A number of mutilating procedures, such as dehorning in cattle and goats and beak trimming in laying hens, are common in farm animal husbandry systems in an attempt to prevent or solve problems, such as injuries from horns or feather pecking. These procedures and other practices, such as early maternal separation, overcrowding, and barren housing conditions, raise concerns about animal welfare. Efforts to ensure or improve animal welfare involve adapting the animal to its environment, i.e., by selective breeding (e.g., by selecting “robust” animals) adapting the environment to the animal (e.g., by developing social housing systems in which aggressive encounters are reduced to a minimum), or both. We propose adapting the environment to the animals by improving management practices and housing conditions, and by abandoning mutilating procedures. This approach requires the active involvement of all stakeholders: veterinarians and animal scientists, the industrial farming sector, the food processing and supply chain, and consumers of animal-derived products. Although scientific evidence about the welfare effects of current practices in farming such as mutilating procedures, management practices, and housing conditions is steadily growing, the gain in knowledge needs a boost through more scientific research. Considering the huge number of animals whose welfare is affected, all possible effort must be made to improve their welfare as quickly as possible in order to ban welfare-compromising procedures and practices as soon as possible.

The potential benefits of keeping Zebu cattle in silvopastoral systems are well described in tropical regions. In order to obtain information on European breeds of beef cattle (Bos taurus taurus) in temperate climate zones, individual records of body weight and welfare indicators were obtained from 130 beef cattle. These belonged to four herds and were randomly allocated to two contiguous plots: Silvopastoral Systems (SPS) and Open Pastures Systems (OPS). The SPS in this study were areas with exotic trees of Eucalyptus globulus globulus for paper pulp production planted in a 2 × 2 design (two meters between each tree) over diverse, native grasses. The OPS were large open areas with a great diversity of native grasses, herbs, and small plots of trees where the animals could rest and shelter from extreme weather conditions. Over the course of one year, individual body weights and a number of specific animal welfare indicators were measured every 45 days. After a descriptive analysis, a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a Gaussian distribution, with time and system (OPS or SPS) fitted as fixed effects and individuals nested by herd as random intercepts, was used. The results showed that weight gain did not differ between the two systems. None of the animals showed any sign of impaired welfare in either system over the study period. Silvopastoral systems offer animals a sustainable and richer environment that will improves their welfare. The additional income provided by the wood production allows the farmers to maintain their traditional cattle farming lifestyle.

In Uruguay, extensive, welfare-friendly beef production is a substantial part of the economy and culture. Transport of beef cattle to slaughterhouse compromises animal welfare. The objective of this study was to assess transport conditions related to carcass bruising. A total of 242 trucks with 8132 animals were assessed on loading, transport, unloading conditions, and carcass bruising. Average loading time was 26 min and 21 s and the perception of the truck drivers was correlated with the time took for loading and the use of devices. In 39.3% of the loadings only a flag was used. The average unloading time was 5 min and 54 s with a significant difference in time for the use of devices; only flag 3 min 51 s, cattle prod 6 min 43 s and sticks 8 min 09 s. Of the carcasses observed, 772 (9.5%) had no bruises, 873 (10.7%) had one bruise, 1312 (16.1%) two, 1231 (15.1%) three and 3944 (48.5%) had four or more bruises. Prevalence of bruises were highest on the Tuber-coxea (hip) (29.3%) following forequarter (22.4%), Tuber-ischiadicum (rear) (17.3%), ribs/flank (14.1%), rump/round (10.1%) and loin (6.8%). Bruises were 68.7% grade 1 and 31.3 % grade 2; there were no grade 3, the deepest ones, observed. It appeared that animal welfare training of truck drivers worked out well and the use of flags increased compared to a previous study in 2008.

Many protocols have been developed to assess farm animal welfare. However, the validity of these protocols is still subject to debate. The present study aimed to compare nine welfare assessment protocols, namely: (1) Welfare Quality^© (WQ), (2) a modified version of Welfare Quality (WQ Mod), which has a better discriminative power, (3) WelzijnsWijzer (Welfare Indicator; WW), (4) a new Welfare Monitor (WM), (5) Continue Welzijns Monitor (Continuous Welfare Monitor; CWM), (6) KoeKompas (Cow Compass; KK), (7) Cow Comfort Scoring System (CCSS), (8) Stall Standing Index (SSI) and (9) a Welfare Index (WI Tuyttens). In addition, a simple welfare estimation by veterinarians (Estimate vets, EV) was added. Rank correlation coefficients were calculated between each of the welfare assessment protocol scores and mean hair cortisol concentrations from 10 cows at 58 dairy farms spread over the Netherlands. Because it has been suggested that the hair cortisol level is related to stress, experienced over a long period of time, we expected a negative correlation between cortisol and the result of the welfare protocol scores. Only the simple welfare estimation by veterinarians (EV) (ρ = −0.28) had a poor, but significant, negative correlation with hair cortisol. This correlations, however, failed to reach significance after correction of p-values for multiple correlations. Most of the results of the different welfare assessment protocols had a poor, fair or strong positive correlation with each other, supporting the notion that they measure something similar. Additional analyses revealed that the modified Welfare Quality protocol parameters housing (ρ = −0.30), the new Welfare Monitor (WM) parameter health (ρ = −0.33), and milk yield (ρ = −0.33) showed negative correlations with cortisol. We conclude that because only five out of all the parameter scores from the welfare assessment protocols showed a negative, albeit weak, correlation with cortisol, hair cortisol levels may not provide a long term indicator for stress in dairy cattle, or alternatively, that the protocols might not yield valid indices for cow welfare.

The Welfare Quality^® assessment protocol (WQ) is the most extensive way to measure animal welfare. This study was set up to determine if resource-based welfare indicators, that are easier and faster to measure, could replace the more time consuming, animal-based measurements of the WQ. The WQ was applied on 60 dairy farms in the Netherlands, with good, moderate and poor welfare. The WQ protocol classified most farms (87%) as ‘acceptable’. Several of the animal-based measures of WQ correlated well with measures in the environment. Using these correlations, an alternative welfare assessment protocol (new Welfare Monitor) was designed, which takes approximately 1.5 h for a farm with 100 dairy cows. Because the opinion of farmers about welfare assessment is important if one wants to improve conditions for the cows at a farm, another objective of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the new Welfare Monitor for the farmer. Over two years, the farms were visited, and advice was given to improve the conditions at the farm. After the first welfare assessment and advice, farmers improved the conditions for their cows substantially. Farms where the category score had increased made more improvements on average than those that did not upgrade.

Cows housed indoors with cubicles are probably more restricted in their choice of lying posture and orientation compared with cows housed on pasture. We therefore compared lying postures on pasture in Uruguay and the Netherlands with lying postures in cubicles in the Netherlands, also recording orientation on pasture in Uruguay and divider and bedding type in Dutch cubicles. We visited one farm with four herds in Uruguay, doing live observations, and 25 Dutch farms, taking pictures of cows. Observations of 205 cows on pasture in Uruguay showed more long postures, lying on their belly with their neck stretched. Two herds preferred lying towards north and south, while one herd preferred west and east. Pictures of 217 cows on pasture in the Netherlands showed more wide postures (lying on the side with three or four legs stretched out). Pictures of 527 cows in cubicles in the Netherlands showed more narrow postures (lying on the side with hind legs folded). More long postures (lying on the belly with a stretched neck) and less short postures (lying with the head folded back) were seen in cubicles with soft floors and English dividers; more narrow postures were seen in cubicles with concrete floors. Wide postures were seen more in cubicles with mattresses and free-hanging dividers. We conclude that since cows in cubicles show more narrow postures than on pasture and cannot choose their orientation, their choice in showing preferred behavior is restricted. More research is needed to study the consequences of restricted choice in lying behavior on the health and welfare of dairy cows.