Welfare risk assessment:The benefits and common pitfalls

Risk is defined as a situation involving exposure to danger. Risk assessment by nature characterises the probability of a negative event occurring and quantifies the consequences of such an event. Risk assessment is increasingly being used in the field of animal welfare as a means of drawing comparisons between multiple welfare problems within and between species and identifying those that should be prioritised by policy-makers, either because they affect a large proportion of the population or because they have particularly severe consequences for those affected. The assessment of risk is typically based on three fundamental factors: intensity of consequences, duration affected by consequences and prevalence. However, it has been recognised that these factors alone do not give a complete picture of a hazard and its associated consequences. Rather, to get a complete picture, it is important to also consider information about the hazard itself: probability of exposure to the hazard and duration of exposure to the hazard. The method has been applied to a variety of farmed species (eg poultry, dairy cows, farmed fish), investigating housing, husbandry and slaughter procedures, as well as companion animals, where it has been used to compare inherited defects in pedigree dogs and horses. To what extent can we trust current risk assessment methods to get the priorities straight? How should we interpret the results produced by such assessments? Here, the potential difficulties and pitfalls of the welfare risk assessment method will be discussed: (i) the assumption that welfare hazards are independent; (ii) the problem of quantifying the model parameters; and (iii) assessing and incorporating variability and uncertainty into welfare risk assessments. © 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.

Unloading or not unloading? Sheep welfare implication of rest stop at control post after a 29h transport

In Europe, maximum journey time for transported sheep is set at 29. h (EC Regulation 1/2005), after which animals must be unloaded, fed and watered in control posts stopping for 24. h, as all other species, before continuing their journey. The industry considers these resting times too general, not taking into account the peculiar differences between species or age classes. Also, loading and unloading have been reported to be detrimental for the animals. Therefore, the industry pushes to reduce the times at control post and avoid unloading the animals from the truck. Since there is little information concerning the effect of resting in a stationary truck after long journeys, the present study aims to evaluate the effect of an 8. h rest stop on the truck for transported ewes compared to being unloaded for resting in a control post for the same amount of time, considering physiological and behavioural measures. Two groups of ewes were transported for 29. h, after which one was unloaded and housed in a pen (P) at the control post while the other was left inside the truck (T). After 8. h stop, a further 6. h travel was headed to the farm of origin. A third group (C) stayed at the farm as control. During the stop, standing, resting, moving and eating behaviour of all groups was recorded. Blood parameters, salivary and faecal cortisol were assessed at different stages. The behaviour of P animals during the resting period was more similar to C than to T ones, where feeding and lying behaviours were restricted by the limited space allowance on the truck. After returning to the farm of origin, both T and P animals showed different parameters' levels as compared to C. P ewes showed a mean loss weight of 2. kg not recorded in group T and showed higher signs of muscular damage compared to C group. It was concluded that, with so short resting times as 8. h, there is no clear advantages in terms of animal welfare for avoiding the unloading and loading of the animals in the control post after long journeys.

Pig producer perspectives on the use of meat inspection as an animal health and welfare diagnostic tool in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland

Background
Currently, there is growing interest in developing ante and post mortem meat inspection (MI) to incorporate measures of pig health and welfare for use as a diagnostic tool on pig farms. However, the success of the development of the MI process requires stakeholder engagement with the process. Knowledge gaps and issues of trust can undermine the effective exchange and utilisation of information across the supply chain. A social science research methodology was employed to establish stakeholder perspectives towards the development of MI to include measures of pig health and welfare. In this paper the findings of semi-structured telephone interviews with 18 pig producers from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are presented.

Results
Producers recognised the benefit of the utilisation of MI data as a health and welfare diagnostic tool. This acknowledgment, however, was undermined for some by dissatisfaction with the current system of MI information feedback, by trust and fairness concerns, and by concerns regarding the extent to which data would be used in the producers’ interests. Tolerance of certain animal welfare issues may also have a negative impact on how producers viewed the potential of MI data. The private veterinary practitioner was viewed as playing a vital role in assisting them with the interpretation of MI data for herd health planning.

Conclusions
The development of positive relationships based on trust, commitment and satisfaction across the supply chain may help build a positive environment for the effective utilisation of MI data in improving pig health and welfare. The utilisation of MI as a diagnostic tool would benefit from the development of a communication strategy aimed at building positive relationships between stakeholders in the pig industry.