The design of self-locking barriers can affect cows’ skin injuries and impair welfare. This study aimed to propose and refine recommendations, expressed relatively to the cows’ dimensions, for self-locking barrier design to reduce risks for skin injuries on the neck/shoulder/back and on carpus of dairy cows. We recorded individual body dimensions and the dimensions of self-locking barriers (e.g. top rail height) and assessed skin injuries on 3801 cows from 131 loose-housing dairy farms. We explored the significant associations between presence/absence of skin injuries and self-locking barrier dimensions using weighted multivariable logistic regression, taking into account the diversity of feeding barriers within each farm. The robustness of the models was assessed by cross-validation. Cows had skin injuries mainly on the neck/shoulder/back (29.0%) and, to a lesser extent, on the carpus (14.0%). The final multivariable logistic regression models comprised 13 factors for skin injuries on the neck/shoulder/back, and 11 factors for skin injuries on the carpus. Skin injuries were significantly reduced when the self-locking barriers were inclined (neck/shoulder/back) and when the cows used a feeding table (i.e. flat) instead of a feeding manger or cribs (i.e. hollow) (carpus). A top rail height >1.05 × cow height (measured at withers) was significantly associated with fewer skin injuries on the neck/shoulder/back and on carpus. Skin injuries on the neck/shoulder/back and carpus were significantly reduced when the bottom rail was on the food side relative to the wall, and at a height <0.39 of cow height. Skin injuries were significantly less frequent when the separation wall had no sharp edges on the food side (neck/shoulder/back), was >0.4 of cow height (carpus), was thinner than 15 cm (neck/shoulder/back and carpus) and when the height of the feeding step was 0.04 to 0.1 of cow height (neck/shoulder/back) and the length of the feeding step was <0.2 of cow length (carpus). A headlock articulation nut positioned between 0.62 and 0.78 of cow height significantly reduced skin injuries on the neck/shoulder/back. Here, by combining the diversity of on-farm self-locking barriers and their respective dimensions, we were able to refine the International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering recommendations for self-locking barrier design and to propose new ones. This information now needs to be confirmed on other datasets, but can already help farmers and dairy industry stakeholders improve the design of self-locking barriers to improve dairy cow welfare.

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 (R) 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 (R) 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.

In this paper we present a contribution of Multicriteria Decision Analysis to the evaluation of Animal Welfare in European farms. We present the main features of the overall evaluation process designed to assess animal welfare on a farm from measures taken on the animals or their environment. We review the main steps of the construction of subcriteria and criteria. Then we discuss the aggregation problem and the design of a multicriteria sorting procedure to assess overall welfare from those criteria. This study is illustrated on cattle but is designed to be transposed to other animal species (e.g. pigs, poultry) so as to provide a general evaluation system for animal welfare on farms.

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® 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.

Renc. Rech. Ruminants, 2007, 14 L’évaluation en ferme du bien-être des animaux : objectifs, outils disponibles, utilisations, exemple du projet Welfare Quality® VEISSIER I. (1), BOTREAU R. (1,2), CAPDEVILLE J. (2), PERNY P. (3) (1) INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, Site de Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France (2) Institut de l’Elevage, BP18, F-31321 Castanet-Tolosan, France (3) Laboratoire Informatique de Paris 6, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 104 avenue du Président Kennedy, F-75016 Paris, France

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.

Le bien-etre est un concept multidimensionnel. Son evaluation globale repose sur la prise en compte de maniere conjointe d'un ensemble d'indicateurs - d'etat general, sanitaire, ou comportemental -, chacun lie a une facette du bien-etre. L'evaluation en ferme peut avoir des objectifs divers. Dans une approche analytique, on observera des fermes selon un plan preetabli visant a comparer des fermes differant pour le (ou les) facteur(s) etudie(s). La liste des indicateurs ne sera pas forcement exhaustive mais devra permettre d'estimer correctement le facteur etudie. Des analyses statistiques (ex. analyse de variance, regressions multiples, statistiques multivariees) permettront de mettre en relation des variables supposees causales et des variables a expliquer et ainsi de decrire la population etudiee. Dans une logique de certification ou de conception de systemes, on ne cherche plus a decrire un etat preexistant mais a porter un jugement sur des situations observees. Les grilles d'observation devront alors etre exhaustives et les donnees seront interpretees selon un modele normatif d'evaluation multicritere. Ces grilles peuvent comprendre des observations sur l'environnement ou de preference sur animaux (blessures, pathologies, expression des comportements...) L'evaluation globale du bien-etre animal est soumise a differentes contraintes theoriques, en particulier elle doit respecter le fait que les dimensions du bien-etre ne se compensent pas entre elles et que les experts suivent rarement un raisonnement lineaire lorsqu'ils jugent la gravite d'une situation. Le projet Welfare Quality® explore les methodes mathematiques propres a l'evaluation multicritere afin de produire un outil d'evaluation globale du bien-etre, en particulier dans le cadre de certifications d'elevages: le choix, la construction, puis l'agregation des criteres de bien-etre sont decrits.

Le projet Welfare Quality ®(1) vise a produire un standard europeen d’evaluation du bien-etre des bovins, porcs et volailles. Le bien-etre etant multidimensionnel (sante, comportement, absence de stress...), son evaluation globale dans les elevages releve des methodes developpees en evaluation multicritere (Bouyssou, 1990). La construction d’une evaluation globale est cependant soumise a de nombreuses contraintes. En effet, les donnees collectees peuvent etre qualitatives ou ordinales, les mesures varient en precision, pertinence et importance et peuvent etre liees les unes aux autres. Par ailleurs, les dimensions du bien-etre ne peuvent pas totalement se compenser. Par exemple, la bonne sante ne peut pas compenser l’absence d’expression de certains comportements. Ainsi, des situations de compromis, avec des resultats corrects sur toutes les dimensions du bien-etre, seraient a favoriser par rapport a des situations contrastees. Toutes ces specificites compliquent la tâche d’agregation.

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.

On-farm welfare-assessment protocols should be based on valid, reliable and feasible indicators which reflect the animal's state in the context of the housing and management system. This paper focuses on the selection of parameters for cattle and buffalo from welfare research, from assessment protocols used in different European countries and from the literature. Three groups of parameters are described: (1) parameters which can readily be included, such as lameness, injuries, body condition score, cleanliness, getting up/lying down behaviour, agonistic social behaviour, oral abnormal behaviours, human behaviour toward the animals and measures of the animal-human relationship; (2) parameters which require more information on reliability, such as indicators of good welfare and housing factors; and (3) parameters which are regarded as important but so far lack reliability in most countries, such as the incidence of clinical diseases and mortality.

Almost all adult cattle are transported at some time in their lives and the majority are transported by road. The latest EU regulations implemented in France as the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, allow mature cattle to be transported by road for up to 29 hours, provided that they are given an one-hour rest with water, if necessary, feed, after the first 14 hours. The literature covering the transport of cattle is extensive and we try to present the state of knowledge with particular interest to the effects of transport conditions on animal welfare and economic losses. In order to illustrate this literature, we present the results we obtained with 140 young bulls and 180 steers transported during 29 hours in summer and in winter in 1999 and 2000. In recent years, research has attempted to identify situations in the transport chain (assembly, loading, confinement in a moving truck, unloading, penning in a new and unfamiliar environment) that are stressful to the cattle, and that lower carcass and meat quality. An objective measurement of transport stress may be attempted using behavioural, physiological and pathological indicators. Long journeys unavoidably involve the withdrawal of food and water for extended periods of time, leading to weight loss and dehydration. Mixing groups of unfamiliar animals leads to an increase in the number of social interactions which may lead to psychological stress and physical exhaustion. Loading, unloading and driving are particularly associated with physical damage and injury.