The rising ‘human factor’ in welfare

Apr 2007 ... The quality of the human-animal interaction can have a strong impact not only on welfare but on the livestock producers’ bottom line, says Dr. Tina Widowski.

What makes a happy pig?

The question is simple, but getting at the answer is tough.

“There’s no way to go inside an animal’s head and know exactly what it is feeling,” says Dr. Tina Widowski, a leading animal behaviour and welfare researcher at the University of Guelph. “When it comes to assessing the well-being of an animal, we have to look for indicators of welfare that are observable and measurable.”

That’s what makes the job of developing practical, auditable systems for assessing animal welfare one of the most important challenges facing livestock industries, as they seek to provide assurances of responsible animal care.

Providing an overview of research progress on this front, Widowski discussed the benefits and limitations of different types of measures of welfare, in a presentation at the Livestock Care Conference, March 23 in Red Deer, hosted by Alberta Farm Animal Care (AFAC).

Widowski’s current research focuses on how housing and management practices affect the physiology, behaviour and welfare of pigs, poultry and cattle. In a talk titled “Pig personalities, performance, audits and people,” Widowski explained the latest developments in on-farm measures of animal welfare, pointing out the growing role of “human factors” as welfare indicators.

“When we perform on farm assessments, we can’t use the expensive or time consuming techniques we use in a research setting, so the focus is on developing more practical approaches,” says Widowski. “One of the things we’re learning is that measures of human factors, such as quality of handling, daily care and technical skills are some of the most important indicators for animal welfare.”

‘Cocktail’ of indicators is key

There are several types of measures used to assess welfare, says Widowski.

Indicators of welfare used in research include health, injury, disease and mortality; physiological responses to stress; growth, reproduction and immune function; and behaviour.

“Many of these measures are limited when used on their own,” says Widowski. “To really do a thorough assessment, we need to use a ‘cocktail’ of these indicators.”

When translating use of these indicators to on-farm settings, they become even more limited, due to the additional constraints of time and expense, she says. As a result, a major priority for livestock welfare research has been developing more practical measures to assess welfare in an on-farm setting.

These measures fall into three main categories: design measures, animal-based measures and management-based measures.

Design measures

Design measures, also known as engineering or resource measures, include specific standards for housing and procedures, says Widowski. “These are prescriptions for features of the environment or practices that are generally thought to promote welfare.”

Examples of specific design measures include space allowance, numbers of feeders and drinkers, temperature requirements; as well as age or techniques for castration and methods for euthanasia. Each of these measures is evaluated in comparison to recommended values based on results of laboratory research.

“The advantages of design measures are they are relatively easy to assess and can serve as a good basis for problem solving,” says Widowski. “But on the other hand they don’t really assess welfare directly and don’t account for the level of care and attention to detail of the stockperson.”

Animal-based measures

Animal-based measures are a more direct indicator of animal welfare, says Widowski. Also called performance or outcome measures, animal-based measures are biological responses of the animal to housing and procedures.

These include specific measures such as animal health, including incidence of disease, injury or mortality; physical condition and appearance, including cleanliness, incidence of skin lesions and quality of body condition; and behavioural responses including ease of movement, signs of pain and fear of humans.

“In addition to providing direct measures of welfare, an advantage of animal-based measures is they allow for flexibility in housing and management,” says Widowski. “However, disadvantages are these measures are more difficult and time consuming, and they typically indicate a problem but not the source of that problem.”

((Subhead)) Management-based measures

Management based measures are the ones that capture “the human factor,” says Widowski. These include factors related to the skill provided by stockmen in their handling of livestock, in providing daily care to livestock and in solving problems that impact livestock welfare.

Indicators of these factors that serve as measures include assessments of attitude and personality; level of technical skills and training; daily record keeping of animal care activities; and use of standard operating procedures (SOP’s) in response to problems.

“We’re learning that management-based measures are some of the best ones for leading toward improvements, because they directly involve the ‘vehicle’ for improving any deficiencies identified by other measures,” says Widowski. “As a result, most of the latest welfare assurance programs emphasize the role of the stockperson.”

The Animal Care Assessment program developed by the Canadian Pork Council is a good example, she says. “It really emphasizes management. It recognizes that human factors are some of the most important for animal welfare.”

The quality of the human-animal interaction can have a strong impact not only on welfare but on the livestock producers’ bottom line, Widowski points out. “It affects the fearfulness of livestock to people, the animal responses to handling, and ultimately it affects productivity.”

Assessment: Bringing it all together

Assessment programs used today typically combine a number of indicators from all three measurement categories, says Widowski. “To be effective, the assessment approaches must be carefully developed to be both valid and reliable.”

On-farm welfare assessments often include components such as “yes” and “no” checklists and detailed record keeping of health, mortality, the physical environment and management practices.

“In a good auditing system, you want to have measures that are as clear as possible, so the results are consistent,” she says. “The goal is to get the most accurate assessment possible within a practical framework.”