Increased productivity may have negative impacts on farm animal welfare (FAW) in modern animal production systems. Efficiency gains in production are primarily thought to be due to the intensification of production, and this has been associated with an increased incidence of production diseases, which can negatively impact upon FAW. While there is a considerable body of research into consumer attitudes towards FAW, the extent to which this relates specifically to a reduction in production diseases in intensive systems, and whether the increased incidence of diseases represents a barrier to consumer acceptance of their increased use, requires further investigation. Therefore a systematic review of public attitudes towards FAW was conducted, with a specific focus on production diseases in intensive systems. Four databases were searched to identify relevant studies. A screening process, using a set of pre-determined inclusion criteria, identified 80 studies, with the strength of evidence and uncertainty assessed for each. A thematic analysis led to the identification of 6 overarching themes constructed from 15 subthemes. The results demonstrate that the public are concerned about FAW in modern production systems. Concern varied in relation to age, gender, education and familiarity with farming. Naturalness and humane treatment were central to what was considered good welfare. An evidence gap was highlighted in relation to attitudes towards specific production diseases, with no studies specifically addressing this. However, the prophylactic use of antibiotics was identified as a concern. A number of dissonance strategies were adopted by consumers to enable guilt free meat consumption.

Since animals express their internal state through behaviour, changes in said behaviour may be used to detect early signs of problems, such as in animal health. Continuous observation of livestock by farm staff is impractical in a commercial setting to the degree required to detect behavioural changes relevant for early intervention. An automated monitoring system is developed; it automatically tracks pig movement with depth video cameras, and automatically measures standing, feeding, drinking, and locomotor activities from 3D trajectories. Predictions of standing, feeding, and drinking were validated, but not locomotor activities. An artificial, disruptive challenge; i.e., introduction of a novel object, is used to cause reproducible behavioural changes to enable development of a system to detect the changes automatically. Validation of the automated monitoring system with the controlled challenge study provides a reproducible framework for further development of robust early warning systems for pigs. The automated system is practical in commercial settings because it provides continuous monitoring of multiple behaviours, with metrics of behaviours that may be considered more intuitive and have diagnostic validity. The method has the potential to transform how livestock are monitored, directly impact their health and welfare, and address issues in livestock farming, such as antimicrobial use.

Pig production systems provide multiple benefits to humans. However, the global increase in meat consumption has profound consequences for our earth. This perspective describes two alternative scenarios for improving the sustainability of future pig production systems. The first scenario is a high input–high output system based on sustainable intensification, maximizing animal protein production efficiency on a limited land surface at the same time as minimizing environmental impacts. The second scenario is a reduced input–reduced output system based on selecting animals that are more robust to climate change and are better adapted to transform low quality feed (local feeds, feedstuff co‐products, food waste) into meat. However, in contrast to the first scenario, the latter scenario results in reduced predicted yields, reduced production efficiency and possibly increased costs to the consumer. National evaluation of the availability of local feed and feedstuff co‐product alternatives, determination of limits to feed sourced from international markets, available land for crop and livestock production, desired production levels, and a willingness to politically enforce policies through subsidies and/or penalties are some of the considerations to combine these two scenarios. Given future novel sustainable alternatives to livestock animal protein, it may become reasonable to move towards an added general premium price on ‘protein from livestock animals’ to the benefit of promoting higher incomes to farmers at the same time as covering the extra costs of, politically enforced, welfare of livestock animals in sustainable production systems. © 2020 The Authors. Journal of The Science of Food and Agriculture published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Domestication is the process by which a population of animals becomes adapted to man and to the captive environment by genetic changes and environmentally induced developmental events recurring during each generation ( Cronin et al., 2014). Originally, domesticated livestock was mainly farmed extensively. The main impetus for more intensive animal production occurred after the Second World War when governments developed policies to provide sufficient, safe, and cheap food to the population. At the same time, farmers had to increase productivity to meet rising costs ( Niesten et al., 2003), and this could be achieved through intensive production. Improved animal nutrition, feed efficiency, health management, environmental control, reproduction management, genetic selection for better performance, and consistency of product quality and delivery to the marketplace have been the main objectives in the development of intensive livestock production. Since the 1960s, however, increased animal welfare concerns have been raised regarding intensive livestock production. In 1965, the Brambell Report in the UK commented adversely on the tethering of animals, overstocking and close confinement, the use of slatted flooring, and poor lighting and ventilation for animals ( Brambell, 1965). Since then, other welfare concerns have been raised, including the imposition of painful husbandry procedures (e.g., tail docking and castration), the restriction of natural behavior and the reduction in complexity of the animals’ environment ( Broom and Fraser, 2015).