ animal based), body condition and behaviour (animal based). In addition, a mix of at least eleven indicators was used for each group. Ecological sustainability analysis revealed a highly variable greenhouse gas (GHG) balance ranging from 0.74 to 1.34 CO₂-eq per kg ECM (energy corrected milk). Culling rate (ranging from 19% to 43% among our 23 farms), as a cumulated indicator for several welfare problems, would improve sustainability balance by 0.7 to 10.3% when standardised to a target value of 23%. Diseases such as mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and lameness that result into reduced feed intake, milk production and eventually to a reduced longevity add to an increase in GHG balance in a range of 1.5 to 11.6%. The results indicate that animal health and welfare substantially impacts production efficiency and sustainability.
Development of furnished cages reusing conventional cages for laying hens

Tsuyoshi Shimmura¹, Naoko Maekawa², Satoshi Hirahara³ and Toshio Tanaka²

¹Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Department of Biological Production, Japan,

²Azabu University, School of Veterinary Medicine, Japan, ³Kanagawa Agricultural Technology Center, Japan; shimmura@go.tuat.ac.jp

Various alternative housing systems for laying hens have been developed. Furnished cages have advantages, i.e. improving on some behavioural problems and keeping high productivity. However, the high cost to introduce them into farms have remained unresolved. To decrease the introduction cost, we developed furnished cages by reusing conventional cages. We made the furnished cages by adding the resources (plastic sheet and artificial turf for nest area, and wooden perch) to conventional cages. The average cost to make them was $2.1, and the average construction time by the farmer was ten minutes per cage. We prepared the total six nest designs by combining two floor designs (artificial turf floor or cage floor) and three surrounding designs (all side surrounding, one side surrounding, or no surrounding). We obtained six replicates by assigning a total 144 hens into each design (four hens/cage; 630 cm²/hen). We measured behaviour, physical condition, production and egg quality. The data were analysed using repeated measure ANOVA followed by Tukey-Kramer test. When compared the floor designs in nest, dust-bathing and litter-exploring were observed only in cages with artificial turf floor. The plumage damage and the proportion of eggs laid outside nest were also lower in cages with artificial turf floor than cage floor (P<0.05). Next when compared the surrounding designs in nest, dust-bathing, litter-exploring and active behaviour were observed more frequently in cage with one side surrounding than all side surrounding (P<0.05). The plumage damage was lower in cages with one and all side surrounding than no surrounding (P<0.05). These results suggested that the cage with artificial turf floor and one side surrounding may be effective when develop the furnished cages with low introduction cost.
Dominance effects on grazing patterns in horses in nature reserves

Hilde Vervaecke¹, Johan Miechielssens¹, Jan Van Uytvanck² and Maurice Hoffmann²

¹Odisee University College, Agro- and Biotechnology, Belgium, ²INBO Research Institute for Nature and Forest, Belgium; hilde.vervaecke@odisee.be

Nature reserve managers aim to evaluate the spatial position and presumed behaviour of a group of introduced large herbivores by using telemetric data of one randomly selected individual. We hypothesized that dominance effects can cause variations in grazing patterns. A group of five Konik horses was observed during summer in a Belgian coastal dune reserve Westhoek-Zuid of 60 ha. All agonistic interactions were scored and the hierarchy was analysed. For each horse 25 focals of 15 minutes were conducted to score behaviour and position with 90 seconds intervals. The horses stayed predominantly in dune grassland (34.10%), in woody areas (25.30%), rough scrub areas (14.20%) and in rough grassland vegetation (11.60%). The horses foraged during 59.85% of their time, rested (standing and lying) during 36.80% and moved during 3.35% of their time. The horses diet was composed for 87.73% of grasses, i.e. 66.90% long grasses (average count: 96, SD=39.35) and 33.10% short grasses (average count: 47.8, SD=13.44). Short grasses were rarer but most preferred and were consumed relatively more by higher ranking horses (rank-short grass intake: rs=-0.98), whereas long grass was consumed more by low ranking horses (rank-long grass intake: rs=0.94). This implies rank related monopolization of better quality grass when groups move in patchy grasslands. Often the poorer long-grassed vegetation types are targeted by nature managers, although these are least preferred by the animals. The choice of an adequate group size should be such that the low ranking animals are forced into eating the suboptimal vegetation, without harming their nutritional welfare. The selection of both the lowest and highest ranking individual will give a better view on the group grazing behaviour than the selection of a random animal.
# Assessing sustainability of welfare improvement in working equids in Petra, Jordan

*Ashleigh Brown*

*Brooke, United Kingdom; ashleigh@thebrooke.org*

Brooke is an international charity aiming to sustainably improve working equine welfare. Having achieved welfare improvement and established local healthcare systems, Brooke reduced intervention activities in Petra, Jordan from 2011; this study aimed to assess the extent to which welfare was subsequently sustained. Welfare data were collected using Brooke's Standardised Equine-Based Welfare Assessment Tool (SEBWAT) in December 2010, February 2013 and December 2016 from a purposive sample of 136, 108, 110 donkeys/mules (DM); 128, 97, 67 riding horses (RH); and 26, 27, 27 (all) carriage horses (CH). Data were collected by the same observer at the same sites under similar climatic conditions. The following indicators showed sustained improvement over 2010, 2013 and 2016, respectively. Proportion of underweight equids remained stable following improvement in DM (73%, 62%, 60%) and CH (42%, 15%, 19%), and continued improvement in RH (25%, 17%, 3%). Forelimb hoof shape abnormalities continued improvement in DM (18%, 5%, 1%), RH (37%, 28%, 4%) and CH (38%, 30%, 4%), and for hindlimbs remained stable following improvement in DM (12%, 2%, 3%), RH (14%, 8%, 6%) and CH (8%, 4%, 4%). Severe lameness reduced to negligible in RH (8%, 9%, 2%) and improved since prior assessment in CH (15%, 33%, 7%). For positive behaviour, improvement continued in RH (89%, 92%, 97%), and since prior assessment in CH (92%, 78%, 85%); DM remained stable (82%, 82%, 81%). Cessation of intervention activities coincided with severely diminished tourist numbers in Jordan following the 'Arab Spring' in 2011, negatively impacting animal owners' income. However, these results indicate that neither factor resulted in deterioration of welfare status, suggesting the potential for welfare deficit due to diminished owner income may be offset by benefits from reduced workload, and that welfare improvements can be sustained beyond Brooke presence.
**Association of transition health with early culling in dairy cows under pasture-based
systems**

Pilar Sepúlveda-Varas¹,² and Constanza Hernández-Gotelli²

¹Centro Colaborador de OIE para el Bienestar Animal Chile-Uruguay-México, Chile, ²Universidad Austral de Chile, Instituto de Ciencias Clínicas, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Chile; pilar.sepulveda@uach.cl

High rates of involuntary culling and diseases in early lactation are signs of poor animal welfare. The aim of this preliminary study was to evaluate the influence of illness after calving on the culling rate in early lactation grazing dairy cows. Data were collected during the late autumn and spring calving season from April to November of 2016 on seven dairy farms in the southern Chile, including 1,801 cows that calved during this time. Average herd size was 326±91 (±SD) with milk production averaging 7,260±920 kg/lactation (±SD). Disease and culling data (slaughter/death) were extracted from on-farm computer herd management software. Only postcalving diseases that were consistently recorded across herds were considered, including retained placenta, mastitis, metritis and milk fever. Data were exported to SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) for statistical analysis. The effect of illness after calving on the number of cows culled (slaughter/death) was tested using a Chi-squared test. Overall, 17% of the cows studied developed at least one clinical disease during the first month after calving and the average culling rate was 7.9%. Mean and median number of lactations of cows at culling was 3.5±1.8 (±SD) and 4 lactations, respectively. Considering the time interval after last calving to culling, 64.3% were culled in the first 100 days in milk compared with 35.6% after 100 days. Cows that developed at least one clinical health event after calving were more likely to be culled in the first 100 days in milk than the no clinical event cows (8.39 vs 4.43%, respectively; P=0.004). The decision to cull was likely driven by a combination of ill health and low production in the first weeks of lactation. Our preliminary results are the first to show the effect of transition diseases on cull status in cows under pasture-based Chilean farms. These results are part of a bigger project that includes 40 farms which are still under evaluation.
**Implicit presence of animal welfare features in agricultural economic policy assessment models**

Bouda Vosough Ahmadi

SRUC, Land Economy, Environment and Society Research Group, United Kingdom;

bouda.v.ahmadi@sruc.ac.uk

Quantitative economic models are commonly used for ex ante assessment of various agricultural policies such as the common agricultural policy (CAP) and its reforms in Europe. In recent years, these policies are not only used to support producers in form of direct payment as income support but also they contribute to providing basic public good such as environmental protection and promoting biodiversity. In spite of the fact that majority of these models inherently incorporate various animal welfare features, but quite often these aspects are either not considered as first priority or are not explicitly mentioned as important consequences of proposed policy changes. For example ensuring nutritional requirements and feed demands of various species of farm animals, their demand for both simple and skilled labour and management forces, their optimum production levels, as well as their optimum space requirements and stocking densities are among important features that overall determine the state of farm animal welfare. Under the current CAP, safeguarding animal welfare is only guaranteed by a set of regulations known as cross-compliance that make farmers who do not comply with certain requirements subject to reductions of or exclusion from direct support. The aims of this paper are two folds: first, to describe and discuss the four mentioned important animal welfare features that are implicitly included in the commonly used economic policy assessment models and second, to propose alternatives for some aspects of the current cross-compliance system by explicitly including a set of well-defined and established animal welfare requirements in the policy assessment models that can be explicitly quantified and assessed by the models.
**Restraint of sows during lactation is a risk for preweaning mortality and increased hair cortisol**

Liat Morgan¹, Eyal Klement¹, Jerry Meyer², Shiri Novak¹, Weissam Abu-Ahmad¹, Ofer Doron³, Shakked Navon³ and Tal Raz¹

¹Koret School of Veterinary Medicine, The Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agricultural, Food & Environ, Israel, ²University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, USA, ³Lahav C.R.O, Comprehensive Pre-clinical Services, Lahav, Israel; liat.morgan@mail.huji.ac.il

Improving lactating sows' welfare can potentially enhance swine farms economics by maximizing piglet survival and health. The objective of the current study was to examine production and welfare parameters of sows and their piglets during lactation, when free crates system is used after variable restraint periods in conventional crates. Sows (n=80) were housed in conventional crates but confinement bars were opened after different periods, from 3 days after farrowing to full restraint. For certain analyses sows were grouped into short restraint group (SR; 3-9 days after farrowing) and long restrain group (LR; 14-21 days). Chronic stress was evaluated by hair cortisol assay at the end of lactation. Multiple linear regression revealed that for any additional day in restraint, piglets weaning rate (% weaned) significantly decreases by 0.4% (P<0.05); furthermore, when litter size increases by one piglet, weaning rate significantly decreases by 3.4% (P<0.01). Advanced mixed effects model also showed that litter size and restraint were risks for pre-weaning mortality, with lower mortality in the SR as compared to LR (2.7±0.3 vs 3±0.4 dead piglets/ litter, respectively). Total number of weaned piglets per litter was significantly higher in SR as compared to LR (10.3±0.3 vs 9.7±0.3; P<0.05), while there were no differences in litter size parameters after farrowing. Total litter weight on weaning day was 68.8±2.2 kg in SR and 64.9±1.8 kg LR (P=0.12). Hair Cortisol was significantly lower in sows in SR (36.3±4.1 vs 42.4±2.4 pg/mg; P<0.05). Medical treatments during lactation (e.g. antibiotics; NSAID) tended to be less common in SR, in sows (21.9 vs 40%; P=0.1219) and in piglets (12.4 vs 17.1%; P=0.0609). Results from the current study support the conclusion that shortening restrain period during lactation can improve welfare, decrease chronic stress and maximize piglet survival, health and production.
**The art of dialogue**

Noelle Aarts

Wageningen University and Research, Department of Social Sciences, the Netherlands;

noelle.aarts@wur.nl

When faced with complex and contested issues, in which many stakeholders are involved with different backgrounds and interests, it is nowadays common to call for a dialogue. That also applies to the assessment of animal welfare in livestock production. However, research shows that it is extremely difficult to get engaged in a conversation that deserves to be called a dialogue in the sense that nobody tries to win and that participants are open to co-develop new common perspectives. How should we understand this complex and complicated landscape of differing perspectives, interests, values and emotions? How can we engage in meaningful and constructive dialogue about animal welfare in livestock breeding, across conflicting and conflictive views, in order to find solutions, while valuing both feelings and facts? How can we transform disagreements and different perspectives into a productive conversation that addresses relevant issues and their potential solutions? In this keynote, mechanisms will be identified that help to understand why conversations develop as they do, why it is so difficult to achieve a dialogue and what could be done to improve the quality of our conversations. The starting point is not the individual skills or shortcomings of participants in the conversation. Instead we focus on understanding the interaction, on how utterances of people are being interpreted by others, on the mechanisms that are at play and how this affects the course of the conversation.
**Dairy industry stakeholder perceptions of British Columbia's emergency slaughter program**

Katherine E. Koralesky and David Fraser

University of British Columbia, Animal Welfare Program, Canada; katie.koralesky@alumni.ubc.ca

When dealing with acutely injured or non-ambulatory dairy cows, producers must decide whether to treat, ship, euthanize, or (where permitted) use on-farm emergency slaughter. The emergency slaughter program (ESP) is available to producers in British Columbia if a cow cannot be transported humanely but is fit for human consumption. Cows must first pass an ante-mortem inspection performed by a veterinarian, and are then killed on farm and transported to a slaughterhouse within 2 h. To understand how dairy industry stakeholders perceive the ESP, we conducted a qualitative study involving 25 interviews and 3 focus groups with 40 dairy producers, veterinarians, government employees, transporters, and auction market staff. Transcribed interviews were analysed in NVivo 11 software using thematic analysis to assist data coding and interpretation. Participants had similar perceptions of the ESP, but underlying values guided whether they used the program. First, regarding cow welfare, some felt the ESP offered an incentive to hasten death for injured animals, while others believed the ESP delayed the death of animals that should be euthanized immediately. Second, regarding the reputation of the dairy sector, some saw the ESP as preventing transport of compromised cows to public auction, while others were opposed to seeking financial gain from injured cows. Third, while some regarded veterinary oversight as increasing the legitimacy of the program, others saw potential for a conflict of interest in veterinarian/producer relationships. Despite these differences, shared recommendations for the program include: (1) extending abattoir hours for emergency slaughter animals; (2) additional transporter availability; (3) stricter rules on when the ESP can occur; and (4) producer education about proactive decision-making for compromised cows. This insight can encourage discussions within the sector about improving the ESP for stakeholders. This research provides a case study in using stakeholder perceptions to help guide policy and program development.
Does the background matter? People's perception of pictures of pigs in different farm settings

Sarah Gauly¹, Marie Von Meyer-Höfer¹, Achim Spiller¹ and Gesa Busch²

¹Georg-August-University Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Germany, ²Free University of Bolzano, Faculty of Science and Technology, Italy; gesa.busch@unibz.it

Public discussions about animal welfare in livestock farming involve the increased use of pictures in the media. Such pictures can be composed very differently ranging from airbrushed pictures for marketing purposes up to shocking pictures about grievances in farming. The perception of such pictures may be influenced by both, the animals' appearance as well as the environment in which it is depicted. The aim of this study is to analyse the effects of picture composition (pig and pen) on peoples' perception of pig welfare and pen evaluation. To achieve this aim, 1,019 German residents took part in an online survey in June/July 2016. Using a 2×2 factorial design, four modified pictures showing a pig ('happy' or 'unhappy'-looking) in a pen (slatted floor or straw bedding) were evaluated by respondents regarding perceived pig welfare and pen characteristics. 5-point semantic differential scales from -2 to 0 to +2 were used. A General Linear Model and t-tests were calculated with IBM SPSS Statistics to analyse effects on picture evaluation. Overall, the effect of the pen was the largest on picture evaluation (η²=0.392, P≤0.001) followed by the effect of the pig (η²=0.099, P≤0.001). The welfare of both, the 'happy' and 'unhappy' pig, was always rated lower in the slatted floor setting than in the straw setting and the 'unhappy pig' on straw achieved better welfare-values compared to the 'happy pig' on slatted floor (e.g. evaluation of health: 'happy' pig μ<sub>straw</sub>=0.87 and μ<sub>slatted</sub>=0.22; 'unhappy' pig μ<sub>straw</sub>=0.49 and μ<sub>slatted</sub>=-0.16; P≤0.001). The straw pen was rated more positive compared to the slatted floor pen and the evaluation only slightly differed depending on pigs' expression (e.g. evaluation of species-appropriateness: straw pen μ<sub>happy</sub>=0.56 and μ<sub>unhappy</sub>=0.48; slatted floor pen μ<sub>happy</sub>=-1.08 and μ<sub>unhappy</sub>=-1.16, P≤0.001). The results show that public perceptions of a contentious husbandry system (pen with slatted floor) is not altered by showing positive appearing animals whereas a more positive perceived system (pen with straw) enhances the welfare perception of the animal on pictures.
**Addressing the social dilemma in animal-friendly product choice with positioning strategies**

Lenka Van Riemsdijk¹,², Paul T.M. Ingenbleek², Gerrita Van Der Veen¹ and Hans C.M. Van Trijp²
¹University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Research Centre for Innovation in Business and Communication, the Netherlands, ²Wageningen University, Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, the Netherlands; lenka.vanriemsdijk@hu.nl

Despite the continuing attention for animal welfare in society, consumer product choices remain an important barrier for animal-friendly improvements in animal-based production systems. This paper aims to address this issue by viewing animal-friendly product choice as a social dilemma between maximizing the buyer's self-interest and the collective interest, which presents a main challenge of marketing animal-friendly products. To address the social dilemma, this study proposes positioning strategies that reinforce the animal welfare label with different types of complementary consumption values, namely the functional, emotional, social and epistemic value. As consumers differ in their behaviour in social dilemmas, this study also measures the impact of a motivational conflict, which refers to individual differences in the relative importance of collective interest and self-interest, on animal-friendly product choice. The strategies were empirically tested in a choice experiment conducted with 575 Dutch meat shoppers. The results showed that two strategies – emotional and epistemic – are effective in increasing consumer perceptions of the respective consumption values, both with a small, yet significant effect (P=0.04 and 0.03 respectively, calculated with Dunnett one-way t-tests). These insights imply that animal welfare labels that call on consumer feelings or provoke curiosity may be particularly effective in driving consumers towards a more animal-friendly food choice. Logistic regression showed that while consumers with high motivational conflict are more likely to choose animal-friendly products (odds ratio=2.25, P<0.001), they do so less often if the total perceived value of such products increases than consumers with low motivational conflict (odds ratio=0.54, P=0.001). This result shows new opportunities for marketing animal-friendly products, as it suggests that positioning strategies emphasizing the ‘what’s in it for me’ can even drive those consumers who don’t care about animals towards animal-friendly product choices.
Sheep farmers' behavioural attitudes are associated with intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction

Karianne Muri¹, Per Arne Tufte² and Randi Oppermann Moe¹

¹Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, Norway, ²Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Public Administration and Leadership, Norway; karianne.muri@nmbu.no

A number of studies have provided evidence for a relationship between stockpeople's attitudes and behaviour, and the subsequent behavioural response and performance of the animals. The work environment is known to affect work motivation and job satisfaction, and in turn, these factors could affect the farmers' attitudes to handling their livestock, and thus the quality and quantity of human-animal interactions. In Norway, where sheep generally are housed throughout the cold season (mean flock size: 71.5 ewes), there is an increasing interest in more simple and less costly building solutions. In the SheepHouse project, we developed and distributed a web-based questionnaire (using QuestBack™) to 3,764 Norwegian sheep farmers (response rate 32%) to explore the effects of different housing solutions on both sheep and farmer well-being. The aim of this part of the study is to identify the most important predictors of the sheep farmers' attitudes towards handling sheep. Multi-item rating scales measuring attitudes, job satisfaction and work motivation were analysed using principal-component factor analysis. New index variables were created for use in regression analyses. Preliminary regression models indicate that the farmers' attitudes to positive handling of their sheep are significantly and positively associated with intrinsic work motivation (i.e. valuing animal welfare, a meaningful job and the lifestyle of farming) (P<0.001) and affective job satisfaction (P<0.001), explaining 22% of the variance. Extrinsic work motivation (e.g. valuing high salary) was not significantly associated with attitudes, nor was the type of farm building. The results show that farmers who are internally motivated and have a high level of job satisfaction also have more positive attitudes towards sheep handling. This suggest that recruiting stockpeople with a strong intrinsic work motivation and focusing on factors that can enhance their job satisfaction may be of importance in improving sheep welfare.
**Multi-level animal welfare labels reflect consumer preferences: insights from a systematic review**

Manika Rödiger, Meike Janssen and Ulrich Hamm

Agricultural and Food Marketing, Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel, Germany;
m.roediger@uni-kassel.de

The objectives of this study were to analyse consumer preferences for animal welfare-friendly husbandry systems, especially the preferences for outdoor access of farm animals, and to assess the relative size of consumer segments which place a high importance on animal welfare-friendly husbandry systems. The analysis was based on a systematic review of empirical journal articles with a focus on meat and milk producing farm animals. In total, 32 studies were analysed, 25 on consumer preferences and 15 on segmentation (eight studies reported both). All 25 studies on consumer preferences tested outdoor access for animals as one among other product attributes and revealed its significant positive and strong influence on consumer preferences for meat and milk. The studies further showed that consumers were willing to pay a premium for outdoor access of farm animals. All 15 studies on consumer segmentation identified at least one segment which gave the animal welfare-friendliness of the husbandry system the highest priority (with a size of 9 to 54% of the respective sample). The majority of segmentation studies identified one or more additional consumer segments for which other attributes were more important, however animal welfare was still ranked high in importance. Currently, in some EU countries consumers only have the choice between products sold as organic or as conventional (i.e. according to the minimum legal requirements). Organic husbandry systems, which require amongst others outdoor access for farm animals, are highly valued by small consumer segments in EU countries. Our review showed, however, that there is a multi-level market for products from in between organic and conventional standards, which offers opportunities for price differentiation according to animal husbandry systems.
**Antibiotic use: balancing consumer concerns and animal welfare**

Fiona Gwendolen Roberts¹, John Kirkpatrick² and Gerald Crown¹

¹NSF International, Hanborough Business Park, Long Hanborough, Oxon OX29 8SJ, United Kingdom, ²Tesco Stores (UK) Ltd, Progress House, The Boulevard Shire Park, Welwyn Garden City, Herts AL7 1RZ, United Kingdom; fiona@foodsecure.co.uk

In recognition that the emergence of antimicrobial resistance and the potential link to antibiotic use in livestock are a consumer concern, Tesco (UK) places the responsible use of medicines as a core element to the Agricultural Requirements in all livestock supply chains. This is supported by an associated programme of independent on-farm inspections and monthly submitted Outcome Measure data, addressing key welfare indicators. Farm inspection and subsequent data management and analysis is undertaken by Integra Food Secure Ltd, an independent UKAS accredited inspection body No.111; with global expertise in the assessment of farm animal welfare. A key aim is to support the supply chain in strategies to reduce antibiotic usage and to evidence that this is achievable without compromising animal welfare. To evaluate the impact of reduction strategies, data has been collated across the global broiler supply chain over the last 18 months; focussing on antibiotic usage (mg/kg), mortality (%), hockburn (%) and pododermatitis (%). Results indicate that antibiotic usage in the supply chain follows a binomial distribution with discrete ‘low’ (4.5±4.2 mg/kg) and ‘high’ (21.7±7.2 mg/kg) user populations. Key welfare indices, such as levels of pododermatitis are positively correlated (0.49) with antibiotic use. A 62% reduction in use (P<0.05) has been achieved across UK broiler integrations; and importantly this is without significantly increasing on-farm mortality. There is no statistically significant seasonal effect but there does appear to be a threshold of approx. 3 mg/kg below which sustained reduction is challenging. The work demonstrates the value of a supported process of data collection and analysis to drive improvement in a supply chain, evidence good practice and support a consumer facing retail position.
**Supply chain's lack of response to emerging needs for clenbuterol-free meat: a case study in Mexico**

Miriam Elizabeth Perez-Luna

Wageningen University and Research, Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, the Netherlands;
miriam.perezluna@wur.nl

The supply of bovine meat in the emerging market of Mexico involves both public health risk and animal welfare concerns due to the illegal involvement of clenbuterol hydrochloride in the fattening of the cattle. Previous studies have shown expressed and latent needs of end consumers for clenbuterol-free meat in Texcoco, Mexico, yet little is known, from a supply chain perspective, about the moderators intervening the response to these needs. This case study is constituted by qualitative face-to-face semi-structured interviews to members of the supply chain with the aim to explore the reasons behind the lack of supply of clenbuterol-free bovine meat. A unique case of an online submission of an interviewer's questionnaire to a slaughterhouse due to availability constraints during the data collection is included as well. Five farmers, two middlemen, three slaughterhouses, and four butchers, under condition of anonymity, provided insights of the current situation of the supply chain in regards of the use of the beta agonist. The choice of the units of analysis was based on their role within the supply chain and its access was through snowball sampling technique. Coding and analysis of the respondents' answers was aided by the software ATLAS.ti v7. A consensus was reached by all the respondents with the expressed needs of their customers for lean meat produced with clenbuterol, and no expressed needs for clenbuterol-free meat. Likewise, they all maintained an emphasis on production efficiency-related benefits of clenbuterol, lack of entrepreneurship for proactive differentiation and innovation of their offer, and mentioned the violability of the law against handling, possessing, and using this substance. Since this supply chain showed to be customer-led, there is a call for latent needs for clenbuterol-free meat to be expressed and thus fulfilled. Furthermore, this study discloses the urge for the incorporation of animal welfare and human health safeguarding concerns in the consumers' demands and thus, the supply chain members activities. It also proposes marketing-related interventions for promoting the supply of clenbuterol-free meat which can gradually disassociate the members of the supply chain from illegal and unhealthy practices.
Role of agricultural colleges in framing future farmers’ perception of animal welfare

Inger Anneberg¹, Peter Sandøe² and Jesper Lassen³

¹Aarhus University, Department of Animal Science, Denmark, ²University of Copenhagen, Department of Large Animal Sciences, Denmark, ³University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics, Denmark; inger.anneberg@anis.au.dk

The welfare of farm animals depends on development in production systems, economic drivers and regulation, but also human factors such as management strategies, communication, training and knowledge sharing play a role. Since the years spent at agricultural colleges are likely to influence the coming farmers and their perception of animal welfare, the aim of this paper is to examine the role agricultural colleges have in forming future farmers’ knowledge and understanding of animal welfare. The study used a qualitative approach and included observations from the classrooms as well as nine interviews with teachers at four agricultural colleges in Denmark. The data (transcripts of the interviews and notes from observations) was subsequently coded and analysed using systematic text condensation. The study showed how the animal welfare had an important role in the teaching at Danish agricultural colleges. It is a cross-cutting subject that should be and is included in the curriculum when relevant. Differences in teachers’ perception of and experience with animal welfare resulted in dilemmas. Our study also showed how teachers face challenges in getting access to diverse knowledge about animal welfare. Finally, our study pointed towards a conflict over the role and importance of animal welfare as a theme during the extended periods of vocational training at farms, which is an important part of the education, and during classroom teaching at the colleges. Typically, teacher’s experience that the students consider working on farms as a more relevant basis for discussing animal welfare than the more academic knowledge presented by the teachers. Based on this we will discuss how well colleges equip coming farmers to work with and discuss different understandings of animal welfare.
Citizens perceive broiler welfare differently from poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians

Mariska Van Asselt¹,², E. Dinand Ekkel², Bas Kemp¹ and Elsbeth N. Stassen¹

¹Wageningen University & Research, Adaptation Physiology Group, the Netherlands, ²Aeres University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands; m.van.asselt@aeres.nl

In society, questions have been raised about broiler welfare and about how broilers should be
kept. Insight into perceptions of broiler welfare from different stakeholder groups could provide
input how to deal with these public concerns. Therefore, a survey by means of a questionnaire
was done to study broiler welfare perceptions by Dutch citizens (n=2,259), poultry farmers
(n=100) and poultry veterinarians (n=41) in March and April 2014. A randomly selected panel
of Dutch citizens, representative for the Netherlands, was invited to participate (CentERdata,
the Netherlands). Farmers and veterinarians were invited by an email from their professional
organisations. Respondents scored on five-point Likert scales (1) the welfare of broilers in a
conventional, conventional plus, free-range and organic system (1=poor welfare, 5=excellent
welfare), and (2) the influence of various welfare aspects on animal welfare (1=absolutely no
influence, 5=absolutely does influence). Differences among mean scores of the stakeholder
groups were analysed with ANOVA and the post-hoc Games-Howell test. Citizens perceived
the welfare of broilers kept in the conventional (mean±SE: 2.40±0.023) and conventional
plus (3.19±0.020) systems lower (P<0.001) than did farmers (3.90±0.119; 4.18±0.110) and
veterinarians (3.85±0.129; 4.37±0.115). However, farmers (2.82±0.153) and veterinarians
(3.12±0.213) perceived broiler welfare in organic systems lower (P<0.001) than did citizens
(4.33±0.018). These differences in welfare scores could be explained by different perceptions
of aspects of animal welfare. Compared to professionals, citizens perceived the influence on
animal welfare of aspects related to natural behaviour – space to move around freely, natural
needs, outdoor access, *ad libitum* feed and water, scratching and dust bathing opportunities, and
enrichment – higher (P<0.05) and the influence of the aspects pain and anxiety or stress, lower
(P<0.05). The biggest difference in scores between the stakeholder groups regarded the aspect
outdoor access. These different perceptions of stakeholder groups may have consequences for
the future of broiler husbandry.
# Ambition and reality of the EU animal welfare legislation on long distance animal transport

Julia Havenstein

Animals' Angels e. V., Germany; kontakt@animals-angels.de

The EU offers a broad range of animal welfare rules dealing with major welfare concerns regarding rearing, transport and slaughter offering good enforcement tools. With the introduction of Article 13 TFEU, the EU goes even further by recognizing animals as sentient beings, requiring that full regard shall be paid to their welfare when formulating and implementing EU policies. This reflects the concern of the EU citizens for animals and their ethical values. They want animal suffering to be avoided and they rely on EU institutions, official member state bodies and the European farming industry to comply with EU legislation. However, practice too often paints a different picture: farm animal welfare rules are ignored, even systematically. Enforcement bodies are powerless or overwhelmed by other priorities. When it comes to decisions between animal welfare and economic interests, economics win while the animals lose out. The examples are manifold and concern all species, industry sectors and production processes. We identify this inconsistency on the example of long distance transports of live animals destined for slaughter, showing how reality looks like for these animals. For example, in 2016, during several large-scale investigations at the Turkish-Bulgarian border, our organization inspected 330 animal transports out of which 100% were in violation of Council Regulation (EC) No 01/2005. We thus come to the result that reality lingers behind the ambitions of the EU animal welfare laws and that authorities too often fail to properly implement animal welfare legislation. Animal welfare is not just window dressing. The EU has to stick to its own values setting clear limits to purely economic interests. The aim of the EU and its institutions cannot only be market optimization, but in the first place the defence of its values and of the ethical demands of its citizens.
A framework for review of private animal health and welfare standards in QA programmes

Laura Boyle¹, Joanna Marchewka², Alison Hanlon³ and Simon More³

¹Teagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland, ²Institute of Genetics and Animal Breeding of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Department of Animal Behaviour, ul., Magdalenka, Poland, ³University College Dublin, School of Veterinary Medicine, Dublin, Ireland; laura.boyle@teagasc.ie

In recent years, ‘private standards’ (PS) in animal health and welfare (AHW) are increasingly
common. These are voluntary standards developed by non-governmental organisations, used
for the certification and labelling of animal products under quality assurance (QA) schemes.
PS may not be scrutinised to the same degree as public standards. Therefore the aim was
to develop a framework to facilitate the review of PS in AHW. We conducted a theoretical
study in which we considered benefits and concerns about the use of AHW standards in QA
programmes and evaluated the process of developing public standards, particularly by the
OIE. Benefits of PS in AHW are that they provide opportunities for product differentiation
and being more easily developed and implemented are more responsive to change than public
standards. PS may also bring financial benefit to farmers from real improvements to AHW
provided that they incorporate a continuous improvement approach. Concerns include lack of
harmonisation and inefficiencies whereby QA programme may not work synergistically with
existing international/national/regional/sector-level efforts towards improved AHW (e.g. on-
farm auditing requirements, AW research findings). Others include costs of compliance, and
the credibility of associated claims. The framework seeks: (1) to clarify the primary programme
goal(s), the measureable outputs relevant to AHW, and the primary programme beneficiaries;
and (2) to evaluate programme effectiveness, efficiency and transparency. It represents a
theoretical tool which can assist during the development or subsequent evaluation of PS and
thereby contribute to their refinement such that the concerns raised above can be addressed
and ultimately improvements achieved in AHW. We will use this tool to critique dairy cow
welfare QA schemes in four EU countries.
**Animal welfare in traditional mountain dairy cattle farms: how do consumers perceive complexity?**

Anna Zuliani¹, Lars Esbjerg², Klaus G. Grunert² and Stefano Bovolenta¹

¹University of Udine, Department of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Sciences, Italy, ²Aarhus University, Department of Management, MAPP Centre, Denmark; zuliani.anna.2@spes.uniud.it

This qualitative study aims at shedding light on perceptions regarding animal welfare in mountain dairy cheese production systems by investigating: (1) consumer knowledge of traditional mountain husbandry systems; (2) consumer understanding of animal welfare attributes currently employed in dairy cow welfare assessment; and (3) consumers' preference for mountain cheese labels with welfare claims. Focus group discussions targeted the three main consumer groups that purchase mountain cheese in the eastern Italian Alps, namely local communities living in the mountains, and Italian and German-speaking tourists living in urban lowlands. Focus groups consisted of 6-8 people recruited on a voluntary basis with the only criterion being that they were cheese purchasers. Participants from the local community were recruited through project advertisement at the local cheese shop. Italian and German-speaking tourists were recruited through the Slow-Food networks. A moderator guided the discussions, following a structured topic list composed of four steps. The introductory section aimed to introduce participants to each other in terms of outdoor activities, favourite foods and relationship with animals. In the second section, the topics of mountain environment and agriculture were investigated through a drawing exercise. The third section focused on dairy cows and welfare aspects using pictures from different mountain farms. The fourth section investigated cheese quality attributes and interest for animal welfare labels. Results were analysed and coded with NVivo software for qualitative research. Despite the overall positive attributes linked to mountain farming and mountain products that emerged in all groups, participants from lowland urban communities (mean elevation 270 m a.s.l.; mean inhabitants 97,270) and participants from the mountain community (mean elevation 570 m a.s.l.; mean inhabitants 1,330) emphasized different themes regarding mountain farming, animal welfare and cheese labels. Findings from this study will inform the development of quantitative research targeting consumers' view on animal welfare in mountain farms.
**Farmer apprentices' learning on animal welfare during farm practice is influenced by host farmers**

Mette Vaarst and Inger Anneberg

Aarhus University, Animal Science, Denmark; mette.vaarst@anis.au.dk

**Background:** In Denmark, farmers are educated at farmer colleges (up to 4 years 3 months). The education includes periods of practice on farms. Previous studies focused on farmer colleges' curriculum and teaching material on animal welfare suggested that the periods of on-farm practice influenced the apprentices' perceptions of animal welfare and their practical handling of animals. This study therefore aimed to investigate factors influencing the apprentices' learning about farm animal welfare in practice. **Methods:** Conduct of three focus group interviews with farmer apprentices (three agricultural colleges, in total 24 students) and 15 qualitative phone-interviews with host farmers, using semi-structured interview guides. The two samples of qualitative interviews were analysed using systematic text condensation. **Results:** Two major themes were found among hosts, viewing the apprentice as 'a young person going through a learning process including animal welfare' vs 'relatively cheap labour on the farm'. A dominant result among the apprentices was that some hosts, e.g. by not being present in daily work, did not acknowledge their learning process and need for dialogue about animal welfare. Both host farmers and apprentices gave examples how this could affect animal welfare, meaning spending less or almost no time on dialogue and articulating e.g. common observations and common considerations on appropriate actions and reactions regarding the management of animals. In such cases learning on animal welfare seemed to be mostly 'copying what the permanent farm staff did' without discussing or explaining it. Secondly, the contact between agricultural colleges and host farmers ranged between 'very close' to 'almost non-existing'. In cases where learning at the college seemed completely disconnected to the on-farm learning, the host farmer could risk to lose interest in the learning process of his/her apprentices, and the apprentice found that on-farm learning remained un-reflected and un-related to the topics taught in the college.
Do villagers trigger farmers' perceptions of animal welfare standards?

Nina Purwins¹, Tim Viergutz¹ and Birgit Schulze-Ehlers¹,²

¹University of Goettingen, Germany, ²Lincoln University, New Zealand;

nina.purwins@agr.uni-goettingen.de

While there is a wide consensus among politicians, researchers, and sector experts alike that farm animal welfare needs to be increased, farmers' willingness to implement certain animal welfare standards so far seems limited. In this respect, farmers' perceptions of the usefulness of animal welfare standards is key. This research examines the factors which determine farmers' perceptions of the usefulness of various animal welfare measures based on a quantitative questionnaire among pig producers in Germany (n=62, to be extended; we use 7-point-Likert-type scales, principal component analysis, and multiple regression analysis). The novelty of our approach lies in a particular focus on the impact of farmers' social networks and geographical localizations. Controlling for general attitudes towards animal welfare and the perceived ease of implementation, we find that the attitudes of people important to the farmers are the main drivers of the farmers' perceived usefulness of animal welfare standards (R²=0.53). Hence, if a farmer's social network demands the implementation of animal welfare standards, the farmer perceives the standards as useful to increase animal welfare. Additionally, the farmers' perceived attitudes in the social network are decomposed into the farmers' valuations of different groups of social relationships, i.e. family, friends, colleagues, and villagers. We detect that the impact of the villagers on the farmer is crucial (P=0.01). If the farmers value the attitudes of the villagers, they are likely to be confronted with a milieu which demands the implementation of animal welfare standards. Given these findings, we relate farmers' valuations of villagers to farmers' contact rates with different groups as well as indicators based on the respondents' geographic localizations. These findings may furthermore help to assess the social pressure a farmer is facing based on the geographic localizations and consequentially help to develop appropriate communication strategies for animal welfare endeavours.
**Brazilian citizens: expectations for dairy cattle welfare and awareness of contentious practices**

Clarissa Silva Cardoso¹, Angelica Roslindo¹, Marina A.g. Von Keyserlingk² and Maria José Hötzel¹

¹Laboratório de Etologia Aplicada e Bem-Estar Animal, Zootecnia e Desenvolvimento Rural, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil, ²Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Canada; clarissa.cardoso@gmail.com

We surveyed a representative sample of Brazilian urban citizens (n=300) with the aim to explore their knowledge and expectations on how farmers should care for their dairy cattle. Participants were invited to answer an open-ended question, describing how they imagined a dairy farm that cares about the welfare of their animals. Respondents were then asked, in closed questions, whether they were aware of (yes/no) and their position (support/indifferent/oppose) regarding four practices commonly used in dairy farms. The quality of care given to the animals on the farm was the main animal welfare issue raised by participants, followed by aspects related to feeding, cows' health, hygiene and quality of the facilities. Participants highlighted concerns related to use of chemical additives in the cows' feed or residues in milk, and associated this with milk quality. Participants also placed value on the ability of the cows to graze and to have lots of space to move around. Few respondents were aware of the specific management practices: early cow-calf separation, 35%; zero-grazing, 32%; culling the newborn male calf, 21%; and dehorning/disbudding without pain control, 11%. Although no participants raised these or any other specific management practices in response to the open-ended question, the majority was opposed to the practices (cow-calf separation, 89%; zero-grazing, 85%; culling the male calf, 90%, and dehorning/disbudding without pain control, 79%) when directly asked. This study confirms previous research showing that urban Brazilian citizens are largely unaware of livestock production practices and systems, but do have expectations regarding animal welfare.
**Social network analysis: opportunities and challenges for applications in wild and domestic animal populations**

Jens Krause

University of Leeds, Faculty of Biological Sciences, United Kingdom; j.krause@leeds.ac.uk

The field of social network analysis has rapidly developed in recent years. In most major taxonomic groups substantial progress has been made thanks to the tools and conceptual advances offered by social network analysis. In particular the arrival of reality mining (i.e. machine-collected data) has made it possible that huge datasets on the spatial and social dynamics of animals can be collected using standardized methods based on objective criteria. Nevertheless this opportunity has also created new challenges some of which I will discuss in this talk. In addition I will present a new approach to social networks using Markov chains which allows us to model the fission-fusion dynamics of populations.
Understanding tail biting in pigs through social network analysis

Yuzhi Li¹, Haifeng Zhang¹, Lee Johnston¹ and Wayne Martin²

¹University of Minnesota, West Central Research and Outreach Center, USA, ²University of Minnesota Extension, USA; yuzhili@umn.edu

The objective of this study was to investigate the association of social structure and incidence of tail biting in pigs. Pigs (n=144, initial weight=7.2±1.57 kg, 4 weeks of age) were grouped based on their litter origin: littermates (all pen-mates were born and nursed by the same sow), non-littermates (no pen-mates were born or nursed by the same sow), and half-littermates (half of the pen-mates were born and nursed by one of two sows). Six pens (8 pigs of mixed sex/pen) of each litter origin were studied for 6 weeks. Incidence of tail damage and growth performance were monitored. Behaviour of pigs was video-recorded for 6 h during daytime at 6 and 8 weeks of age, respectively. Videos were scanned at 10-min intervals to register pigs that were lying together (1) or not (0) in binary matrices. Pigs that were lying together were considered to be socially connected. Social network analysis was performed using the UCINET software. Non-littermates had greater network centralities (0.95 vs 0.65, SE=0.02 for degree centrality (DC); 0.86 vs 0.44, SE=0.03 for closeness centrality (CC); and 0.99 vs 0.45, SE=0.05 for betweenness centrality (BC); *P*<0.05 for all centralities), density (4.91 vs 3.27, SE=0.36; *P*<0.05), and clustering coefficient (4.87 vs 3.18, SE=0.39; *P*<0.05) than littermates indicating that non-littermates were more socially connected. 2% of non-littermates had their tails damaged, compared to 15% of half-littermates and 27% of littermates with damaged tails (*P*<0.001). Pigs with damaged tails had lower centralities (0.69±0.02 vs 0.84±0.01 for DC, 0.47±0.03 vs 0.70±0.01 for CC, 0.46±0.05 vs 0.78±0.02 for BC; all *P*<0.01) than other pigs indicating that victimized pigs were less socially connected with their pen-mates. These preliminary results suggest that littermates were less socially connected among themselves compared with non-littermates. Less social connection with pen-mates may predispose pigs to being a victim of tail biting.
**Relationship between personality and social behaviour in dairy cattle**

Borbala Foris¹, Manuela Zebunke¹, Jan Langbein² and Nina Melzer¹

¹Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Institute of Genetics and Biometry, Germany,

²Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Institute of Behavioural Physiology, Germany; foris@fbn-dummerstorf.de

We investigated the relationship between personality traits and the social behaviour within a group using socio-negative (displacement) as well as socio-positive (grooming) interactions. In a group of 14 lactating Holstein-Friesian cows (no mother-daughter relations), we determined displacement (n=403) and grooming (n=63) events from a 2-day continuous video footage. Using these interactions, we created weighted and directed socio-positive/-negative networks and calculated the IN-/OUT-degree (No. of partners) and IN-/OUT-strength (No. of interactions) via social network analysis. We assessed personality in the month of the observation based on an arena test; we transformed seven selected parameters into personality traits (*activity*, *alertness*, *boldness*) via principal component analysis (trait stability was proved via repeated test). Linear regression was applied to test the relations between a personality trait and a network measure. The slope of the regression line provides the direction and magnitude of the relation, P-values were calculated via permutation test (n=1000). Contrary to our hypothesis, *activity* showed a positive relation with IN-degree and IN-strength of displacements and a negative relation with IN-degree of grooming. This indicates that more active cows are displaced more often and receive grooming from fewer group companions; which may correspond to avoidance behaviour. *Alertness* (may reflecting anxiety) tended to show a positive association with IN-/OUT-strength of grooming, suggesting that alert cows give and get more grooming, which might support the hypothesis that grooming has a stress reducing function. *Boldness* was positively related to OUT-degree and showed a negative relation to IN-degree of displacements. Moreover, *boldness* and Lamprecht dominance index showed a positive correlation (R_s=0.63, P_raw=0.016). This supports our hypothesis that bold animals are more dominant, displace more cows and they are displaced by fewer. Results indicate that personality may affect the social behaviour and thus could be a relevant factor for the assessment of social welfare in groups.
Can aggressive network structures at mixing be used to predict lesion outcomes in
pigs?

Simone Foister¹, Andrea Doeschl-Wilson², Rainer Roehe¹, Laura Boyle³ and Simon Turner¹

¹SRUC, United Kingdom, ²Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, ³Teagasc, Ireland; simone.foister@sruc.ac.uk

Post-mixing aggression following regrouping is an on-going welfare problem in the pig industry that management approaches have failed to resolve. To date, research on aggressive behaviour has focused on isolated dyadic interactions and the summation of these into dominance hierarchies, which have not managed to fully explain the variation in skin lesion outcomes. Pigs are housed in social groups in which dyadic interactions occur as components of a larger complex of potentially non-independent interactions. Quantitatively characterising the full network of interactions in a social group could allow a more precise understanding of group-level lesion outcomes. In this study the aggressive social networks of 78 pens of 15 grower pigs following mixing were analysed. Animals were weighed and where possible similar weighted pigs were grouped together to reduce variation in weight. The network characteristics of two distinct aggressive behaviours were investigated (reciprocated (RA) and non-reciprocated (NRA) aggression) to discover whether the centralisation and structure of these networks offer new insight into the injuries from aggression at mixing and thereafter in stable social groups 3 weeks post-mixing. The effect of pen level centralisation was analysed using a REML mixed model with experimental batch as a random effect; sex, breed, and mean weight as fixed effects, and pen level lesion scores as the response variate. The findings revealed structural differences in networks comprised of NRA and RA behaviours. NRA networks had higher levels of centralisation than RA networks but RA network centralisation offered the most predictive value in terms of lesion scores. Networks with high eigenvector (P=0.024) and betweenness centralisation (P=0.021) were associated with lower numbers of lesions at mixing and more lesions in stable groups (eigenvector; P=0.035, betweenness; P=0.031). Whereas networks with a higher clustering coefficient had more lesions at mixing (P=0.001) and fewer lesions in stable groups (P=0.019). This suggests that low centralisation and even distribution of aggressive interactions between pigs contribute to long term social stability of the group as a whole.
Effect of environmental enrichment on the social contact patterns of group housed
SOWS

Jen-Yun Chou<sup>1,2</sup>, Emma M. Baxter<sup>2</sup> and Lesley A. Smith<sup>2</sup>

<sup>1</sup>University of Edinburgh, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, United Kingdom, <sup>2</sup>SRUC, Animal and Veterinary Science Research Group, United Kingdom; jenyun.chou@ed.ac.uk

Optimising group housing for pregnant sows is a crucial issue following the global trend of phasing out sow stalls. Providing suitable enrichment could further benefit sow welfare. This study aims to evaluate a scratching brush enrichment device for group-housed sows and determine the impact of its inclusion on social contact patterns. 6 groups (4-6 per group) of sows were observed in 3 phases of equal duration: Phase 1, control period; Phase 2, enrichment period and; Phase 3, post enrichment period. Social dominance hierarchy of each group was determined via food competition tests (DT) at the start of the trial and the end of each phase. Lesion scores (LS) were also taken. Scan sampling recorded sow-to-sow contact behaviour and sow-enrichment contact. Social network analysis (SNA) using UCINET calculated weighted degree (an indicator of gregariousness). Spearman's ranked correlation tests determined the relationship between sow hierarchy (DT and LS) and enrichment use. Phase effects on degree were analysed by GLMMs, with Phase as the fixed effect and sow nested in group as the random effect. There was a strong positive association between dominance test across all phases (P<0.05) and dominance status did not affect enrichment use. However, sows with a higher lesion score in Phase 1 and 2 showed increased use of the enrichment device (P<0.05), which may have been due to a greater itch sensation from the lesions. There was a significant reduction in degree during enrichment and post-enrichment phases relative to the pre-enrichment phase (P<0.001). In conclusion, the addition of the enrichment did not impact the stability of dominance within the group and sows with more lesions may use the brush to alleviate the itch sensation as lesions heal. However, the enrichment had an effect on sow social dynamics, with a reduction in contact that persisted into the post-enrichment phase.
**Access to an outdoor run in dairy goats: effects on activity and social behaviour**

Nina M Keil¹, Joanna Stachowicz¹,², Lorenz Gygax¹, Beat Wechsler¹ and Edna Hillmann²

¹Centre for proper housing of ruminants and pigs, Swiss Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office FSVO, Switzerland, ²Ethology and Animal Welfare Unit, ETH Zürich Department of Environmental Systems Science, Switzerland; nina.keil@agroscope.admin.ch

An outdoor run provides additional space and enrichment for dairy goats in loose housing and could be beneficial for goats' welfare. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of an outdoor run on activity and social behaviour of dairy goats. The study was conducted on six dairy farms with 10 groups of adult females in total. Groups differed in size (30 to 100 animals), breed and horn status. Within groups, the age structure was heterogeneous. We observed each group indoors in the lying and activity area on two days for 2 h in the morning after the feeding/ milking, i.e. peak hours of outdoor run use. The outdoor run was open on one day and closed on the other day in randomized order. Weather conditions were comparable between days and farms (moderate temperatures, cloudy, no rain). Every 10 minutes the number of goats indoors and the number of goats lying and standing in the lying and activity area were noted. Agonistic interactions with physical contact (head butts, displacements of lying or staying goats, chasing, fights) occurring in the lying and activity area were recorded continuously. Linear mixed-effects models were used to test the effect of outdoor run accessibility on goats' behaviour. As expected, fewer goats were indoors when the out-door run was open (median difference=-8; F<sub>1,17</sub>=33.01, P<0.0001) but also a smaller % of goats were lying indoors (median difference=-18%; F<sub>1,17</sub>=41.56, P<0.0001). No consistent effect of the outdoor run was found on social behaviour. With access to the outdoor run, there was a strong increase in the number of agonistic interactions in three groups. In seven groups, however, goats showed less agonistic behaviour. Possibly, goats going outdoors and coming back indoors also pose a risk for social conflicts due to more overall activity and potential confrontations between individuals.
**Social networks in dairy cattle: potential implications for the transmission of Leptospira spp.**

Inès De Freslon¹, Beatriz Martinez-Lopez² and Gustavo Monti¹

¹Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Instituto de Medicina Veterinaria Preventiva, Chile, ²School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California Davis, Center for Animal Disease Modeling and Surveillance, Department of Medicine & Epidemiology, USA; imdefreslon@postgrado.uach.cl

This study aims to analyse the contact structure of dairy cattle that may lead to transmission of *Leptospira* spp., a bacterium responsible of a worldwide zoonosis of high prevalence in cattle herds. For that purpose, we examined the social networks of a group of dairy cows (n=100) and calves (n=33), in a pasture-based system. We focused on three contact behaviours that may lead to transmission of *Leptospira* spp.: sniffing, licking and rubbing face on the genital area of another animal. Direct observations were conducted during four weeks, four hours per day and three days per week. Behaviour sampling method with all-occurrences recording was used to register these behaviours. We created the networks and used exponential random graph models to model the probability of contact between cows based on their calving number, age and reproductive status, and between calves based on their sex and age. Cows were less likely to interact with cows of different calving number, than with cows of similar calving number (OR=0.8). Individuals that were in heat during the observation period were involved in significantly more interactions than individuals that were gestating (OR=1.5). It was more likely for a cow to interact with a cow that had already sniffed/licked/rub her (OR=4.2), than with cows that didn't interact previously with her. Cows that had calved 4 or less times, were less likely to perform the behaviours than cows with higher parity (OR=0.8). Male calves were more frequently the ones initiating the interaction (OR=7.8), and less frequently the receptors of the interaction (OR=0.4). Calves were less likely to interact with calves of different age, than with calves of similar age (OR=0.9). Structural attributes were also key to capture the clustering of the network providing an overall better fit. More detail of the analysis and results will be presented at the congress.
**Real-time location system to uncover the contact structure of group-housed sows**

Maike Will¹,², Kathrin Büttner², Tobias Kaufholz¹,³, Christine Müller-Graf¹, Thomas Selhorst¹ and Joachim Krieter²

¹Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Germany, ²Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, University Kiel, Germany, ³Institute for Theoretical Biology, Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany; mwill@tierzucht.uni-kiel.de

Real-time location systems (RTLS) help to uncover contact structures of sows. By this, ethological, welfare, and epidemiological issues can be answered. Here, 200 sows in a gestation unit (dynamic group with weekly rehousing) were equipped with ear tags (Smartbow GmbH, 36×52 mm, 35 g) of a RTLS transmitting one position per second. The stable was divided in predefined areas (approx. 20 m²). Over one week, daily networks were constructed, i.e. all contacts between two animals in the same predefined area were aggregated over one day to a single one maintaining the frequency of contacts as edge weights. Social network analysis delivered results for existent contacts (unweighted) and their frequency (weighted). Degree specifies the number of contacts of a sow. Betweenness indicates to which extent a sow lies on the shortest paths between all others. Thereby, weighted calculations include the frequency of contacts. Over one day, sows had contact to all other sows (unweighted degree). The average contact length was 55 min with a maximum of 2 h (weighted degree). The low Spearman-Rank-Correlation (0.16, P=0.02) between weighted and unweighted degree suggests that sows had intensive contact with only few others. Further, it was found that 45% of the newly integrated sows showed highly weighted degrees because they have to find their place in the social hierarchy. This effect decreased after day 3. Moreover, individual sows seemed to connect different groups within the stable indicated by a high weighted betweenness (0.70-0.98). However, these sows did not have a high weighted degree, suggesting that group-housed sows form clusters (small subgroups) which should be further evaluated. Due to the coarse raster of predefined areas and the chosen time period of one day only little variance could be obtained. Refinement of these parameters can lead to a better resolution. To conclude, network analysis gives new insights in contact structures of group-housed sows which help to e.g. investigate disease transmission.
**Social network analysis of high- and low-productive dairy cows**

Paul Koene, Pieter Hogewerf and Bert Ipema

Wageningen University & Research, Animal Welfare, Wageningen Livestock Research,
the Netherlands; paul.koene@wur.nl

Dairy cows may graze more efficiently when allowed grazing in predefined areas with predictable sward height and grass quality. According to literature separating High- and Low yielding (HY and LY) dairy cows may have advantages for efficient grassland use, by allowing HY-animals to graze on a new grass strip first. In the control group 8 cHY and 8 cLY cows were grazing on a fixed area with every day a new strip of grass. In the experimental group 8 eHY- cows (matched with cHY) were also free to graze in the same fixed area, but 8 eLY cows (matched with cLY) were potentially stopped at a virtual fence and reduced the grazing area with possible social, welfare and production consequences. The virtual fence consisted of underground wires signalling a boundary that was received in the cow collar, producing a warning signal to the cow when approaching the boundary and a correction signal when crossing the boundary. All individual cows' positions were recorded using GPS during day and night in the pasture and their locomotion and nearest neighbour were determined. The cows were moved to a milking parlour twice a day; individual milk production was recorded (liter per day). Data were recorded in three periods, i.e. P1 (learning), P2 (basis) and P3 (cross-over, i.e. experimental and control group were switched). The virtual fence was successful in preventing eLY-cows to reach the fresh grass. A reduction in their locomotion was found that might be related to a reduced welfare. However, no effect of the virtual fence and the restriction of the LY experimental group on milk production was found, Preliminary analysis of the Social Network showed a strong separation between eHY- and eLY-cows induced by the virtual fence. In the cross-over this separation initially remained, but extinguished in 3 days.
The weak spots of contemporary science and how to strengthen it

Jelte Wicherts

Tilburg University, Department of Methodology and Statistics, the Netherlands;

j.m.wicherts@uvt.nl

Several fraud cases, widespread failure to replicate or reproduce seminal findings, and pervasive
error in the scientific literature have led to a crisis of confidence in the biomedical, behavioural,
and social sciences. In this keynote, Jelte Wicherts will discuss some of the core findings that
point at weak spots in contemporary science and considers the structural and human factors
that underlie them. He will delve into the human tendencies that create errors and biases in
data collection, analyses, and reporting of research results. He will present several solutions to
deal with observer bias, publication bias, researcher's tendency to exploit degrees of freedom in
their analysis of data, low statistical power, and errors in the reporting of results, with a focus
on the specific challenges in animal welfare research.
**Influence of professional affiliation on expert's views on animal welfare criteria**

Nina Dam Otten¹, Tine Rousing² and Björn Forkman¹

¹University of Copenhagen, Dept. of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Denmark, ²Aarhus University, Dept. of Animal Science, Denmark; nio@sund.ku.dk

The aggregation procedures of most comprehensive animal welfare assessment protocols do highly rely on the weightings derived from expert opinion. However, experts are often gathered from different backgrounds with very differing approaches to animal welfare (AW). Therefore, the present study investigated, whether the affiliation of experts within the four interest groups: research, veterinarians, production advice and animal welfare control (AWC) influenced the weightings of animal welfare criteria. Data were obtained from four separate expert panel studies (in 2011 and 2016) both asking experts to weigh different welfare measures and criteria for dairy cattle and sow welfare assessment. A total of 54 cattle experts participated represented by dairy production consultancy (22%), official AWC (28%), bovine practitioners (35%) and AW researchers (15%). The 34 swine experts were representing production consultancy (35%); official AWC (41%) and AW research (24%). Experts were asked to assign relative weights to the overall welfare criteria: *thirst, hunger, resting comfort, ease of movement, injuries, disease and emotional state*. Between group differences in weights were assessed by ANOVA analyses (with Bonferroni correction). Expert groups disagreed on the ranking of criteria among both species. However, using median weights experts agreed upon *thirst>hunger>resting comfort* and *injuries>disease>emotional state*. Cattle consultancy and AWC differed consistently across criteria, but only with significance within the criteria *hunger* (P=0.04), and tendencies towards significance within the criteria *thirst* (P=0.06). Researchers and AWC prioritized *thirst* (median weight=1.6) while veterinarians and consultants prioritized disease (median weight=1.2). Among swine experts no significant between group differences were found and *hunger* and *thirst* were ranked highest (median weight=1.2). The results highlight the challenges of using expert weightings in aggregated welfare assessment models, as the choice of expert affiliation may play a confounding role in the final aggregation due to different prioritization of criteria.
Reliability of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment protocol for sows and piglets

L. Friedrich¹, I. Czycholl¹, N. Kemper² and J. Krieter¹

¹Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany, ²Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany; lfriedrich@tierzucht.uni-kiel.de

The Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment protocols are animal-based on-farm assessment tools for animal welfare. Aim of the project was to test the Welfare Quality® protocol applied to sows and piglets for its interobserver reliability (IRR). The protocol consists of a Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA), direct behavioural observations (BO) by instantaneous scan sampling, a human-animal relationship test (HAR), scans for stereotypies (ST) and scans for different individual parameters, e.g. metritis and shoulder sores. The study took place on twelve farms in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. Two trained observers assessed the same animals at the same time, but completely independent from each other in 20 joint visits. IRR was calculated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and smallest detectable change (SDC). Preliminary results showed that there was no agreement for the QBA (ICC 0.00, RS 0.07, SDC 86.70). These results were confirmed by principal component analysis. The BO showed good agreement, e.g. investigation of the pen (ICC 0.60, RS 0.49, SDC 0.19). Overall, ST were of acceptable agreement, e.g. bar biting (ICC 0.99, RS 0.63, SDC 0.06). Only poor agreement was observed for the HAR (ICC 0.20, RS 0.08, SDC 0.25), which can be explained by the fact that the definition is somewhat uncertain. In most cases, individual measures had acceptable to good agreement, e.g. metritis (ICC 0.90, RS 0.77, SDC 0.10). However, the IRR was poor for the parameter shoulder sores (ICC 0.00, RS 0.00, SDC 0.60), which can be explained by difficulties in differentiation between category 0 (no lesions) and 1 (scar tissue, healing injury, reddening of the area) if it is too dark in the stables. In conclusion, the IRR was good for BO, ST and most individual parameters, but not for the QBA, the HAR and for the parameter shoulder sores.