At calving, purebred animals of the Belgian Blue (BB) breed are compromised by the incompatibility in size and shape of the dam and her calf, resulting in a very high incidence of dystocia problems. To clarify which body parts of the calf are of decisive importance to allow natural delivery and to investigate both the mean value as well as the variation among these body sizes within this breed (variation being an important condition for selection), measurements of nine body parts (body weight at birth (BW), body length (BL), length of the head (LH), shoulder width (SW), hip width (HW), heart girth (HG), withers height (WH) and the circumference of the fetlock of both the front (CFF) and the hind leg (CFH)) were assessed in 147 newborn purebred BB calves on 17 farms. Simple and partial correlations were assessed and we examined whether environmental factors (gender of the calf, parity of the cow, type of calving, season of birth and time of measurement after birth) were significantly associated with these specific calf measurements. The mean BW was 49.2 6 7.1 kg. The average BL was 56.4 6 4.5 cm and the mean LH was 24.4 6 2.3 cm. Measurements obtained for SW and HW were 22.4 6 2.2 and 22.9 6 2.1 cm, respectively, whereas the mean WH was 71.1 6 4.7 cm. Measurements of circumferences revealed a CFF of 17.9 6 1.1 cm, a CFH of 18.0 6 1.0 cm and a mean HG of 78.0 6 5.4 cm. Partial correlations of the BW with eight body measurements were significant (P , 0.01) and ranged between 0.17 and 0.85; 0.42 and 0.88; and 0.24 and 0.88 when corrected for gender, parity and type of calving, respectively. BL (P , 0.01) and the CFF and CFH (P , 0.001) are larger in bull calves than in heifer calves. Calves born through caesarean section had broader SW (P , 0.01) and HW (P , 0.01) when compared with calves born after natural calving (defined as born per vaginam without assistance or with slight traction). Sizes of calves born out of multiparous cows were generally larger than of calves born out of heifers (SW: P , 0.001; HW: P , 0.05). As SW and HW are the broadest points of a BB calf, they are both candidates for being the limiting measures for calving ease, but the difference between HW and SW for the total data set was not different from zero (P . 0.05). In contrast to male calves in which no significant difference (between HW and SW) could be found, female calves show the difference between HW and SW that was significantly different from zero (P , 0.001); thus, in female calves, the HW is the most limiting factor of the calf's body. The significant variation in some body measures between the calves and the strong correlation within these sizes raises the possibility of selection towards smaller calves aiming to limit the dystocia problem in the BB breed. Furthermore, on the basis of our results, we were able to build equations for the farmer to use at the moment of calving containing the LH, the CF and the calf's gender to estimate SW and HW, the limiting body parts of the calf to be born naturally. Together with the knowledge o...

Perhaps the commonest reasons for the keeping of pets are companionship and as a conduit for affection. Pets are, therefore, being ''used'' for human ends in much the same way as laboratory or farm animals. So shouldn't the same arguments apply to the use of pets as to those used in other ways? In accepting the ''rights'' of farm animals to fully express their natural behavior, one must also accept the ''right'' of pets to express their intrinsic natural behavior. Dogs kept in houses for most of the day are being kept in an unnatural environment. So are rabbits kept in hutches, and guinea-pigs or birds in cages. These conditions infringe the animals' telos. Dogs are naturally pack animals, so is a dog in isolation being denied its telos? Other actions more deliberately infringe telos and autonomy. Enforced shampooing -or even exercise; hair-cutting of poodles; putting animals in clothes; and tail-docking. If de-beaking of chickens is considered wrong, then the same must be true for tail-docking of dogs. One should also question the ethics of specialist breeding -especially when that results in physiological disadvantages (boxers with breathing troubles). There would appear to be no advantage to the animals in having such health problems and when these are the direct result of the breeders' desire for specific cosmetic traits, we should question the ethics of the practice at least as much as when animals are bred for specific agricultural traits.

No abstract

When making an assessment of animal welfare, it is important to take environmental (housing) or animal-based parameters into account. An alternative approach is to focus on the behavior and appearance of the animal, without making actual measurements or quantifying this. None of these tell the whole story. In this paper, we suggest that it is possible to find common ground between these (seemingly) diametrically opposed positions and argue that this may be the way to deal with the complexity of animal welfare. The model will have to be acceptable for the different parties that will be affected by it and real benefits for the animal should result from it. This will be the basis of a practical ethical approach. All this can be condensed into a model that essentially is made up out of three basic elements: the classical welfare analysis with an existing welfare assessment tool, an assessment of the stockholder, and an implementation of the Free Choice Profiling technique. This new framework does not pretend to be a different or better animal welfare matrix; it is intended to integrate existing knowledge and to provide a practical tool to improve animal welfare. It identifies whether there are welfare problems on a farm, if present whether these problems are caused by the housing system or the stockholder, and what can be done to improve the situation.

No abstract