1A survey was carried out to describe the extent and current practice of cattle 2 disbudding/dehorning in the EU Member States. Disbudding was defined as removal of horns 3 in calves of up to 2 months of age, whereas dehorning was defined as removal of horns in 4 older animals. Specific questionnaires were created regarding dairy, beef, and suckler 5 production systems and they were submitted to local experts of each country belonging to 6 relevant institutions like universities, national farmers' associations, cattle breeders 7 associations, farm veterinarians and practitioners. Figures on disbudding/dehorning practices 8 were produced for each production system for both the whole European Union and the North, 9Centre, East and South EU macro-regions. A total of 652 questionnaires were collected and 10 64%, 24% and 12% of them related to dairy cattle, beef cattle and suckler cows, respectively. 11Data from the survey showed that in Europe, 81% of the dairy, 47% of the beef and 68% of 12 the suckler currently keep disbudded/dehorned animals, while the prevalence of polled cattle 13 is rather low, especially in the dairy cattle sector (5% of all cattle farms; <1% of dairy farms). 14 Regardless of production system, prevalence of dehorned animals is the highest in the North 15 macro-region. Polled cattle farms are almost exclusively located in the North where polled 16 beef breeds are raised for fattening. Dehorning is performed primarily on loose housed cattle 17 to reduce the risk of injuries for herdmates and the stockman. Dehorning is less frequently 18 performed in organic farms. As method of horns removal, disbudding is generally preferred 19 over surgical removal of the horns in older cattle. Hot-iron is the most used disbudding 20 method especially in the North and Centre. Use of caustic paste is reported more frequently in 21 the South and the East. In the large majority of EU farms, the stockman is the person in 22 charge for disbudding and some kind of medication for pain relief is administered to the 23 3 animals only in a small percentage of farms (<30%). Surgical dehorning of more aged cattle is 24 mainly performed with the wire/saw method. Compared to disbudding, it is more often carried 25 out by a veterinarian and pre-and post operative medications (44% farms) is also more 26 common. 27 28

Summary CAP Reform and Innovation: The Role of Learning and Innovation Networks The technological and organisational solutions the agricultural sector has undertaken in the past are not always compatible with the constraints and opportunities that the rural economy and society will face in the future. There is growing agreement that the goal of sustainability cannot be fulfilled without a profound change in the way the economy is organised. Innovation policies are among the most suitable instruments for this purpose. The article, based on the SOLINSA conceptual framework, adopts a network approach to innovation policies. Based on empirical evidence collected from case studies across Europe in the first phase of the project, the paper proposes the concept of Learning and Innovation Networks for Sustainable Agriculture (LINSA). LINSA are defined as ‘networks of producers, customers, experts, Non‐Governmental Organisations, Small and Medium Enterprises, local administrations and components of the formal Agricultural Knowledge System (AKS), that are mutually engaged with common goals for sustainable agriculture and rural development – cooperating, sharing resources and co‐producing new knowledge by creating conditions for communication'. The article proposes that LINSA be considered as policy devices – in line with the European Innovation Partnership initiative – to foster innovation in the direction of sustainability goals as advocated by Europe 2020 strategy.

No abstract

No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to describe the main characteristics of the animal welfare specifications in different quality schemes of the French pig sector; to present the French pig farmers' attitudes towards animal welfare in general, and illustrate different quality schemes.Design/methodology/approachPrime source of data is interviews with 60 pig farmers. Supplementary sources are research reports and statistics, specifications of the quality schemes.FindingsOn many themes, the responses and attitudes of the farmers differ according to their participation or not in a quality assurance scheme, and according to the level of stringency of their scheme regarding animal welfare. For instance, farmers in the most stringent schemes define animal welfare as providing natural living conditions for the animals, whereas for farmers in no schemes, or in more intensive schemes, animal welfare is above all an animal in good health, for which one must provide correct housing and a balanced and sufficient diet. Animal welfare is almost always a part of more global quality schemes including environmental and high flavour quality aspects.Originality/valueThe paper provides insights into the different definitions of good animal welfare by French pig farmers, as well as their attitudes towards public regulations and different types of private schemes. This is interesting from a scientific point of view and to fuel the debate between a high level of regulation for all farmers, a market segmentation based on welfare specification, or a market segmentation in which animal welfare is one aspect of the specifications.