Consumers perceive pasture-based systems of milk production as natural and therefore better for cow welfare than confinement systems. However both systems are heterogeneous and continually evolving, varying from total confinement to total pasture with many hybrid intermediaries. To compare the welfare of dairy cows in these various systems, we use the three spheres framework, comprising biological functioning, natural behaviour and affective states. Considering biological functioning, pasture-based cows are less at risk of subclinical and clinical mastitis, claw lesions, lameness, metritis, early embryonic mortality, culling and mortality, but at more risk of internal parasitism, malnutrition and delayed onset of oestrous activity postpartum than confined cows. Regarding natural behaviours, pasture-based cows exhibit less agonistic behaviour, better lying behaviour, more normal oestrous behaviours and better synchronicity of behaviours than confined cows. They also have the opportunity to graze, which is one of the main features of the behavioural repertoire of dairy cows, but, they may also experience long periods away from pasture in larger herds, and severe climatic stresses which will become increasingly important as the climate changes. Our current ability to assess the affective state of dairy cows is poor. For example, hunger is an important subjective state that cannot be measured directly. The growing focus on ensuring that animals have lives worth living, means that dairy cows should garner some positive emotions from their lives, and it seems clear that pasture access is essential for this. Clearly measurement of affective state is an important challenge for future dairy cow welfare research. At the extremes of management systems, there can be major differences in animal welfare but in hybrid systems, dairy cows experience elements of both confinement and pasture which may ameliorate the negative effects of each on cow welfare. Ultimately, the optimal system gives cows an element of choice between both environments. Moreover management of the system, whether it is confinement or pastured-based, may be as important as the system of management in ensuring good dairy cow welfare and addressing societal concerns.

Despite extensive utilisation in epidemiological investigations of animal health, to date there has been little consideration of the value of abattoir meat inspection as a pig welfare surveillance tool. This study measured the prevalence of tail‐docking, tail biting, carcase condemnations and associated financial losses of the latter (Northern Ireland only) in 36,963 pigs slaughtered in six abattoirs from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in July and August 2010. Over 99 per cent of inspected pigs had been tail‐docked, while 58.1 per cent and 1.03 per cent had detectable and severe tail lesions, respectively. Producer losses resulting from carcase condemnation were estimated to be €0.37 per pig slaughtered. Enhanced capture and utilisation of meat inspection data for use in animal welfare surveillance schemes has the potential to drive improvements in production efficiency and animal welfare. However, significant differences were detected in the prevalence of carcase condemnation conditions between abattoirs and judiciaries (Republic and Northern Ireland). This reflects variation in the criteria and methods of data capture used in meat inspection in different abattoirs. Thus, the meat inspection process needs to be standardised and reformed before it can be reliably utilised in large‐scale pig welfare surveillance schemes.

During abattoir meat inspection pig carcasses are partially or fully condemned upon detection of disease that poses a risk to public health or welfare conditions that cause animal suffering e.g. fractures. This incurs direct financial losses to producers and processors. Other health and welfare-related conditions may not result in condemnation but can necessitate ‘trimming’ of the carcass e.g. bruising, and result in financial losses to the processor. Since animal health is a component of animal welfare these represent a clear link between suboptimal pig welfare and financial losses to the pig industry.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights that we exist in a global community. From a single city, it spread to 188 countries across the world and infected 30 million people by September 18, 2020. Decades of modeling pandemics predicted potential consequences, but COVID-19's impact on the food supply chain, and specifically livestock production was unexpected. Clusters of cases among workers in meat processing plants evolved quickly to affect human, animal, and environmental welfare in several countries. In processing plants, the hygiene focus is on product quality and food safety. Because of their close proximity to one another, COVID-19 spread rapidly between workers and the lack of sick leave and health insurance likely resulted in workers continuing to work when infectious. In the United States (U.S.) many processing plants shut down when they identified major outbreaks, putting pressure especially on pig and poultry industries. At one point, there was a 45% reduction in pig processing capacity meaning about 250,000 pigs per day were not slaughtered. This resulted in longer transport distances to plants in operation with extra capacity, but also to crowding of animals on farm. Producers were encouraged to slow growth rates, but some had to cull animals on farm in ways that likely included suffering and caused considerable upset to owners and workers. Carcass disposal was also associated with potential biosecurity risks and detrimental effects on the environment. Hence, this is a One Welfare issue, affecting human, animal, and environmental welfare and highlighting the fragility of intensive, high-throughput livestock production systems. This model needs to be re-shaped to include the animal, human, and environmental elements across the farm to fork chain. Such a One Welfare approach will ensure that food production systems are resilient, flexible, and fair in the face of future challenges.