Animal based measures for a ‘Welfare-plus’ certification scheme for long distance transport

18/05/2014

1

Improvement of Animal Welfare During Long Distance Transport

SANCO/2011/G3/CRPA/SI2.610274

CP2 FINAL CONFERENCEKurhaus, Scheveningen The Hague

7° May 2014

Animal based measures for a ‘Welfare-plus’ certification scheme for long distance transport

Hans Spoolder1, Wijbrand Ouweltjes1, Patrick Chevilllon2, Paolo Ferrarri3, Michael Marahrens4, Stefano Messori5, Beatrice Mounaix6,

Cecilia Pedernera7, Evangelia Sossidou8 and Kathalijne Visser1

1WUR Livestock Research - NL, 2 IFIP - FR, 3CRPA - IT, 4FLI - DE, 5IZS - IT, 6Institut de l’Elevage - FR, 7IRTA - ES, 8HAO DEMETER - GR

WP2 of the project aimed:

To provide a scientific basis

... for an assessment scheme which identifies

... long distance transports with a

... high level of animal welfare

How to measure welfare?1

How to measure welfare?1

1

2

3

4

Available pen area

Shiny coat / clean feathers

Presence of toys

Good locomotion (cattle / broilers)

Access to outside area

Species specific behaviour

Partly unslatted flooring

Little or no aggression

How to measure welfare?

Available pen area

Shiny coat / clean feathers

Presence of toys

Good locomotion (cattle / broilers)

Access to outside area

Species specific behaviour

Partly unslatted flooring

Little or no aggression

Animal Based vs Environment Based

18/05/2014

2

WP2 starting position and focus:

• Environment and management based parameters are essential and remain the basis of the scheme

• The welfare ‘plus’ is achieved through high performance on animal based parameters

Animal Based vs Environment Based

In addition we investigated:

• Fitness to travel

• Electronic data collection

Animal Based Measures

• To provide a scientific basis for animal based assessment, we:

• identified suitable ABMs

• identified thresholds for certificationat measure level

• identified minimum number of certifiable measures for a certifiable overall score

• Welfare Quality® approach

• In combination with risk assessment

Which Animal Based Measures to include?

• Welfare Quality® approach

• In combination with risk assessmentWQ Welfare principles

WQ Welfare criteriaAdverse effects

Good feeding 1 Absence of prolonged hunger Hunger2 Absence of prolonged thirst Dehydration

Good housing 3 Comfort around resting Exhaustion4 Thermal comfort Heat stress, Cold stress5 Ease of movement Pain & injury

Good health 6 Absence of injuries Pain & injury7 Absence of disease Disease8 Absence of pain induced by management procedures Pain & injury

Appropriate behaviour

9 Expression of social behaviours Fear, Aggression10 Expression of other behaviours Pain & injury11 Good human-animal relationship Fear12 Positive emotional state Fear

Adapted from WQ® and EFSA Journal 2011; 9(1):Table 4, p 58


Adverse effect MeasuresDirect observation Other

Hunger Quantity of eating; manure; explorative behaviour, skin lesions, body weight loss, body condition

State of stomach; plasma corticosteroids; fatty acids; ketone

Dehydration Extreme thirst, collapse, mortality; Skin-pinch test Haematocrit, Blood pCO2, pH Urine colour, specific gravity

Exhaustion Apathy, reluctance to moveProstration, collapse, mortality

Dark, firm dry carcasses Blood enzymes (CK, CPK)

Heat stress Thermal panting, drooling, sweating (horses, cattle), gasping; extreme thirst, collapse, mortality

Body temperature

Cold stress Shivering, huddling, skin colour (pig); collapse, mortality

Body temperature

Pain & injury Lameness, swollen joints/feet, slipping, falling,Abnormal body posture; skin lesions

Fractures; hypersensitivity to touch

Disease Collapse, mortality; nasal, ocular discharge; abnormal respiration, diarrhoea, blood in faeces; vomiting

Body temperature; Abnormal respiratory sounds; pathogens

Aggression Vocalisation, aggression, escape behaviour, QBA, change in normal behaviour, HAR, skin lesions

Bleeding, Haematoma, plasma corticosteroids, blood enzymes

Fear Vocalisation, escape behaviour; urination and/or defecation, reluctance to move

Plasma corticosteroids


Adverse effect MeasuresOther

Hunger Quantity of eating; manure; explorative behaviour, skin lesions, body weight loss, body condition

State of stomach; plasma corticosteroids; fatty acids; ketone

Dehydration Extreme thirst, collapse, mortality; Skin-pinch test Haematocrit, Blood pCO2, pH Urine colour, specific gravity

Exhaustion Apathy, reluctance to moveProstration, collapse, mortality

Dark, firm dry carcasses Blood enzymes (CK, CPK)

Heat stress Thermalpanting, drooling,sweating(horses, cattle), gasping; extreme thirst, collapse, mortality

Body temperature

Cold stress Shivering, huddling, skin colour (pig); collapse, mortality

Body temperature

Pain & injury Lameness, swollen joints/feet slipping, fallingAbnormal body posture; skin lesions

Fractures; hypersensitivity to touch

Disease Collapse, mortality; nasal, ocular discharge;abnormal respiration, diarrhoea, blood in faeces; vomiting

Body temperature; Abnormal respiratory sounds; pathogens

Aggression Vocalisation, aggression, escape behaviour, QBA, change in normal behaviour, HAR, skin lesions

Bleeding, Haematoma, plasma corticosteroids, blood enzymes

Fear Vocalisation, escape behaviour; urination and/or defecation, reluctance to move

Plasma corticosteroids


18/05/2014

3

Assessment Protocols

Assessments

At arrival General characteristics of the transport / electronic data

Truck characteristics

Unloading Conditions during unloading

ABMs

Animal handling

Resting pens ABMs

Additional information Drivers checklist Fitness to travel

Training materials

Horses• 25 arrivals in Italy, by CRPA• 26 arrivals in Italy, by ICT

Sheep• 25 arrivals in Italy, by ICT• 23 arrivals in Greece, by Demeter

200 assessmentsPigs

• 26 arrivals in France, by IFIP

• 25 arrivals in Germany, by FLI

Cattle

• 9 arrivals in Spain, by IRTA

• 41 arrivals in France, by IDELE

Outcomes Fitness to travel

• Loading fit animals is crucial

• How to include this aspect into a scheme?

• The study design only allowed loading data to be collected retrospectively (from the driver)


• Information from the driver after the journey generated few useable results.

• Assessments carried out after long journeys revealed that the vast majority of animals were fit after travel .

• It can be assumed they were fit at loading.


For discussion:

• Obvious shortcomingsof our assessment were the retrospective assessments, not randomly selected

• For the purpose of a certification system: is it sufficient to check fitness on arrival?

• Is average fitness to travel for long journeys better than for short?

18/05/2014

4

Outcomes Electronic data• Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 require

electronic data to verify the transport organisation and the physical environment of animals during long transports.

• The route of the vehicle

• Open/close status of the loading door

• Temperature on board

• Can we link this to our welfare assessments?

• Data was collected on arrival

Outcomes Electronic dataOutcomes:

• The aim was to match the electronic data of long transports with the animal based measures

• Drivers were reluctant to share information, and seemed generally unable to provide them in an interpretable format.

• This is related to the fact that providers of data collection systems use their own data formats.

• At the Advisory Board meeting in Bologna (February 2013) it was agreed a different approach was needed.

Outcomes Electronic data

Next steps & discussion issues:

Two meetings with the main European system providers were held. They agreed:

• Data format: all legally based data in XML format

• Time intervals: No real time data transmission. Data collection every 15 minutes in addition to some asynchronous events (loading doors, temp alarms)

• Data flow: Data submission procedures and need for on board internet connection.

Outcomes ABMs

• The data collected give an indication of the range of values that can be observed

• Information regarding the feasibility of parameters-> improved protocol

Outcomes ABMs• Eight animal categories:

weaner pigs, finishing pigs, calves, heifers, other cattle, horses, lambs and adult sheep

• Each 10-14 measures

• Unloading and resting pen

Outcomes ABMs

Measure description min median max

Dead on arrival Animal that has stopped breathing and has no pulse (cardiac arrest) on arrival.

0 0 1.1

Severe lameness An animal is considered severely lame when it shows inability to bear weight on one or more limbs while not lying.

0 0 0

Slipping Animal showing a loss of balance during unloading without a non-limbic part of the body touching the ground.

0 4.2 17.2

Falling Animal showing a loss of balance during unloading causing other part(s) of the body (beside legs) to touch the floor

0 2.1 11.2

Pig measures at unloading

18/05/2014

5

ABMs: acceptability level

• Following selection of the measures, we:

• identified thresholds for certificationat measure level

• identified minimum number of certifiable measures for a certifiable overall score

Delphi approach

• Iterative process, aiming for consensus: • ask for opinions

• return them to all participants and ask to reconsider opinion

• repeat....

• Two questions: • Q1: what are acceptability thresholds for each measure?

• Q2: how to determine an overall score based on number of ‘acceptable’ ABM outcomes

• Three rounds for Q1 and Two rounds for Q2

Excellent response:

• Three rounds for Q1: 185, 105 and 91 sets returned

• Two rounds for Q2: 127 and 101 answers

Q1 Threshold levels

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3

TH2 Integument (weaners)

Q3

Median

Q1

Q1 Threshold levels - outcomes(EXAMPLE)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3

TH2 Slipping (horses)

Q3

Median

Q1


18/05/2014

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3

TH2 Falling (sheep)

Q3

Median

Q1


Q1 Threshold levels - weaners

Q1 Threshold levels - finishers Q1 Threshold levels - horses

Q1 Threshold levels - calves Q1 Threshold levels – heifers & cows

18/05/2014

7

Q1 Threshold levels – other cattle Q1 Threshold levels - lambs

Q1 Threshold levels - sheep Q2 Overall score

Q2 Overall score

• Each animal category has 10-14 measures

• Given the possible outcomes:• Unacceptable

• Acceptable

• Certifiable

• How many ‘Acceptables’ are allowed for a transport to still be certifiable?

Q2 Overall scores - outcomes

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

First Round

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Second Round

18/05/2014

8

Summary advice re. ‘Welfare Plus’• Resource and management based measures provide

legal Welfare minimum

• Animal Based Measures can provide the ‘Plus’

• Feasible protocols and training material are available to assess animal based measures

• Thresholds for certifiability and acceptability are proposed

• Max 3-4 ‘acceptable’ measures allowed for a ‘Welfare Plus’. The rest should be at ‘certifiable’ level.

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from DG SANCO and from the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs

Health & Medicine

Animal based measures for a ‘Welfare-plus’ certification scheme for long distance transport