The concept of a ‘good life’ recognises the distinction that an animal’s quality of life is beyond that of a ‘life worth living’, representing a standard of welfare substantially higher than the legal minimum (FAWC, 2009). We propose that the opportunities required for a ‘good life’ could be used to structure resource tiers that lead to positive welfare and are compatible with higher welfare farm assurance schemes. Published evidence and expert opinion was used to define three tiers of resource provision (Welfare +, Welfare ++ and Welfare +++) above those stipulated in UK legislation and codes of practice, which should lead to positive welfare outcomes. In this paper we describe the principles underpinning the framework and the process of developing the resource tiers for laying hens. In doing so, we summarise expert opinion on resources required to achieve a ‘good life’ in laying hens and discuss the philosophical and practical challenges of developing the framework. We present the results of a pilot study to establish the validity, reliability and feasibility of the draft laying hen tiers on laying hen production systems. Finally, we propose a generic welfare assessment framework for farm animals and suggest directions for implementation, alongside outcome parameters, that can help define and promote a future ‘good life’ for farm animals.

Animal welfare assessment at group level is a scientific discipline that is rapidly developing. The interest in welfare assessment systems is based on an ethical concern for the welfare of farm animals. The scientific community plays an important role in delivering an appropriate repeatable, valid and feasible framework for these assessments. Consideration of the potential applications of these techniques is important for deciding upon the requirements of specific assessment systems. This paper provides a brief overview of the different types of applications, which can be categorised broadly into research, legislative requirements (non-voluntary), certification systems (voluntary) and advisory/management tools. These applications may have various goals: quantification of welfare, provision of welfare assurance or welfare management. Assessment systems vary in many characteristics, such as whether they are animal- or resource-based, and whether they are based on single or integrated scores. Different applications will require different elements of these features.

Lameness in dairy cattle remains a significant welfare concern for the UK dairy industry. Farms were recruited into a 3-yr study evaluating novel intervention approaches designed to encourage farmers to implement husbandry changes targeted toward reducing lameness. All farms completing the study were visited at least annually and received either monitoring only (MO, n=72) or monitoring and additional support (MS, n = 117) from the research team. The additional support included traditional technical advice on farm-specific solutions, facilitation techniques to encourage farmer participation, and application of social marketing principles to promote implementation of change. Lameness prevalence was lower in the MO (27.0 ± 1.94 SEM) and MS (21.4 ± 1.28) farms at the final visit compared with the same MO (38.9 ± 2.06) and MS (33.3 ± 1.76) farms on the initial visit. After accounting for initial lameness, intervention group status, and year of visit within a multilevel model, we observed an interaction between year and provision of support, with the reduction in lameness over time being greater in the MS group compared with the MO group. Farms in the MS group made a greater number of changes to their husbandry practices over the duration of the project (8.2 ± 0.39) compared with those farms in the MO group (6.5 ± 0.54). Because the lameness prevalence was lower in the MS group than the MO group at the start of the study, the contribution of the additional support was difficult to define. Lameness can be reduced on UK dairy farms although further work is needed to identify the optimum approaches.

Teaching veterinary students about animal welfare science, ethics, and law has been identified as a priority of the veterinary curriculum. Suggested content for such a course, the stage at which it should be taught, and possible methods of teaching and assessing the subject have been outlined. Critically, such a course needs to address the quantification of the impact of humans on animals (welfare science), the analysis of our moral obligations (welfare ethics), and knowledge of minimum welfare standards (welfare legislation). A mixture of both teaching methods and assessment techniques is needed to ensure that sufficient skills and knowledge and a deeper understanding are achieved.

Animal-welfare education is an evolving component of the veterinary curriculum. Although different veterinary schools may cover different elements of the subject and teach it in many different ways, it is important to recognize that this multidisciplinary subject is evolving rapidly. For example, welfare science is beginning to examine the quantification of positive welfare or a good life in addition to evaluating harms associated with different husbandry systems. Although the curriculum is under continual pressure, the drivers (policy makers, student expectations, and trade requirements) for including animal welfare in the course are likely to increase. Some core components of an animal-welfare course are important to include in all veterinary curriculums. This would include an appreciation of the difference between welfare science, ethics, and standards.

Lameness is one of the most serious economic and welfare issues in the dairy industry. Early detection of lameness can be difficult, but provision of early treatment is crucial. Previous studies have used infrared thermography to show that increased foot temperature (FT) is associated with lameness and foot lesions. However, poor accuracy has limited the management application potential. This study analysed ambient‐temperature (AT)‐adjusted foot‐surface temperatures and temperature differences between the hind feet of individual cows to enhance lameness detection. Cow FTs were recorded on a 990‐cow farm using an infrared thermometer fortnightly for 6 months. Additionally, mobility level was scored using the AHDB Dairy 4‐point scale. The averages of FTs and ATs were 23.83 ± 0.03°C and 13.99 ± 1.60°C, respectively. The FT of cows with lameness was significantly higher than that of cows without lameness (P < 0.001). Increases in FTs correlated with the mobility score (MS) (P < 0.001). According to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, the optimal threshold based on actual FTs was 23.3°C with 78.5% sensitivity and 39.2% specificity. However, the ROC curve for the AT‐adjusted FT and FT difference parameters showed minimal improvements over the FT in detecting lameness. In conclusion, the infrared thermometer results demonstrated the association between elevated FTs and lameness, but further improvements to this detection technique will be required before it can be implemented as a management tool for detecting cows that could benefit from treatment. With additional validation, the technique could be used as a screening device to identify cows in need of further assessment.