Background In Germany, animal welfare has become an increasingly important issue. Since 2006, German legislation demands self-monitoring of animal welfare by farmers, but there is a lack of prescribed indicators for governmental monitoring. Since recording of the health status through examinations on individual farms requires many resources, secondary data use is obvious. Therefore, this study deals with the overall evaluation and utilization of existing production data from the German pork production. Performance data and information on antibiotic usage and meat inspection were used for a benchmarking system of animal health in finishing pigs. Results Seven health scores and one total score were evaluated for 184 finishing pig herds on semi-annual basis between July 2017 and June 2019, based on the health indicators mortality, average daily gain, feed conversion ratio, treatment frequency, respiratory lesions, exterior lesions and animal management. In preparation, the selected health indicators were brought to the same scale and skewed data were transformed to build scores (MOR, ADG, FCR, TF, RESP, EXT and MANG). A differentiated analysis was carried out for three classes of initial body weight regarding to farmers’ fattening management strategies. Conclusions The present study shows that existing production data of German finishing pigs are usable for welfare monitoring. However, preparatory editing steps are crucial. The total score can only be an estimate of health status because partly bad or good performance could be disguised. It has also been demonstrated, that relative benchmarking is suitable for depicting temporary fluctuations in the investigated collective.

Background A Voluntary Human Approach Test (VHAT) was performed in pig pens, and relationships between environmental conditions and welfare indicators were investigated. Five variables were measured in 1668 pens in 214 fattening pig herds in Germany: time until the first contact (touching) between a pig and the person in the pen (TUFC), time until the observer was surrounded by pigs within a radius of approximately two meters, percentage of pigs relative to group size [%] surrounding the observer after 1 min (PPSO), percentage of pigs relative to group size [%] that completely avoided contact with the observer during the entire test period, and how the pigs contacted the observer (Score 0 [no touching] - 3 [biting]). Furthermore, variables indicative of the pigs’ environment (e.g., feeding system, ventilation system), management (e.g., number of usable drinkers, number of usable manipulatable materials), and welfare (e.g., tail lesions, ear lesions) were documented. Results Pigs engaging in more forceful means of contact (nibbling, biting) approached the observer faster than those exhibiting more gentle types of contact (touching). A lower TUFC was associated with more manipulatable materials present, a higher number of drinkers, and with the control position of the caretaker located inside the pen. Pigs kept in larger groups showed a lower TUFC than those in smaller groups ( P = 0.0191). However, PPSO was lower in pigs kept in smaller groups (1–12 pigs per pen) with more manipulatable materials available. In groups with low PPSOs, more tail lesions were observed ( P = 0.0296). No relationship between contact type and tail or ear injuries was detected. In younger pigs, PPSO was higher (49.9 ± 23.2%) than for animals in the second half of the fattening period (45.1 ± 19.9%). Conclusions In this on-farm study, the relationships between VHAT behavior and environmental factors revealed that external factors (e.g., management practices, housing conditions) impact animals’ responses to this behavioral test. Therefore, using the VHAT as an animal welfare indicator is valid only if these variables are studied as well.

Diverging interests and conflicts in regard to the veterinary practice for both the performance of the horse and its prolonged welfare Under ideal conditions the care for sport horses by veterinarians promotehe capacity of the sport horse as well as his long-term welfare. But this two aims can be conflicting in the work of veterinarians. That means: In some cases the capacity for sport performance is rehabilitated and increased at the cost of the long-term welfare of the horse; in other cases the care for the long term welfare of the horse implicates the interruption of competing in competitions. The opposing tasks, interests and willingnesses of the veterinarians and the corresponding conflicts are closely connected with the expectations of the clients adressed to the doctor, with the social attitudes to the phenomenon "illness" and with the conviction, that the health and the capacity could be achieved by the modifying action of the doctor, it means, the health and the capacity could be rehabilitated and increased. The conviction of the "makeability" connects the medical work with the technical world as well as with the performance sport. To the competition sport with horses the conflict between using the cpacity of the horse on one side and the protection of health and wellbeing of the horse on the other side is immanent. The riders and the riding organisations, which profit by the prospering sport, know as well about that conflict. But they diminish the occurrence of the conflict by psychic techniques as ignoring, reinterpretation and shifting the importance of the facts. Further growing consideration of the interests of the horse in the veterinarian work can not be expected to be achievd by moral appeals. This is mainly due to the pressure coming from the sport. A stronger effect could be reached by competent publications about the structures and the developments of the sport, which burdens the horse. Such publications, done by veterinarians, could diminish the image of the horse sport, provoke the criticism of the sponsors and as a reaction on that enforce the growing consideration of the wellbeing of the horse.

Background The use of processed secondary data for health monitoring of fattening pigs has been established in various areas, such as the use of antibiotics or in the context of meat inspection. Standardized scores were calculated based on several sources of production data and can be used to describe animal health in a large collective of pig units. In the present study, the extent to which these scores are related to different farm characteristics and management decisions were investigated. In addition, slaughter scores were compared with the results of a veterinary examination on the farms. Results The comparison of the results of the uni- and multifactorial analyses revealed that almost all of the examined factors play a role in at least one of the scores when considered individually. However, when various significant influencing factors were taken into account at any one time, most of the variables lost their statistical significance due to confounding effects. In particular, production data such as production costs or daily feed intake remained in the final models of the scores on mortality, average daily gain and external lesions. Regarding the second part of the investigation, a basic technical correlation between the slaughter scores and the on-farm indicators could be established via principal component analysis. The modelling of the slaughter scores by the on-farm indicators showed that the score on external lesions could be represented by equivalent variables recorded on the farm (e.g., lesions caused by tail or ear biting). Conclusions It has been demonstrated that the examined health scores are influenced by various farm and management characteristics. However, when several factors are taken into account, confounding occurs in some cases, which must be considered by consultants. Additionally, it was shown that on-farm examination content is related to the scores based on equivalent findings from slaughter pigs.

Dem Begriff "Tierschutz" assoziiert man üblicherweise altruistische Motive, die den Menschen zum Einsatz für das andere Lebewesen veranlassen(sollen). Solchen altruistischen Motiven werden hier egoistische und humanistische an die Seite gestellt. Während von egoistischen Motiven dort gesprochen wird, wo Individuen ihre speziellen Ziele verfolgen, stehen bei der humanistischen Motivation allgemeine menschliche Anliegen im Mittelpunkt. Diese beiden Modi der Motivation sind anthropozentrisch. Der Schutz der Gesundheit und des Wohlbefindens des Pferdes stellt bei ihnen "nur" ein Mittel zum Erreichen der (menschlichen) Ziele dar. Der theriozentrische Tierschutz geht demgegenüber von den Ansprüchen des Tieres aus. Und der Mensch rückt im altruistischen Tierschutz sein Interesse hinter das des Tieres. Vom egoistisch motivierten Tierschutz wird hier behauptet, er habe die Geschichte des Tierschutzes wahrscheinlich weitergehend bestimmt als vor allem der altruistisch motivierte. Die Bedeutung des derart veranlassten Tierschutzes wird durch die Struktur der menschlichen Motivation und durch eine "List der Natur" bedingt. Als "List der Natur" lässt sich der Umstand bezeichnen, dass Organismen in der Regel und auf Dauer ihre maximale respektive optimale Leistung nur erbringen, wenn man ihre anatomische Struktur, ihre physiologischen Prozesse, ihre angeborenen Verhaltensdispositionen und ihre Befindlichkeiten weitgehend respektiert. In der psychologischen Analyse wird die Differenzierung der verschiedenen menschlichen Motivationen relativiert und aufgehoben. Die Motivation des Handelns und deren moralische Bewertung wird als irrelevant für das ausschlaggebende Ziel des Tierschutzes dargestellt, nämlich irrelevant für die Auswirkungen des menschlichen Handelns auf die Gesundheit und das Wohlbefinden des Pferdes. Irrelevant ist die Motivation für diesen Zweck auch deshalb, weil aus den sogenannten egoistischen Zielen altruistische Konsequenzen resultieren können und die sogenannten altruistischen Ziele nicht stets zu altruistischen Konsequenzen führen. Schlüsselwörter: Tierschutz, Geschichte des Tierschutzes, menschliche Motivation, Geschichte der Tiermedizin Egoistic motivated animal welfare The term "animal welfare" usually is associated to altruistic motives, which shall make man to support other living beings. Further more there are existing egoistic and humanistic motives, which cause animal welfare actions. In the case of egoistic motivation individuums are acting to realize their individual interests, in the case of humanistic motivation they realize general human interests. Both categories of motives are anthropozentric. The egoistic and the humanistic motivations are inducing indirectly the results of animal welfare, it means, they are steps on the way to realize the human interests. The theriozentric animal welfare focuses on the needs of the animal instead of the human interests. This motivation is named altruistic. It is assumed here, that the egoistic motivation was more efficient than the altruistic in the history...