Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
Pre-slaughter risk factors of bruises in cattle
carcasses
Dissertação de Mestrado Integrado em Medicina Veterinária
Pedro Jorge Afonso Teiga Teixeira
Orientador: Professora Doutora Alexandra Sofia Miguéns Fidalgo Esteves Coorientador: Dr.ª Dina Sofia Faria Pinto de Moura
I Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
Pre-slaughter risk factors of bruises in cattle
carcasses
Dissertação de Mestrado Integrado em Medicina Veterinária
Pedro Jorge Afonso Teiga Teixeira
Composição do Júri:
Presidente: Professora Doutora Ana Patrícia Antunes Lopes
Arguentes: Professor Doutor José Carlos Marques de Almeida
Professora Doutora Maria da Conceição Medeiros de Castro Fontes
Orientador: Professora Doutora Alexandra Sofia Miguéns Fidalgo Esteves
II
III “Nothing has such power to broaden the mind as the ability to investigate systematically and truly all that comes under thy observation in life.” Marcus Aurelius
V Acknowledgments
This Master's Dissertation would not have been possible without the valuable guidance, availability, and expertise of my advisor, Assistant Professor Alexandra Esteves of the University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD). I sincerely appreciate their acceptance and help with the dissertation, namely the clarifications, criticism, and suggestions that ultimately led to the overall improvement of the dissertation. I am very thankful for the help to overcome many obstacles and achieve my goals.
I would also like to thank my co-advisor, Dr. Dina Moura, from Direção-Geral de Alimentação e Veterinária (DGAV) who provided continuous advice during my internship, and, through her professionalism, knowledge, care and counseling, incentivized me to work hard and face various challenges. It was a privilege to receive all the advice and knowledge.
Special thanks to Dr. Juan García Díez, an integrated member of the Animal and Veterinary Research Centre of UTAD, who showed great interest in my project from the start and helped me understand and guide me through the statistical analyses of the collected data.
I want to thank Dr. Manuela Mota Carvalhas, Dr. Patrícia Pinto and Dr. David Paulo Alves, for the supervision of my internship at the slaughterhouse, as well as their guidance, assistance, sympathy, and interest on my project.
My gratitude towards Eng. Jorge Basto and Eng. Zé Senhor, for the friendship, sense of humor and support throughout my internship.
To my friends, either from the Veterinary Medicine course or my hometown, I am very grateful for your friendship and support. Special thanks to Miguel, Julio and Pinhal for their companionship and humor, and Ana, for her constant encouragement, which made my task of writing a dissertation a little less overwhelming.
I owe great gratitude to my loving family, especially my mother, whose support was invaluable, and my father, for his care and assistance during this task.
Finally, I would like to thank my brother, João, for the endless support, help and laughs.
VI Works published under this Master’s dissertation:
Poster:
1. Teixeira, P., Moura, D., García-Díez, J., Esteves, A. (2019). Characteristics of bruises in carcasses in cattle slaughtered in Portugal. Annual Scientific Conference and Annual General Meeting of the European College of Veterinary Public Health. Edimburgh, Scotland.
Article (in review):
2. Teixeira, P., Moura, D., García-Díez, J., Esteves, A. (2019). Characterization and risk factors of bruises in carcasses from cattle in Portugal. Submitted to Meat Science - In review.
VII Abstract
The knowledge of risk factors associated with the transport and handling of live cattle in the pre-slaughter period provides useful information to diminish the number and severity in bruises of carcasses increasing, subsequently, meat quality and economic benefits. The objective of the present study was to determine the risk factors related to lesions in live cattle and carcass bruises. There were obtained handling, transport and housing data from live animals at their arrival to the slaughterhouse in northern Portugal and assessed their associations with both ante and post-mortem periods. Independent variables analyzed included sex, housing in pens (same or mixed-sex), age, breed, main production, body condition, cleanliness, housing duration, duration type, transport duration and feeding supply. The number of bruises and their distribution on seven different zones of the carcass, as well as the severity, shape, color and size, were also assessed. A total of 462 animals were evaluated, and 24% were detected injuries during pre-slaughter (ante-mortem) period, increasing to 51% during carcass (post-mortem) analyses, after the identification of 429 bruises, found in 237 carcasses. Fisher’s Chi-squared (𝑥2) tests showed significant (P< 0.05) effects for most of the variables, except for duration type and housing duration (P> 0.05). Significant variables were then used in multivariate logistic regression analysis and age and sex, but also body condition and cleanliness were the most important risk factors contributing to the occurrence of carcass bruising. The results showed that younger males have prone to more bruises than other animals. Furthermore, housing conditions (mixed-sex pens) and food supply in the pre-slaughter period can also improve the probability of the bruise occurrence. Therefore, the best handling practices should be implemented to increase animal welfare and diminish injuries in live cattle during the pre-slaughter period, in particular, young males, usually more vulnerable to the development of carcass bruises, possibly due to higher aggressive behavior.
IX Resumo
O conhecimento dos fatores de risco associados ao transporte e maneio de gado bovino vivo fornece informações úteis no sentido de diminuir o número e a gravidade dos hematomas nas carcaças e, subsequentemente, aumentar a qualidade da carne e respetivos benefícios económicos. O objetivo do presente estudo consistiu na determinação dos fatores de risco relacionados com lesões em animais vivos, na fase de pré-abate, e com hematomas nas carcaças, na fase pós-abate. Foram obtidos dados de maneio, transporte e permanência na abegoaria de bovinos vivos, na chegada a um matadouro no norte de Portugal e avaliada a associação com os períodos ante e post -mortem. As variáveis independentes analisadas incluíram sexo, tipo de abegoaria (mesmo sexo ou misto), idade, raça, aptidão de produção, condição corporal, grau de limpeza, tempo de permanência na abegoaria e alimentação. Para além do número de hematomas e sua distribuição em sete diferentes zonas da carcaça, foram também avaliadas as variáveis gravidade, cor, idade, forma e tamanho. Do total de 462 animais analisados, foram detetadas lesões em 24% dos bovinos no período pré-abate (ante-mortem), aumentando para 51% na análise das carcaças (post-mortem) após a identificação dos 429 hematomas, identificados em 237 carcaças. Os testes do Qui-Quadrado de Fisher (𝑥2) mostraram efeitos significativos (P <0,05) para a maioria das variáveis, exceto para o tipo de duração do transporte e tempo de permanência na abegoaria (P> 0,05). As variáveis significativas foram usadas, subsequentemente, em análises de regressão logística multivariada e a idade e o sexo e também a condição corporal e a limpeza dos animais foram fatores de risco associados à ocorrência e ao número de hematomas detetados por animal. Os resultados do estudo mostraram ainda que os machos jovens têm uma tendência superior para contrair hematomas do que os restantes animais. Além disso, o tipo de boxe na abegoaria (de sexo misto) e o fornecimento de alimentos no período pré-abate podem aumentar a probabilidade de ocorrência de hematomas. Por tal motivo, devem ser implementadas práticas adequadas de maneio do gado vivo com o intuito de aumentar o bem-estar dos animais e diminuir as lesões durante o período de pré-abate, principalmente nos machos jovens, mais vulneráveis ao aparecimento de hematomas na carcaça, possivelmente devido a um comportamento mais agressivo. Palavras-chave: bem-estar animal, fatores de risco, hematomas, matadouro,
XI INDEX
Acknowledgments ... V Abstract... VII Resumo ... IX Index of figures ... XIV Index of tables... XVI List of acronyms ... XVII
General introduction ... 1
SECTION 1. STATE OF THE ART ... 3
1.1. Animal Welfare ... 3
1.1.1. Welfare Definition ... 3
1.1.2. Public Awareness on Animal Welfare ... 5
1.1.3. Welfare and Stress ... 7
1.1.4. Welfare Indicators ... 8
1.1.5. The Importance of Welfare Measurement ... 10
1.2. Genetic Factors ... 11
1.2.1. Temperament ... 12
1.2.2. Fearfulness ... 12
1.2.3. Genetic Selection on Reducing Fear ... 15
1.3. Farm Health Management Factors... 16
1.3.1. On-Farm Welfare assessment ... 16
1.3.2. On-farm animal welfare-related parameters for welfare assessment…...17
1.3.3. The EU Welfare Quality® Project ... 22
1.3.4. Poor Stockmanship and Fearfulness ... 23
1.3.5. Handling Facilities Design Problems ... 25
1.4. Animal Transportation ... 26
1.4.1. Responsibilities, Training and Competence ... 28
1.4.2. Journey Planning ... 28
1.4.3. Pre-Journey Period ... 30
1.4.4. During the Journey ... 30
1.4.5. Post-Journey Period ... 31
1.4.6. Transport Welfare Risk Factors... 31
1.4.7. Transportation Factors and their Effect on Carcass Value ... 34
1.4.8. The Importance of Assessing Animal Transportation ... 35
XII
1.5.1. Arrival and Housing at the Slaughterhouse ... 35
1.5.2. Ante-Mortem Animal Inspection ... 36
1.5.3. Preparation for Slaughter ... 37
1.5.4. Animal Restraint ... 38
1.5.5. Stunning ... 38
1.5.6. Bleeding ... 40
1.5.7. Other procedures ... 41
1.5.8. Religious Slaughter ... 43
1.6. Animal Welfare at Slaughter ... 45
1.6.1. Animal Welfare Slaughter Risk Factors ... 46
1.6.2. Slaughter plant Audits ... 47
1.6.3. On-Farm and Transport Welfare Problems Measurable in Slaughterhouses ... 48
1.6.4. Carcass bruising in livestock and poultry ... 50
1.6.5. Risk Factors for the Occurrence of Bruising ... 55
1.6.6. Assessing Cattle Carcass Bruises at Slaughterhouse ... 57
1.7. Conclusions ... 59
SECTION 2 – EXPERIMENTAL WORK ... 63
Transport and Pre-Slaughter Risk Factors Influencing Bruising in Cattle Carcasses: A Case Study in Northern Portugal ... 63
2.1. Introduction ... 63
2.2. Material and Methods ... 65
2.2.1. Data collection ... 65
2.2.2. Evaluation of ante-mortem lesions ... 65
2.2.3. Evaluation of post-mortem carcass bruises ... 66
2.2.4. Data analysis ... 69
2.3. Results ... 70
2.3.1. Breed ... 70
2.3.2. Age, sex and main production ... 70
2.3.3. Body Condition ... 72
2.3.4. Animal origin ... 73
2.3.5. Transportation ... 73
2.3.6. Housing at the slaughterhouse ... 74
2.3.7. Ante-mortem lesions ... 75
2.3.8. Post-mortem bruises in carcasses ... 77
XIII
2.4. Discussion ... 87
2.5. Conclusion ... 90
3. References ... 91
XIV Index of figures
Figure 1.1. Stress response model in animals……….………….……….……..……….7
Figure 1.2. Key factors and animal parameters relating to the animal’s well-being………..…….17
Figure 2.1. Bruise scoring sheet. Each number indicates a distinct carcass area: butt (1); rump-loin (2); ribs (3); forequarter (4); back (5); pin (6); hip (7)……….……….66
Figure 2.2. Size type: T1 (left); two T2 (middle); and a T3 (right)……….67
Figure 2.3. Shape type: I - irregular bruise (left), C - circular (middle); and a L - linear bruise (right)….67 Figure 2.4. Color type: I1 bruise (left); I2 bruise (middle); I3 bruise (right)………..68
Figure 2.5. Severity type: P1 bruise (left), a type P2 bruise (middle) and a type P3 bruise (right)………68
Figure 2.6. Number of individuals and breed composition of analyzed cattle………..………..70
Figure 2.7. Number of individuals analyzed in each of the three size classes defined…………..………71
Figure 2.8. Percentage of each sex in the sample……….……71
Figure 2.9. Main production systems identified in the sample……….……72
Figure 2.10. Body conditions classes identified in the sample……….………72
Figure 2.11. Animal source and lesions (ante-mortem period)………..………..73
Figure 2.12. Travel duration considered for transportation to the slaughterhouse……….……...74
Figure 2.13. Time spent in lairage until slaughter………..……….74
Figure 2.14. Percentage of animals housed in different types of pens……….……….75
Figure 2.15. Percentage of animals showing the presence/absence of ante-mortem lesions………….75
Figure 2.16. Location and size on the left side of ante-mortem lesions. Location: 1- butt; 2- rump-loin; 3- ribs; 4- forequarter; 5- back; 6- pin and 7- hip; Size: S- small; M- medium; L- large……..…………..76
Figure 2.17. Location and size on the right side of ante-mortem lesions. Location: 1- butt; 2- rump-loin; 3- ribs; 4- forequarter; 5- back; 6- pin and 7- hip; Size: S- small; M- medium; L- large………..76
Figure 2.18. Percentage of animals showing the presence/absence of post-mortem bruises……….…77
Figure 2.19. Number of bruises distributed by carcass………..……..77
Figure 2.20. Distribution of post-mortem bruises by location and animal age on the left side of the carcass. Location: 1- butt; 2- rump-loin; 3- ribs; 4- forequarter; 5- back; 6- pin and 7- hip; Age: ≤1y – one year; 1-5y – one to five years; > 5y – more than five years………...……..…..78
Figure 2.21. Distribution of post-mortem bruises by location and animal age on the right side, including the back (location 5), of the carcass. Location: 1- butt; 2- rump-loin; 3- ribs; 4- forequarter; 5- back; 6- pin and 7- hip; Age: ≤1y – one year; 1-5y – one to five years; > 5y – more than five years………..………..…..78
Figure 2.22. Number of bruises in post-mortem analyses, discriminated by side. Location: 1- butt; 2- rump-loin; 3- ribs; 4- forequarter; 5- back; 6- pin and 7- hip……….………..79
Figure 2.23. Size of bruises on the left side of the carcass in post-mortem analyses. T1: ≥ 2 < 8 cm; T2: ≥ 8 < 16 cm; T3: ≥ 16 cm……….………...80
Figure 2.24. Size of bruises on the right side of the carcass, including the back (location 5), in post-mortem analyses. T1: ≥ 2 < 8 cm; T2: ≥ 8 < 16 cm; T3: ≥ 16 cm………..80
Figure 2.25. Shape of bruises on the left side of the carcass in post-mortem analyses. I - irregular; C – circular; and L – linear………..………...81
Figure 2.26. Shape of bruises on the right side of the carcass, including the back (location 5) in post-mortem analyses. I - irregular; C – circular; and L – linear………..81
Figure 2.27. Age of bruises on the left side of the carcass in post-mortem analyses. I1 – bright reddish bruise (recent); I2 – dark red bruise (old); and I3 – yellowish-green bruise (very old)………..82
XV Figure 2.28. Age of bruises on the right side of the carcass, including the back (location 5), in
post-mortem analyses. I1 – bright reddish bruise (recent); I2 – dark red bruise (old); and I3 –
yellowish-green bruise (very old)………...82
Figure 2.29. Severity of bruises on the left side of the carcass in post-mortem analyses. P1 - only subcutaneous tissue affected; P2 - subcutaneous and muscle tissue affected; and P3 - subcutaneous and muscle tissue affected with fractures………..………83
Figure 2.30. Severity of bruises on the right side of the carcass, including the back (location 5), in post-mortem analyses. P1 - only subcutaneous tissue affected; P2 - subcutaneous and muscle tissue affected; and P3 - subcutaneous and muscle tissue affected with fractures……….…..83
XVI Index of tables
Table 1.1. The Five Freedoms and Provisions………...……….…………..4
Table 1.2. On-farm indicators for welfare assessment………..…………17 Table 1.3. Principles and Welfare criteria………...……….23 Table 2.1. Factors affecting the presence of lesions in live cattle (ante-mortem phase). Analyses based
on Chi-squared (𝑥2) tests………... 84 Table 2.2. Factors affecting the presence of bruises in carcasses (post-mortem phase). Analyses based
on Chi-squared (𝑥2) tests……… 85 Table 2.3. Final model of multivariate logistic regression for the number of lesions per site and lesion characteristics, during the ante-mortem phase……… 86 Table 2.4. Final model of multivariate logistic regression for the number of bruises per site and bruise
XVII List of acronyms
ACBSS – Australian Carcass Bruising Scoring System
BCS – Body condition score
CK – Creatine kinase
CWI – Cattle Welfare Indicators DFD – Dark firm dry
EFSA – European Food Safety Authority EU – European Union
FAWC – Farm Animal Welfare Committee INN – Chilean bruising carcass-grading standard LDH – Lactacte dehydrogenase
NBCA – National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit OIE – World Organisation for Animal Health
OR – Odds Ratio
QTL – Quantitative trait locus
RMCL – Red Meat Safety & Clean Livestock UK – United Kingdom
UTAD – Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro 𝑥2 –Fisher Chi-squared test
1 General introduction
During the six months of curricular internship for the masters’ degree in Veterinary Sanitary Inspection, from the 21st of September 2018 to the 3rd of March 2019, the health inspection practices executed by the official veterinarian were thoroughly observed and accompanied. The curricular internship took place in a slaughter plant located in the North of Portugal, where relevant data was collected for the elaboration of the study presented in this major's dissertation in Veterinary Medicine. The slaughter plant also provided valuable experience in Meat Hygiene Inspection, which leads to a strengthening of theoretical and practical concepts learned during the Veterinary Medicine course in Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD).
Animal Welfare has been a controversial subject that is still being discussed and developed nowadays. In the meat industry, in particular, the animal's well-being is essential not only ethically speaking but for economic reasons as well. In this study, an analysis of welfare risk factors during the handling, transport and the pre-slaughter process that compromises the carcass quality, allowed an overall examination and understanding of the current state of the meat and animal production in regards to the concerns in animal welfare.
For the purpose of research, a total of 462 animals of different origins from the bovine species were observed from their arrival at the slaughterhouse to their eventual slaughter and following meat processing procedures. During the examination, several welfare points were assessed and registered for posterior analysis and interpretation. Other non-relevant data to work was recorded, like all partial and total meat condemnations and their causes of rejection. This was deemed relevant due to the Veterinary Inspection daily work in abattoirs and its importance to public health.
3 SECTION 1. STATE OF THE ART
1.1. Animal Welfare 1.1.1. Welfare Definition
When animals experience situations that are deemed unfavorable to their healthy functioning bodies, it is vital to identify and separate problems that are likely to cause significant impacts on the individual well-being like fitness reduction from those that do not. Therefore, it is essential to have a precise definition of what animal welfare is to benefit the development of scientific research, legislation and practical use. This definition should be based on characteristics that can be measurable. Such measurement ought to be devoid of any beliefs or appraisals regarding moral standards (Broom & Johnson, 1993).
Animal welfare can be described as a concern for animal suffering and its satisfaction (Gregory & Grandin, 1998). It can also be defined as a physical and mental condition with no evidence of existing negative emotions and frequently accompanied by good ones (Terlouw et al., 2008). When discussing animal welfare, the vast majority of researchers would also agree with Broom (1986) that it can be defined as the animal's state as it attempts to interact with the surrounding environment. Such leads to several considerations (Broom & Johnson, 1993):
Welfare is a concept inherent to the animal and not something that is given to it. Specific methods can improve animal welfare, but should not reference welfare directly;
It can be graded from very poor to very good. Rating the well-being of an animal may not only ensure satisfactory welfare, but it can also improve it;
Welfare is described as deficient when the animal is having problems coping with the environment. Such difficulties usually lead to a fitness breakdown and stress;
Failure to cope results in various adversities for the animals, depending on the chosen method of coping. The selection of a specific reaction towards an unfavorable situation enables the observation of a variety of measurements. Therefore, if only one measure is within the typical spectrum, does not mean that welfare is good;
4
Welfare measurement and analysis ought to be objective and should not take into consideration moral beliefs. Instead, welfare evaluations should rely on scientific knowledge of animals’ biology and coping behaviors;
Pain and suffering are essential factors to poor welfare and provide a pivotal role in its evaluation;
Animals’ freedom and needs may affect an individual state of well-being.
According to Fraser et al. (1997), animal welfare and its scientific research are influenced by the increasing public perception concerning ethical reasons regarding the quality of life of animals. Many countries have adopted the "Five Freedoms" created by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee (FAWC) in the UK as a primary guide for how the animals should be kept. These "freedoms" are based on human perception of animal needs. Table 1.1 lists the five points, along with their respective "Provision" (Mellor, 2016).
Table 1.1. The Five Freedoms and Provisions (adapted from Mellor, 2016).
The Five Freedoms The Five Provisions
Freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition.
Providing easy access to freshwater and a healthy diet.
Freedom from discomfort and exposure. Providing a good environment for the animal, like shelters and resting areas.
Freedom from pain, injury and disease. Providing efficient prevention and rapid diagnosis and treatment.
Freedom from fear and distress. Providing the right conditions and treatment to avoid mental suffering.
Freedom to express normal behavior. Providing proper facilities, sufficient space and contact with individuals of the animal’s species.
The "Provisions" are useful for improving animal husbandry practices that assure the "Five Freedoms" are respected (Mellor, 2016). Both animal owners and handlers should strive for such goals to respect moral and ethical standards (Gregory & Grandin, 1998). The creation of this list caused significant changes in legislation towards animal welfare as these "freedoms" were pioneers in detailing all the concepts of animal welfare by the compilation of health, behavior and subjective experiences. Although this list is currently internationally recognized and used as a guide in many countries, recent scientific studies have concluded that the "Five Freedoms" are
5 insufficient to provide complete and general guidance towards understanding and potentiating welfare in animal management, as many created the expectation that such freedoms are entirely feasible. FAWC posted in 2012 on its website that these freedoms "only define ideal states rather than being standards for animal welfare", thus not being a complete source for animal welfare assessment. It is biologically evident that an animal cannot be completely free from these harmful conditions, like the feeling of thirst, stress or other discomforts, throughout its life. Furthermore, these negative feelings are essential components for the individual's survival instincts, being part of genetically behavior mechanisms and should not be eliminated, as the negative impact of such effects results on an urgent and specific behavioral reaction to counteract the former. The act of searching water and drinking due to thirst, hunt for food because of hunger or fleeing from a painful situation are some examples that verify the previous statement.
The key to efficient animal management is to have a practical approach to the control of such negative experiences and avoiding such from reaching extreme levels by allowing natural counteract behaviors to be satisfied. Thus, for a good quality of life, the main goal is to minimize an animal's negative experience and provide conditions where its actions result in positive emotions (Mellor, 2016).
1.1.2. Public Awareness on Animal Welfare
There has been considerable improvement regarding animal welfare research and acknowledgment (Grandin, 2018). Humans, throughout their existence, have increasingly adopted interactions that involve tolerance towards others. As a result, moral systems have evolved and refined in a variety of areas. Nowadays, people show compassion when interacting with other individuals, those being either human or animal (Broom, 2010). However, modern society requires an enormous demand for animal products, which leads to an increase in the farming system and productivity, which in its turn heads for significant concern for animal welfare (De la Fuente et al., 2018). Nowadays, farm animal welfare has become an essential subject to farmers, farm organizations, researchers and general consumers, particularly in western countries (Broom, 2010). Both consumers and non-consumers of products originated from animal industry, as well as legislators and scientists, show great interest in potentiating animal welfare on a diversity of areas, whether through economics,
6 international trade, environmental issues or food security (McGlone, 2001). The perception of the masses on this topic does depend on people's culture, experiences, values and interests (Boogaard et al., 2006). Age, gender, demographics, religion and education can also be determinants of people's perception. For example, younger individuals are known to be more concerned about animal welfare due to their naturalistic beliefs, in contrast with the practical views that older people tend to defend towards animal production. Concerning sex, women show more concern to farm animal welfare, being the gender that expresses more negative perceptions on the use of animals. Rural or urban living is also an important factor due to the differences in experiences and relationships with animals. City people, although less knowledgeable on animal welfare than rural people, have more concern over the animals' well-being (Cornish et al., 2016). In regards to education, María (2006) found that individuals that possess a higher level of education, those being students and professionals, hold a higher degree of sensitivity towards animal welfare. The animal itself and its function in society is also a factor that can influence attitudes, as it is generally expected that companion animals must have a certain level of treatment and freedoms that would otherwise be considered too excessive for farm animals, which people, in general, expect a much lower degree of welfare. This corroborates the discrepancy between the perception of animal welfare during husbandry of the public and farmers. People tend to be more concerned about natural animal behavior, freedom of movement and overall stress during management and generally rate animal welfare as negative. For farmers, economic factors like animal health and feeding are considered more critical and, in contrast to consumers, have a more positive perception of animal welfare (De la Fuente et al., 2017).
Although the majority of people have limited knowledge about how animal production and meat industry work, the fact is that such limited perception is relevant and decisive for the improvement of welfare. Examples like media reports concerning animal welfare inadequacies can provoke a massive outrage to the consumers, who will stop buying certain products of animal origin. A high number of laws and legislation on the European Union (EU) were achieved due to the pressure of concerned consumers. Thus, the growing understanding of the public perception of animal welfare will have an increasingly more noticeable impact on the control and legislation of such an issue (Broom, 2010).
7 1.1.3. Welfare and Stress
Stress can be defined as a biological response that is activated once an animal experiences a situation that can affect its homeostasis. It is commonly neglected as a symptom that occurs when an individual experiences an adverse setting, or, occasionally, it is used to characterize that precarious environment (Gebregeziabhear & Ameha, 2015). It is important not to confuse stress for an environmental factor, as many of the latter do not necessarily affect an organism. Thus, a correct definition is describing stress as an effect on an organism, underlining the changes produced by some or all the functioning systems that occur in the individual (Broom & Johnson, 1993). Stress occurs when an animal's adaptation mechanisms exceed their limits while trying to cope with the surrounding environment conditions (Adams, 1994). These hazardous conditions are then designated as stressors. Heat, cold, overcrowding, inadequate nutrition or hydration are all examples of stressors. These can result in fitness breakdown to the animal and it may lead to disease or even death. Responses may vary depending on the nature of the stressor. Heat and cold, for example, are both stressors that will each target different organ systems and sub-systems that, in turn, will lead to different reactions and responses, though some stressor produces equal or similar results. These responses are set in motion by the nervous system and hormones produced by the pituitary, adrenal or thyroid glands. While assessing animal welfare and stress, there should be kept in mind that stress itself is not a synonym of arousal, nervous tension or harassment. Stress is not always associated with injuries, and while it leads to high levels of corticosteroids and other hormones in the bloodstream, these high concentrations alone are not irrefutable evidence of the existence of stress. Assessment of animal stress and welfare should always be accompanied by a behavior and psychology exam (Figure 1.1) (Adams, 1994).
Figure 1.1. Stress response model in animals (adapted from Broom & Johnson, 1993). Stimulus Perception of stressor Biological DefenseConfiguration of Biological Response
Change in Biological Functions Prepathological State Occurence and development of pathology Organism recognition of the threat to homeostasis
8 In animal management, stress is considered an inevitable reaction as there are environmental factors that frequently disturb animals' homeostasis. Therefore, the knowledge and ability to identify stressors by farmers within their livestock is essential for avoiding substantial declines in production and reproductive capabilities. By monitoring stressors, farmers will decrease levels of stress on their farms, which, in turn, will improve significantly animal welfare and productivity (Gebregeziabhear & Ameha, 2015).
1.1.4. Welfare Indicators
Throughout their life, animals have contact with a vast range of adverse conditions and do possess various methods to counter and adapt to those situations (Broom & Johnson, 1993). Following the previously cited statement by Broom (1986) that the state of an animal defines its welfare as it attempts to adapt to the environmental conditions, such an attempt can lead to satisfactory well-being if the animal copes well with little or no effort towards the existing adversities. On the other hand, if the individual fails to adapt or does so with great effort and waste of resources, then the welfare can be defined as poor. Thus, it is quickly concluded that the environment is wholly appropriate only if the animal can satisfy all its needs in it. Such requirements can include performing a variety of actions with any sort of purpose and the search for particular resources (Broom, 1997; Jensen & Toates, 1997). When those needs are satisfied, it can correlate with good feelings, while the opposite can often lead to the occurrence of bad feelings and other physiological and behavioral changes. All of these originate from the biological control mechanism (Broom, 1997; Broom & Corke, 2002).
The fact that the concept of welfare specifies the state of the animal, it can be analyzed through scientific research, as the term "state" derives from biological life processing mechanisms. The measurement and interpretation of the various responses of the animal while trying to counteract environmental variations are essential for welfare studies. Such a combination of measures related to physiology, behavior, injury, disease and growth on these studies provides valuable information for the assessment of animal welfare (Broom, 1997). Broom & Johnson (1993) created a list of measures of poor welfare:
9
Reduction on the ability to grow or breed;
Damage to the body;
Presence of diseases;
Immunosuppression;
Behavioral and physiological coping attempts;
Behavioral pathology;
Self-narcotization;
Extent of visible behavioral aversion;
Extent of suppression of normal behavior;
Extent of prevented processes of physiological and anatomical behavior. They also created a list for measures of good welfare:
Extent of normal natural behavior evidenced;
Extent of evidenced preferred behavior;
Behavioral and physiological indicators of pleasure.
In general, there are two basic types of poor welfare indicators, those that indicate the failure of the individual to adapt to the environment, and those who demonstrate the grade of effort the animal had to surpass in order to cope with the surrounding adversities. Examples of indicators of poor welfare in a group of individuals may involve an accentuated increase in mortality, an increased occurrence of various types of diseases, a delay in milk production or offspring and a reduced growth rate. Animals facing severe conditions can result in physiological responses such as disorientation, adrenal hormones in the blood, suppression of certain regulatory and system functions, biological responses such as fight or flee. Changes in heart rate, respiratory rate, adrenal functioning and brain activity can all be measured (Broom, 1986, 1988). An excessive adrenal activity can provoke gland hypertrophy and a high concentration of adrenal hormones in the bloodstream and can also lead to a decrease in meat quality. Heart rate responses are often tachycardia, although initial bradycardia may occur.
Behavioral changes range from excess in normal regulatory actions, increase or decrease of stereotypes and self-inflicted injury (Broom, 1983). An effort is abnormal when it cannot fit in pattern, context or frequency comparing to the action of other beings of the same species. There are three types of abnormal behavior:
10 i) Forced behavior when faced with adverse conditions;
ii) Behavior that the animal uses in order to adapt to an adverse environment; iii) Behaviors that happen in sporadic periods of time.
Behaviors categorized above as type i include actions related to sickness and disease due to pathologies provoked by viruses, bacteria or parasites; attitudes connected to the survival instinct, such as actions facing predators or other physically damaging situations like an imminent falling or collision. Type ii abnormal behaviors are characterized as being beneficial to the individual as it is a response to a negative situation. Some of the reactions might be lying in a way that prevents an existing injury to hurt more; or an excessive glancing at its surroundings. Some abnormal behaviors can be initially described as type ii, but if the adverse condition persists for a long time, those actions may be then categorized as type i, as it no longer is beneficial to the animal. Type iii can occur in specific situations that are not negative at all, like reproductive or parental behavior.
Excessive activity of a specific action and abnormal movements are usually indicators of poor welfare. All the conditions that the animal contacts with are can cause changes in behavior and its psychology (Broom, 2019). These changes can create an impact on the feelings and emotions of an animal if they have the awareness and the cognitive ability necessary to it (Broom, 2014). Moreover, such an impact on certain feelings like fear, pain or pleasure, which are highly adaptive, might have enormous consequences on an animal's welfare (Broom, 1998).
1.1.5. The Importance of Welfare Measurement
Monitoring and taking measures on procedures from farm and slaughterhouses helps improving management and animal well-being. Thus, implementing procedures like auditing schedules have the potential to optimize animal welfare substantially. Weekly or monthly objective measurements performed by farm or slaughterhouse managers can determine if handling practices and management practices are improving, due to the measure of welfare issues like lameness or leg lesions. They can also be used to evaluate the success in the introduction of new equipment or new procedures and repairs as well (Grandin, 2010a).
Although animal farmers frequently do record measures like weight gain or deaths, usually no efforts are made to measure stress or painful events. Not
11 measuring such situations makes them difficult to assess and posteriorly fix them. Lameness in dairy cattle is an example that proves the non-monitoring of stressful situations can escalate to a severe problem. Due to the slow increase in lameness over the years, people did not notice it as no measures were taken. A study by Rutherford et al. (2009) concluded that 16.2% of dairy cows in several farms in the United Kingdom (UK) were suffering from lameness. Webster (2005, 2008) found that of the best 20% of British dairy farms, only 0-6% were diagnosed with lameness, while in the worst 20%, 33-62% were found to be lame. This helps to conclude that proper management and monitoring reduces lameness. In order to fix the problem, dairies had to incorporate lameness evaluations into their farms. The same thing applies to handling procedures.
Grandin (2010a) concluded that the handling of animals could get worse over some time without anyone noticing it. Though many farm administrators implemented several welfare-friendly methods of handling to their employees, the latter, although with initial success on the execution of such procedures, eventually went back to their old handling habits. Such happened because of the failure to measure the handling practices frequently. The measurement of slaughterhouse procedures put into action by meat-buyer corporations had a tremendous impact on improving animal welfare. This implementation of audits resulted in the correction of several welfare problems like deficient stunning due to poor repair and maintenance of stun guns or the excessive use of electric-goads.
1.2. Genetic Factors
As a result of animal domestication, both their physical and behavioral characteristics have changed considerably. Such changes in behavior include social grouping trends and reactions towards humans (Price, 1984). Animal behavior can affect both productivity and health, which reinforces the requirement for farm animals to behave well in the current animal production industry. There is evidence that cattle show a variety of responses in behavior towards handling procedures that manifest different temperaments based on fear and aggression. These aggressive responses may cause high costs in management, animal or handler injuries as well as death (Brouček et al., 2008). Thus, a better knowledge of the genetic variability and factors of behavior traits are of great importance to the welfare of farm animals. Such
12 information can help us influence fear responses and improve adaptation capabilities that are advantageous to animal production. By reducing fear, we can help animals adapt to their farm environments more easily (Price, 1984). Therefore, breeding-selection on fear responses of farm animals can have as much of an impact as the systems in which they live. However, research on behavioral genetics on farmed animals is minimal (Boissy et al., 2002).
1.2.1. Temperament
The behavioral responses of animals towards humans can be described as temperament. Temperament in cattle is heritable and can be influenced by fearfulness, which may vary with age, sex, experience and breed characteristics (Brouček et al., 2008). Voisinet et al. (1997) report that heifers have more excitable temperament traits than steers, rendering females more challenging to handle. They also pointed out that animals who present a calmer temperament towards handlers also had a higher average of daily gains when compared to more aggressive individuals. Gauly et al. (2001) also noted this low productivity gain in more temperamental animals, suggesting that the genetic selection of factors relating to temperament being an effective way to increase productivity and boost economic profits.
1.2.2. Fearfulness
A situation can be fear-inducing due to its novelty or to some other specific characteristic (movement, suddenness, proximity or intensity). Other stimuli, such as height or darkness, can also provoke fear. An event can also be fear-eliciting due to previous similar negative experiences (Boissy et al., 2002).
Fear triggers specific defensive responses based on the potential danger of the event and the nature of the threat. Therefore, these adaptive reactions vary greatly. The animal may engage in active defense (attack or warning), active flight (avoiding, escaping or hiding) or passive avoidance, such as immobility (Boissy et al., 2002).
The consistency of the fear responses links to a specific neuroendocrine trait. Such can be exemplified by Boissy & Le Neidre (1997), which concluded that heifers who suffer strong behavioral reactions have an increased heart rate. Secondly, fear responses can be consistent in different fearful situations. A study by Boissy & Bouissou (1995) demonstrated that specific high-level fear reactions could be
13 observed in various tests in heifers. Moreover, fear responses apply to normal and stable individual's characteristics that provide some consistency over time. Thus, it is possible to prevent fearful situations by monitoring emotional traits early in life (Boissy
et al., 2002).
1.2.2.1. Genetic Parameters for Fear
Genetic factors have been linked to the variability in fearful responses in farm animals by many studies. The influence of genetics on fear is evidenced in sire effects research. A study from Dickson et al. (1970) concluded that sire effects are greatly influenced by genetic components on dairy cattle, as it had a great impact on the activity and responsiveness of cows in the milking parlor. Torres-Hernandez & Hohenboken (1979) pointed out that, regarding fear-inducing situations, sheep by Suffolk or Columbia sires were less fearful than those sired by Romneys. The study of fear responses in farm animals also includes the quantitative identification of the trait loci for fear. Tests of responses towards humans in calves lead to the identification of seven QTL (quantitative trait locus). One was located on chromosomes 1, 5, 9, 11, 15 and two of them on chromosome 14 (Schmutz, 2001). The identification of various genetic markers associated with psychological and behavioral responses by Fisher et
al. (2001) allowed them to link five QTL to flight distance, one QTL to plasma cortisol
concentrations and two QTL to cortisol in urine. 1.2.2.2. Breed factors
In animal husbandry, natural selection has been relaxed, although domesticated animals still exhibit predator-defense behaviors similar to their wild ancestors (Price, 1984). In the same reared conditions, various specific behaviors are observable depending on the breed of the animals. There have been several studies that provide critical evidence that there is a great difference in fearful reactions between breeds (Boissy et al., 2002). One example is the study performed by Le Neidre (1989) that reports some behavioral differences between Saler and Friesian cows regarding mother-young relationships. The study concluded that Saler calves did more suckling than Friesian calves until weaning. Even during the first lactation, where Salers produce less milk, suckling times were identical in both breeds. After reaching one year, Salers were found to surpass Friesian on suckling time. This observation reveals that mother-young relationships are more important for Saler cows than the Friesians.
14 Another study, by Plusquellec & Bouissou (2001), reports several differences between Hérens cows and Brown Swiss ones regarding novelty and surprise effect. They concluded that Brown Swiss cows react more actively to a novelty object and a surprise effect tests than the Hérens breed. When facing a rotating light with a buzzer during a strange object test, Heren cows seemed less frightened than Brown Swiss ones. The same happened in the surprise test. While eating from a bucket, cows were surprised by the sudden opening of an umbrella or a blast of compressed air to the head. The study reports that more Hérens cows resumed feeding at least once than the Brown Swiss. Voisinet et al. (1997) also pointed out a difference in fear response to handling between Bos indicus and Bos taurus, where the first one exhibited more fearful reactions than the latter. The collected data for temperamental grades showed higher scores for the Bos indicus, which indicates more temperamental behavior and excitability.
1.2.2.3. Environmental factors
Another aspect to take into account is the relationship between the genotype of the animal and the environmental conditions. Past environmental factors can influence fearfulness. According to Rushen et al. (1999), ungulates that are handled early in life end up being less fearful of humans than those who are not handled at all or not nearly as much. Environmental factors during adulthood are also very influential in fear responses. Matured individuals exposed to enriched environments and improved handling procedures have shown to decrease their reactions. Everything considered the early and latter experiences are both important influencers on the animal´s fearful nature. Furthermore, these interactions can foment considerable changes in some breeds (Boissy et al., 2002). For example, Brahman cows have more reactivity towards humans than British cows. However, when properly handled early in life, Brahmans become extremely more docile than the British breed (Torres-Hernandez & Hohenboken, 1979). Thus, reducing fearfulness by breeding must take into account environmental characteristics and management procedures (Boissy & Erhard, 2014). 1.2.2.4 Social interactions
Mutual recognition between animals is a fundamental feature of social hierarchy. A well-structured grouping of individuals provides order and lower incidence of aggressive behaviors, as animals that achieved their rank position through dominance
15 traits no longer need to be violent towards others to cement their status (Brouček et
al., 2008). Plusquellec & Bouissou (2001) determined that Hérens cows, a dairy breed
associated with high dominance interactions, were less fearful of fear-provoking events.
The genetics of maternal behavior is also an influential factor in the development of temperament and fearfulness. Kilgour & Szantar-Coddington (1995) reported less fearfulness in ewes with stronger maternal capabilities. A study by Roussel et al. (2004) showed a higher reactivity in offspring whose mothers experienced significant levels of stress.
1.2.3. Genetic Selection on Reducing Fear
The estimated heritability estimates for fearful reactions accredits further selection of fearfulness to improve animal welfare in farm management. Though a better understanding of the variances and co-variances between fearfulness and productivity must be acquired in order to prevent a substantial drop in production. Genetic selection to reduce fear towards humans may minimize progress in productivity traits, which consequently discourages the use of such breeding programs. However, there is scarce information about the genetic relationship between fearful responses, productivity and behavioral characteristics (Boissy et al., 2002). Fear of humans is, according to Visscher & Goddard (1995), linked adversely to milk production in dairy cows. Fearful reactions are also correlated negatively to weight gain in cattle (Burrow, 2001). Thus, a genetic breeding program for reducing nervous attitudes towards humans can be encouraged since it seems that there is no negative impact on productivity traits.
The development of linked markers can help to measure these psychological traits, as it is of great difficulty to measure fearfulness directly on the animal (Boissy et
al., 2002). It has been identified so far QTL for fearfulness of humans using linked
markers on cattle (Haley & Visscher, 1998). Information on the precise location of specific genes that influence emotional reactions in cattle can decrease the risk of genetic selection to improve fearfulness in detriment of production traits (Boissy et al., 2002).
16 1.3. Farm Health Management Factors
Animal husbandry of livestock is set up on the ability to control them and the many environmental conditions. Such control involves providing food and shelter, reproduction control, handling protocols safe to both handlers and animals and strategies to promote animal health, though some of these methods may be painful. Most of these practices were perfected for several years and are generally continued due to being performed quickly, cheaply and easily, as well as being safe to handled animals (Grandin, 2010a). It is widely known that proper management procedures in modern-day animal farms are essential for producers to have efficient cattle production and good animal welfare (Christensen et al., 2019). There are several assessment protocols to determine on-farm welfare and health issues. These include measurement of facilities' resources (number of drinking and feeding places, type of floor, bedding). Animal assessments are also useful, like body condition, cleanliness, diseases and lameness (Phillips, 2018).
1.3.1. On-Farm Welfare assessment
It is of great importance to assess and evaluate the responses of farm animals to the production system. A system is unsustainable when animals display evidence of pain, disease or some sort of distress due to incorrect management practices or disharmony between them and the production system itself. On-farm welfare measurements should be valid and reliable, as well as being comfortably and rapidly performed by the operator (Winckler, 2008).
In the past, farm welfare assessment primarily focused on the management system's resources provided to the animal (housing and design criteria), as they are relatively easy and quick to apply measurements. However, these indirect factors do not necessarily predict the animal's overall well-being, as other more direct parameters, such as the individuals' health state and behavior, reveal a much better understanding of the state of being of farm animals. Therefore, welfare assessments should primarily focus on these direct factors, although being less easy to analyze and measure (Figure 1.2) (Winckler, 2008).
17 Figure 1.2. Key factors and animal parameters relating to the animal’s well-being (adapted from
Winckler, 2008).
1.3.2. On-farm animal welfare-related parameters for welfare assessment
As previously described, there are three leading direct indicators of on-farm animal welfare (health state, behavior and physiology) (Table 1.2). Physiological indicators are complicated to analyze due to practicality reasons. All of the parameters measured should provide valuable and reliable information about the animal's welfare state within the herd (Winckler, 2008).
Table 1.2. On-farm indicators for welfare assessment (adapted from Winckler, 2008). INDICATORS Pathological Lameness Injuries Diseases Body Condition Cleanliness
Ethological Behavior when resting
Agonistic social behavior Abnormal behaviors
Animal-human relationships
Other Integrity of the animal
Positive indicators Housing Management Genetics Animal Welfare Physiology Behavior Health
18
a) Lameness
Considered one of the most severe welfare problems in cattle, lameness suggests the presence of pain and discomfort, which leads to an apparent change of behavior in the affected cow. It is linked to hoof diseases and can be associated with the laying down behavior of the animal. A thorough examination of the hooves provides useful information for pathological findings, though regular checking is not feasible in the daily routine of a farm production environment. Thus, several lameness scoring methods were created based on gait-related behaviors such as short-striding, the capability of a limb enduring body weight or difficulty in turning while moving on a hard floor (Winckler, 2008). Other movement patterns, such as speed, tracking or head positioning, can be correlated with lameness (O'Callaghan et al., 2002). Locomotion scoring methods can also be used and be correlated to lameness scoring systems (Winckler & Willen, 2001).
b) Injuries
Observation of injuries such as skin lesions or swellings indicates a recent impact on the animal's body. These impacts may originate from collisions against feed racks or cubicle partitions or contacts with hard floors. Such effects will lead to injuries that are most commonly found on the following body areas:
Neck/withers; Shoulder blades; Carpal; Fetlock; Hock; Stifle joints; Dewlap; Hips; Ischial tuberosities.
Injuries may also be caused by infestation with ectoparasites, which usually cause pruritus, pain and an overall reduced welfare state. Several lesion scorings protocols can characterize the visible injuries for their size, location and severity (Winckler, 2008).
19
c) Diseases
Mastitis and metabolic disorders are two of a wide range of cattle diseases that can significantly affect animal welfare. Obtaining a reliable control and estimation of the prevalence of such conditions by a well-developed diagnostic plan associated with long-term records of a specific disease is possible, although errors in data collection on farms are common, an effort should be made to correct them (Winckler, 2008).
d) Body condition
Body condition loss is a vital welfare indicator, as it results from prolonged hunger or from the inability to meet the individual's physiological demands. Under or overnutrition are both potential welfare problems, especially to dairy cattle, as dairy cows that experience over conditioning have a higher prevalence of developing cystic ovarian diseases or lameness. Currently, there are several systems for scoring body condition for cattle (Winckler, 2008).
e) Cleanliness
Animals that are considered dirty have their skin functions, such as thermoregulatory properties or anti-germ defense, reduced. Soiled skin or hair usually cause itching and may further lead to skin inflammation. Scoring methods for cleanliness in cattle are currently used worldwide (Winckler, 2008).
f) Behavior when resting
Alterations on routine around resting can correlate with a variety of factors, such as inadequate recuperation, reduced rumination, high risk of lameness, frustration, and changes or injuries located on hair, skin or joints. For welfare evaluation purposes, parameters regarding the act of lying down or rising, such as the duration of the action itself as well as the presence of any atypical movements, should be measured (Winckler, 2008).
20
g) Agonistic social behavior
According to Menke et al. (1999), agonistic social behaviors in horned cattle closely associate with a higher occurrence of body lesions. In regards to hornless animals, it is believed that aggressive behaviors cause less apparent injuries, such as hematomas. Based on previous research, it is advised the recording of these aggressive interactions during the initial period of hours after feeding, as it is the most reliable way to gather data for examination (Winckler, 2008; Winckler et al., 2002).
h) Abnormal behaviors
Abnormal behaviors usually divide into two groups: redirect behaviors and stereotypes. These are generally oral, such as tongue movements, sucking objects or cross-sucking. These actions vary in frequency in calves, heifers, dairy or fattening cows. Evaluation protocols require frequent measurements of such behaviors, which in turn makes them difficult to fully apply on a farm (Winckler, 2008).
i) Animal-human relationships
It is generally assumed that, regarding intensive animal farms, most of the welfare issues on animals are due to housing (cages, hens or stalls). However, the grade of care and handling provided by the caretakers and animal owners is a crucial component as well. A stock person can affect the on-farm welfare of animals by their daily working routine tasks. There are plenty of ways that people can influence animal's well-being, as they are responsible for housing, feeding and treating animals, as well as making procedures like milking, breeding, farrowing, debeaking or dehorning. Therefore, handlers and owners must possess the required minimum knowledge and technical competence to perform such tasks to keep animal welfare satisfactory (Grandin, 2010a). For a welfare assessment regarding this subject, many tests and measurements are performed based on the approach and avoidance of animals towards humans. These measurements require a large sample to become reliable for evaluation, thus also being quite impractical (Winckler, 2008).
j) Integrity of the animal
The animal’s integrity can be substantially affected by several painful procedures. Cattle used for food production frequently suffer body mutilations to make the management more manageable, decrease levels of aggression of males and avoid
21 breeding. Although there are some ethical reservations towards such procedures, they do improve livestock welfare on farm management (Phillips, 2018).
One major mutilation procedure is castration, which is rather painful and stressful to the animal but makes the management more effortless. Males, in particular, castration leads to reduced aggressive and sexual behavior, which leads to more comfortable handling. In females, it avoids undesirable pregnancies, preventing offspring in unfavorable seasons or young beef heifers. Livestock is also subject to castration in order to become oxen or bullocks for work (Grandin, 2010a). The operation can carry risks of serious infection and inflammatory responses if done incorrectly (Phillips, 2018).
In modern production systems, it is recommended the dehorning or disbudding (removal of the horn before it has adhered to the skull) of animals. Horns are a dangerous body part that can injury both handlers and other animals. Horned individuals are often more aggressive, can take up more space and can inflict wounds on themselves as well as others. On farms where predation is a likely possibility, horns may be maintained to provide more protection. Horned cattle usually have more bruises in carcasses than non-horned animals. Because of the intense innervation of the region, dehorning or disbudding can be very painful to the animals, especially in older cattle. These animals are more prone to increased blood loss, injury and infection during the procedure (Phillips, 2018; Grandin, 2010a).
Tail docking is another method to grant better and easier management generally done to dairy cattle. Removal of the tail can improve the animal's hygiene, as it prevents the tail from being covered in feces and it facilitates access to udders during milking. It also avoids inflicted injuries on the handling staff. Though it helps in the husbandry, the process is painful to the animal, which cannot then swat flies from their hindquarters or signal to other cows (Phillips, 2018; Grandin, 2010a). Identification is also an important issue in animal welfare. Cattle usually are identified with an ear tag or by fire branding. Identification helps to trace the animal's health status as well as disease and treatment records. However, the process of identification of cattle can have repercussions not only on animal welfare but on its economic value, by the depreciation of the hide and on the handling personnel´s safety. Inadequate restraint of the animal or ear tagging can lead to intense pain, and the tag is usually lost easily. Other adverse consequences include infection of the pierced site (Phillips, 2018).
22 All of the practices described above cause pain during and after the procedure and may result in loss of certain body functions and hurt the animal's overall integrity. For assessment purposes, parameters such as the percentage of affected animals and the duration of the procedure can be used for measurements (Winckler, 2008).
h) Positive indicators
Up to this point, only the indicators suggestive to a reduction of animal welfare for animal welfare assessment were described. However, the evaluation of indicators of good animal welfare has increasingly been getting more attention over the years. Measurements of good environmental control and positive social relations are key parameters for evidence of good well-being. In calves, social or non-social play is noticed good indicator, as they often happen when the animal's primary needs have been satisfied. As for adults, social behaviors such as social licking are good signs of good well-being. Other indicators of a more qualitative nature can be observed and measured based on the subjective judgment of the "body language" of each animal, which helps to detect signs of happiness, satisfaction or apathy (Winckler, 2008). 1.3.3. The EU Welfare Quality® Project
Until recently, only a small amount of measurement protocols were created and applied to farm management (Winckler, 2008). The combination of many driving forces, primarily concerned EU citizens, production chains and markets and the EU regulatory control, lead to the development and initiation of the Welfare Quality®
project. Its main goal was to provide a scientifically reliable as well as a practical approach to farm welfare assessments for cattle, poultry and pigs. It also set out to deliver a standard system for welfare measurements to be carried to product information in a clear, understandable manner. These goals would rely on the expertise of several professional specialists on the subject of animal welfare in Europe. Early in the project's development, animal specialists would quickly create a list of four main welfare principles associated with the respective 12 criteria (Table 1.3). This list combines the scientific overviews on farm animal well-being with the practical aspects that need to be monitored to provide an understanding of the quality of animal welfare (Blokhuis et al., 2010).
23 Table 1.3. Principles and Welfare criteria (adapted from Blokhuis et al., 2010).
This project was the largest scientific collaboration in regards to animal welfare. Nevertheless, it still has some limitations, as there are still many unanswered points and discussions regarding certain areas and measures for some criteria. For example, there is no measurement system for welfare evaluation at the slaughter of cattle, calves, sows, piglets and hens. However, these can be rapidly developed on further projects (Blokhuis et al., 2010). The developed protocols still need some refinement as it requires great amounts of work and encouragement for the collection of valuable data. Other problems like the agreed frequency of the welfare assessment are to be discussed (Blokhuis et al., 2010).
1.3.4. Poor Stockmanship and Fearfulness
Welfare can be greatly influenced by the level of fearfulness of animals towards their handlers. Fear of handlers can cause a great source of stress and lead to major declines in productivity. Several studies verify this statement (Grandin, 2010a). Hemsworth et al. (1981) found that the proximity that pigs had with people in farms influenced substantially the farrowing state and the number of piglets that were born. A study from Cransberg et al. (2000) concluded that poultry farms where animals were moved very hastily by handlers, potentially scaring the birds, had a higher mortality rate. A study on dairy cows by Seabrook (1984) demonstrated that the level of
Principles Welfare criteria
Good feeding Absence of prolonged hunger Absence of prolonged thirst Good housing Comfort around resting
Thermal comfort Ease of movement Good health Absence of injuries Absence of disease
Absence of pain induced by management procedures Appropriate Behavior Expression of social behaviors
Expression of other behaviors Good human-animal relationship Positive emotional state
