Assessment of quality of life in veterinary practice: developing tools for companion animal carers and veterinarians

Siobhan Mullan Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol Veterinary School, Bristol, UK Abstract: Quality-of-life assessments aim to provide an all-encompassing evaluation of animal welfare. In comparison to more limited, disease-focused welfare assessments, they have the potential to better identify welfare deficiencies, allowing veterinarians to target improvement strategies for greater benefit. Individuals or populations of companion animals may be assessed and carers and/or veterinarians may contribute to the assessment. Quality-of-life assessments are widely used within the human health care setting, and although the number of veterinary assessment tools is substantially fewer, these tools cover a range of methodologies. Further research to validate existing tools and develop new ones is recommended. Guidance for implementing and evaluating the usefulness of quality-of-life assessment tools within companion animal veterinary clinics is presented. Keywords: quality of life, welfare, companion animals, veterinary practice, evidence-based veterinary medicine&nbsp

Slow-growing broilers are healthier and express more behavioural indicators of positive welfare

Broiler chicken welfare is under increasing scrutiny due to welfare concerns regarding growth rate and stocking density. This farm-based study explored broiler welfare in four conditions representing commercial systems varying in breed and planned maximum stocking density: (1) Breed A, 30 kg/m2; (2) Breed B, 30 kg/m2; (3) Breed B, 34 kg/m2; (4) Breed C, 34 kg/m2. Breeds A and B were ‘slow-growing’ breeds (< 50 g/day), and Breed C was a widely used ‘fast-growing’ breed. Indicators of negative welfare, behavioural indicators of positive welfare and environmental outcomes were assessed. Clear differences between conditions were detected. Birds in Condition 4 experienced the poorest health (highest mortality and post-mortem inspection rejections, poorest walking ability, most hock burn and pododermatitis) and litter quality. These birds also displayed lower levels of behaviours indicative of positive welfare (enrichment bale occupation, qualitative ‘happy/active’ scores, play, ground-scratching) than birds in Conditions 1–3. These findings provide farm-based evidence that significant welfare improvement can be achieved by utilising slow-growing breeds. There are suggested welfare benefits of a slightly lower planned maximum stocking density for Breed B and further health benefits of the slowest-growing breed, although these interventions do not offer the same magnitude of welfare improvement as moving away from fast-growing broilers

Economic and welfare impacts of providing good life opportunities to farm animals

Existing animal welfare standards for legislation and food certification programmes are primarily designed to avoid harms to the livestock, with minimal consideration given to their behavioural freedoms. Recent research has shown, however, that animal welfare should not only be evaluated by the absence of negative states but also by the presence of ‘good life’ or positive experiences enjoyed by animals. The objective of the present study is to investigate the scientific validity and on-farm cost implications of utilising potential input-based measures of positive welfare as part of evaluation criteria for farm assurance schemes. Building upon the Farm Animal Welfare Council’s concept of good life opportunities, an assessment was undertaken on 49 non-caged laying hen farms across the UK by measuring on-farm resources to facilitate positive experiences alongside commonly measured metrics for welfare outcomes. The financial cost of providing these resources on each enterprise was also estimated using a farm-scale costing tool. The results suggested that 63% of resource needs that facilitate the behaviour opportunities of laying hens are already being provided by these producers, far above legal and commercial requirements. This practice attracts no reward mechanism or direct financial benefit under the current market structure. Additional provision of opportunities was positively associated with behavioural outcomes, but only limited impact was observed on health and productivity measures. Economic modelling indicated that significant room exists to further improve welfare scores on these farms, on average by 97%, without incurring additional costs. Together we argue that these results can be seen as evidence of market failure since producers are providing positive welfare value to society that is not being currently recognised. It is therefore contended that measuring and rewarding the supply of good life opportunities could be a novel policy instrument to create an effective marketplace that appropriately recognises high welfare production

Racehorse welfare across a training season

Racehorse welfare is gaining increasing public attention, however scientific evidence in this area is lacking. In order to develop a better understanding of racehorse welfare, it must be measured and monitored. This is the first study to assess racehorse welfare using scientific objective methods across a training season. The aim of this study was threefold, firstly to investigate welfare measures which could be used in the first welfare assessment protocol for racehorses. Secondly, to understand the effect that a racing and training season had on individual racehorses and thirdly to identify risk factors for both good and poor welfare. Thirteen racehorse training yards were visited at the beginning and the peak of the racing season in England. Behavioral observations along with individual environmental and animal-based welfare measures were carried out on 353 horses in 13 training yards selected for variability. In our sample the horses were generally in good physical health: 94% of horses recorded as an ideal body condition score, no horses had signs of hoof neglect and 77.7% had no nasal discharge. The overall prevalence of external Mouth Corner Lesions was 12.9% and was significantly higher for Flat racing than Jump racing horses. The majority of horses (67.5%) showed positive horse human interactions. When stabled 54.1% horses had physical social contact and nasal discharge was not associated with increased physical contact. The training season significantly affected Human Reactivity Tests, Horse Grimace Scale scores and time spent resting and feeding. A total of 14.5% of horses displayed stereotypic behavior on at least two occasions. Horses with windows in their stables spent more time surveying their surroundings. Overall, in this population of racehorses, horses spent around a third of their daytime feeding (33.7%) followed by time spent standing resting (22.6%). The welfare assessment protocol used in this study is suitable for use in industry to collect welfare data on racehorses

Use of welfare outcome information in three types of dairy farm inspection reports

Objective The aim of this study was to examine the use of outcome-based observations within Assured Dairy Farm scheme (ADF), Soil Association Organic Standards (SA), and cross compliance (CC) farm assessment reports. Methods A total of 449 ADF reports, 37 SA reports and 26 CC reports were analyzed and their objective comments categorized as either resource-based or outcome-based. Results A mean of 61.0% of ADF questions were responded to with comments, in comparison to 25.0% of SA and, 21.0% of CC report questions. The SA and CC reports had significantly more outcome-based comments than the ADF (p<0.001). The assessors’ tendency of choosing resource-based approach was revealed in the questionnaire results. Conclusion Generally, the comments were comprehensive and contained professional judgements. Large numbers of comments provided in the ADF reports were mostly compliant and resource-based evidence, which serves as proof of assessment rather than aiding the certifying process. The inclusion of specific welfare outcome measures in the SA inspection likely increased the use of outcome-based comments in the reports, irrespective of whether the farm achieved compliance with a given standards. The CC scheme, on the other hand, focused on providing outcome-based evidence to justify noncompliant decisions

V-QBA vs. QBA—How Do Video and Live Analysis Compare for Qualitative Behaviour Assessment?

Animal welfare is an inextricable part of livestock production and sustainability. Assessing welfare, beyond physical indicators of health, is challenging and often relies on qualitative techniques. Behaviour is a key component of welfare to consider and Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) aims to achieve this by systematically scoring behaviour across specific terms. In recent years, numerous studies have conducted QBA by using video footage, however, the method was not originally developed using video and video QBA (V-QBA) requires validation. Forty live QBAs were conducted, by two assessors, on housed beef cattle to help fill this validation gap. Video was recorded over the assessment period and a second video assessment was conducted. Live and video scores for each term were compared for both correlation and significant difference. Principle component analysis (PCA) was then conducted and correlations and differences between QBA and V-QBA for the first two components were calculated. Of the 20 terms, three were removed due to an overwhelming majority of scores of zero. Of the remaining 17 terms, 12 correlated significantly, and a significant pairwise difference was found for one (“Bored”). QBA and V-QBA results correlated across both PC1 (defined as “arousal”) and PC2 (defined as “mood”). Whilst there was no significant difference between the techniques for PC1, there was for PC2, with V-QBA generally yielding lower scores than QBA. Furthermore, based on PC1 and PC2, corresponding QBA and V-QBA scores were significantly closer than would be expected at random. Results found broad agreement between QBA and V-QBA at both univariate and multivariate levels. However, the lack of absolute agreement and muted V-QBA results for PC2 mean that caution should be taken when implementing V-QBA and that it should ideally be treated independently from live QBA until further evidence is published. Future research should focus on a greater variety of animals, environments, and assessors to address further validation of the method