Farm animal welfare assessment protocols use different measures depending on production systems and the purpose of the assessment. There is no standardized validated animal welfare protocol for the assessment of beef cattle farms in New Zealand, despite the importance of beef exports to the country. The aim of this study was therefore to identify welfare measures that would be suitable for an animal welfare assessment protocol for use in extensive pasture-based cow–calf beef cattle systems in New Zealand. The proposed animal welfare assessment measures were selected from the Welfare Quality protocol and the rangeland-based UC Davis Cow–Calf Health and Handling assessment protocol. Measures that were deemed impractical and/or unsuitable were excluded from the protocol. After testing the applicability of selected measures at one farm, additional measures that were deemed to be practical to undertake in New Zealand were identified and incorporated into the protocol. The intention was to identify animal welfare indicators that were assessable in the yard during a single farm visit, a questionnaire guided interview, and a farm resource assessment visit that evaluated cattle health and management. Further testing of the 50 measures that were identified as being appropriate will be undertaken on commercial beef farms to develop a practicable welfare protocol for extensive pasture-based beef systems.

Potential measures suitable for assessing welfare in pasture-based beef cow–calf systems in New Zealand were identified from Welfare Quality and UC Davis Cow-Calf protocols. These were trialled on a single farm and a potential protocol of 50 measures created. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of the measures included in this protocol on multiple farms in order, to develop a credible animal welfare assessment protocol for pasture-based cow–calf farms systems in New Zealand. The assessment protocol was trialled on 25 farms over two visits and took a total of 2.5 h over both visits for a 100-cow herd. The first visit in autumn included an animal welfare assessment of 3366 cows during pregnancy scanning, while the second visit in winter included a questionnaire-guided interview to assess cattle management and health, and a farm resource evaluation. Through a process of eliminating unsuitable measures, adjustments of modifiable measures and retaining feasible measures, a protocol with 32 measures was created. The application of the protocol on the farms showed that not all measures are feasible for on-farm assessment, and categorisation of identified animal welfare measures into scores that indicate a threshold of acceptable and non-acceptable welfare standards is necessary.

The intention of this study was to develop standards for a welfare assessment protocol by validating potential categorisation thresholds for the assessment of beef farms in New Zealand. Thirty-two measures, based on the Welfare Quality and the University of California (UC) Davis Cow-Calf protocols, plus some indicators specific to New Zealand, that were assessed during routine yardings of 3366 cattle on 25 cow-calf beef farms in the Waikato region were categorised on a three-point welfare score, where 0 denotes good welfare, 1 marginal welfare, and 2 poor/unacceptable welfare. Initial categorisation of welfare thresholds was based upon the authors’ perception of acceptable welfare standards and the consensus of the literature, with subsequent derived thresholds being based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of farms for each measure. Imposed thresholds for lameness, dystocia, and mortality rate were retained in view of the significance of these conditions for the welfare of affected cattle, while higher derived thresholds appeared more appropriate for dirtiness and faecal staining which were thought to have less significant welfare implications for cattle on pasture. Fearful/agitated and running behaviours were above expectations, probably due to the infrequent yarding of cows, and thus the derived thresholds were thought to be more appropriate. These thresholds provide indicators to farmers and farm advisors regarding the levels at which intervention and remediation is required for a range of welfare measures.

One key area where animal welfare may relate to productivity is through reproductive performance. This study assesses welfare on 25 extensively managed pastoral New Zealand beef farms, and explores the relationship between welfare and reproductive performance. Relationships between welfare measures and key reproductive performance indicators (pregnancy rate, weaning rate, mating period and bull: cow ratio) are investigated using an exploratory principal components analysis and linear regression model. Seven welfare measures (thinness, poor rumen fill, dirtiness, blindness, mortality, health checks of pregnant cows and yarding frequency/year) showed a potential influence on reproductive performance, and lameness was retained individually as a potential measure. Mean pregnancy rates, in both 2018 (PD18) and 2017 (PD17), were ~91% and mean weaning rate was 84%. Of the welfare measures, only lameness had a direct association with pregnancy rate, as well as a confounding effect on the association between mating period and pregnancy rate. The bull: cow ration (mean 1:31) and reproductive conditions (dystocia, abortion, vaginal prolapse) did not influence pregnancy and weaning rates. In the study population, there was no clear association between welfare and reproductive performance, except for the confounding effects of lameness.

A proposed animal welfare assessment protocol for semi-arid rangeland-based cow–calf systems in Namibia combined 40 measures from a protocol developed for beef cattle in New Zealand with additional Namibia-specific measures. Preliminary validation of the protocol had been undertaken with five herds in one semi-commercial village. The aim of the current study was to apply this protocol and compare animal welfare across three cow–calf production systems in Namibia. A total of 2529 beef cows were evaluated during pregnancy testing in the yards of 17 commercial, 20 semi-commercial, and 18 communal (total: 55) herds followed by an assessment of farm resources and a questionnaire-guided interview. Non-parametric tests were used to evaluate the difference in the welfare scores between the production systems. The results indicated a discrepancy of animal welfare between the three farm types, with a marked separation of commercial farms from semi-commercial, and communal village farms in the least. The differences in these production systems were mainly driven by economic gains through access to better beef export market for commercial farms and semi-commercial villages, as well as by the differences in the available grazing land, facility designs/quality, and traditional customs in the village systems. The results indicate an advantage of commercialization over communalization.