Several systems have been proposed for the overall assessment of animal welfare at the farm level for the purpose of advising farmers or assisting public decision-making. They are generally based on several measures compounded into a single evaluation, using different rules to assemble the information. Here we discuss the different methods used to aggregate welfare measures and their applicability to certification schemes involving welfare. Data obtained on a farm can be (i) analysed by an expert who draws an overall conclusion; (ii) compared with minimal requirements set for each measure; (iii) converted into ranks, which are then summed; or (iv) converted into values or scores compounded in a weighted sum (e.g. TGI35L) or using ad hoc rules. Existing methods used at present (at least when used exclusively) may be insufficiently sensitive or not routinely applicable, or may not reflect the multidimensional nature of welfare and the relative importance of various welfare measures. It is concluded that different methods may be used at different stages of the construction of an overall assessment of animal welfare, depending on the constraints imposed on the aggregation process.

The overall assessment of animal welfare is a multicriterion evaluation problem that needs a constructive strategy to compound information produced by many measures. The construction depends on specific features such as the concept of welfare, the measures used and the way data are collected. Welfare is multidimensional and one dimension probably cannot fully compensate for another one (e.g. good health cannot fully compensate for behavioural deprivation). Welfare measures may vary in precision, relevance and their relative contribution to an overall welfare assessment. The data collected are often expressed on ordinal scales, which limits the use of weighted sums to aggregate them. A sequential aggregation is proposed in the Welfare Quality R project, first from measures to welfare criteria (corresponding to dimensions with pre-set objectives) and then to an overall welfare assessment, using rules determined at each level depending on the nature and number of variables to be considered and the level of compensation to be permitted. Scientific evidence and expert opinion are used to refine the model, and stakeholders' approval of general principles is sought. This approach could potentially be extended to other problems in agriculture such as the overall assessment of the sustainability of production systems.

Housing is important for the welfare of cows. Although recommendations have been proposed, abnormal movements and injury problems are still observed in cubicle houses. We conducted a survey on 70 French dairy farms that used cubicles. We examined the design of the cubicles, and the behavior, injuries, and cleanliness of the cows. Most of the cubicles did not comply with the recommendations, often being too narrow and/or too short. Difficulties in lying behavior and injuries were more common when the neck rail was high. No improvement was noted when cubicles of a recent design were used ("U.S." cubicles), apparently because these cubicles were most often cantilevered on a double head rail rather than fixed on freestanding posts. An experiment was conducted, making similar measurements, on 84 cows to compare two configurations for U.S. cubicles (cantilevered on a double head rail as observed in the survey with a high and rear neck rail vs. fixed on freestanding posts as recommended) and another recent cubicle type (Euroconfort, cantilevered on head rails, but with a large space between the rails and fixed as recommended), with and without a brisket board. In U.S. cubicles on rails, cows spent more time lying and less time fully standing inside the cubicles than in the other cubicles (percentage of time: lying, 53.9 vs. 51.5; fully standing, 7.3 vs. 8.5); in Euroconfort cubicles, they hit bars more often when getting up than in U.S. Cubicles (percentage of observations: 42.4 vs. 26.4. Without a brisket board, cows lay down more often in a fore position in U.S. cubicles than in Euroconfort ones. Somatic cell counts increased with time in U.S. cubicles on rails and decreased in the other cubicles. It is suggested that the position of the neck rail in U.S. cubicles cantilevered on rails did not leave enough space for the cow to stand inside the cubicle, thereby encouraging the cow to lie down. This could in turn favor udder contamination and/or inflammation. It is concluded that the positioning of the neck rail is of prime importance, that U.S. cubicles should be used with a brisket board and with correct positioning of the neck rail (even when a head rail is used), and that leaving a large space between head rails does not offer an adequate remedial solution for keeping a free head space in front of the cubicle.

No abstract

Animal welfare enhancement requires that problems are reliably identified and ranked in order to prioritise corrective actions. Welfare problems vary with the conditions in which animals are maintained. The objectives were to highlight major welfare problems for dairy cows on farms in France, and find out how farm characteristics (housing and milking systems, breed) could impact specific welfare aspects on these farms. We conducted a cross-sectional survey on 131 French dairy farms. We used the Welfare Quality® protocol, which addresses all aspects of welfare, and yields scores for principles and criteria that represent how well farms meet welfare requirements (from 0 for a very adverse situation to 100 for an excellent one). We used descriptive statistics to highlight low welfare scores, and variance analyses to compare farms. Most farms were found 'Acceptable' according to the Welfare Quality® classification. Principles scores for Health, Feeding and Behaviour ranged from 33 to 39. The median score for eight of the welfare criteria was below 50 ('Pain', 'Integument alterations', 'Diseases', 'Comfort around resting', 'Social behaviours', 'Human-animal relationship', 'Positive emotional state', 'Hunger'), while the median score was above 50 for the four other criteria ('Thirst', 'Lameness', 'Expression of other behaviours', 'Ease of movement'). The scores varied widely between farms, within and between systems. Farms with cubicles obtained lower scores for 'Comfort around resting', 'Injuries'; farms with Holstein cows obtained lower scores for 'Hunger'; farms using an automatic milking system obtained lower scores for 'Expression of other behaviours' and 'Diseases' in Holstein herds. This survey yields information on bottlenecks in dairy cow welfare with all dimensions of welfare considered together. The results can be used by stakeholders to prioritise corrective actions in welfare plans, focusing either on the whole population of farms or on farms with characteristics that are at high risk for specific welfare problems.