27 Animal housing and welfare

Transcription

1 27 Animal housing and welfare Veissier Isabelle, INRA, UR1213, F Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Lensink Joop, ISA-Lille, 48 boulevard Vauban, Lille cedex, France In the future, a specific attention should be paid to the welfare of animals (taken as a whole) when designing animal buildings, along with other major societal issues such as energy consumption and environmental footprint. Agricultural activities shall not only feed people but also answer various societal issues in relation to the sustainability of production systems: Agriculture should ensure income to producers while maintaining resources for future generations, and be socially acceptable. Hence, the reduction of the consumption of energy, the preservation of the environment (landscape, reduction of pollution), and the protection of animal welfare are nowadays key objectives. The present paper focuses on animal welfare and more precisely on how it can be taken into account in housing. The Farm Animal Welfare Council identified five freedoms to ensure animal welfare (Farm Animal Welfare Council, 1992): 1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst - by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour. 2. Freedom from Discomfort - by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area. 3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment. 4. Freedom to Express Normal Behaviour - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal's own kind. 5. Freedom from Fear and Distress - by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering. Freedom 2 depends definitively on the quality of housing. The quality of housing can also have an impact on Freedom 3: inappropriate housing can lead to injuries (e.g. due to slippery floors, lack of bedding), poor ambiance in barns can increase respiratory diseases while a soiled bedding can increase the occurrence of mastitis. Freedom 4 also depends intimately on housing that offers more or less opportunity to animals for expressing their behaviour. For instance lack of space allowance and the resulting overcrowding can modify the expression of social behaviour, and tethering thwarted movements. Therefore housing plays a pivotal role in animal welfare. In recent years, along the societal acknowledgement that animals are sentient beings (European Union, 1997), there has been growing scientific evidence that farm animals do not only react physically to their environment but also construct a perception to their environment and can feel mental states depending on this perception (Desire et al., 2002; Harding et al., 2004; Veissier and Boissy, 2007). The welfare of animals is not related directly to their needs but to how they feel about their environment (Duncan, 2002). Therefore the point of view of the animals themselves is essential to have an idea of their welfare. Housing shall allow animals to perform correctly their basic activities. Principles of ergonomics have been successfully applied to design cubicles or troughs in accordance to animals size and movements (CIGR, 1994). This helps to define (very) minimal requirements, e.g. in terms of space required for an animal to perform a given movement (such as for a cow to lye down). European Forum Livestock housing for the future October 22/23 LILLE (France) 167

2 Ergonomics nevertheless does not completely take into account the point of view of the animal. This can be studied in choice tests where the preference for one good over another one is assessed (Williams et al., 2008; Nicol et al., 2009). The strength of a preference can also be assessed by asking animals to perform a task and checking how much they are ready to work to obtain a reward or have access to some environmental feature (Cooper and Appleby, 2003). Enrichments of the environment of hens have been proposed based on such studies (perches, nests). The consequences of some aspects of the housing can also be measured (Friend et al., 1979; Hickey et al., 2000; Mirabito and Michel, 2003; Veissier et al., 2004; Princz et al., 2008). Impacts on the behaviour of animals (e.g. time budget, lying down movements, social behaviour), stress responses, immune responses, injuries (due to interactions between animals or directly to the environment), diseases (subclinical disorders such as udder health assessed through somatic cell counts, or clinical diseases), and general fitness (feed intake, growth, milk production) are assessed and these elements are used to judge whether a given situation is detrimental vs. favourable to animal welfare. The impact of the prevention of some behaviours due to environmental restrictions can also be measured by checking whether the expression of the behaviour is over-expressed when released from impediment (Mackintosh, 1974). For instance, once released in a vast enclosure tethered cows walk more than those that were in loose house barn (Veissier et al., 2008). These elements help us to understand how animals feel about their environment and should be used in to create appropriate housing conditions. This has been applied for a long time in the design of e.g. cow cubicles, although not always applied appropriately (Veissier et al., 2004). Other good examples can be found in the design of platform for rabbits to release the pressure of a wired floor on their feet or an elevated platform for turkeys to access to more space and reduce attacks between animals (Mirabito, 2003; Mirabito and Michel, 2003). Various enrichment materials are also used in fattening pigs, leading to a reduction of aggression between animals and a better health (Bracke, 2008). A key element to ensure animal welfare is the freedom for them to predict and control their environment (Greiveldinger et al., 2007; Greiveldinger et al., 2009). Therefore, efforts should be made to ensure that animals understand their environment, by applying regular routine (for feeding, milking ) or signalling their occurrence e.g. by a noise, or to allow animals to act on their environment (choosing when to go for eating, or for milking ) (Wiepkema, 1987; Wiepkema and Van Adrichen, 1987; Langbein et al., 2009). In general, an increase in animal welfare is accompanied by an increase in production: cows produce more milk when their cubicles are equipped with mattresses (Bony and Barbet, 2000) and growth rates of bulls are reduced on too small space allowances (Hickey et al., 2000). Veterinary costs can be reduced thanks to lower health problems (Madsen, 1987). The quality of products, essentially meat, can also be affected by stressful conditions on the farm and during transport to slaughter (Lensink et al., 2001). We believe that housing can affect human-animal relationships, by altering the frequency of contacts between them as well as by facilitating vs. rendering more difficult the handling of animals and this can ultimately affect the quality of products: e.g. lack of loading facilities can increase the stress of bulls transported to slaughter and reduce the decline of meat ph (Mounier et al., 2006). In general improvements of animal welfare are accompanied by improvements of performances. Such improvements can increase farmers profits only when the benefits are higher than the costs. There are numerous examples where this is the case: mattresses for cows (Veissier et al., unpublished data), appropriate handling in calves (Lensink, 2000). Nevertheless, in case of the enlargement of space allowance, the benefits may not counterbalance the costs, at least when these are assessed only in terms of money. It is likely that when improvements are made from a very poor situation to an average one, then costs are largely paid by benefits whereas when improvements are made from average to excellent situations, the difference between benefits and costs may diminish (Figure 1). However this has to be substantiated by more empirical data. Last but not least benefits are not only a matter of economic return. There can be benefits for the farmers in the form of a higher self-esteem resulting from offering a good life to animals and/or being in line European Forum Livestock housing for the future October 22/23 LILLE (France) 168

3 with citizens concerns. This has been especially the case for veal producers that moved from individual crates to group housing (Bertin et al., 2006). In conclusion, housing plays a major role in the welfare of farm animals. Future animal buildings need to be designed so as to cover animal welfare. Welfare friendly animal housing can be beneficial both to animals and farmers. Due to the many ways by which housing can affect animal welfare, we recommend to reason animal welfare as a whole, with a view to develop innovative buildings that can cover all aspects of welfare at the same time (comfortable lying area, appropriate climatic conditions, possibility to express behaviour). Cost/benefits analysis of such systems compared to more conventional ones should give us a clear view of their sustainability. Figure 1: Hypothetical relation between welfare improvements and resulting benefits or costs. costs benefits welfare References Bertin, M.-A., Kling-Eveillard, F., Dockès, A.-C., Les éleveurs de bovins parlent du bienêtre animal dans les démarches qualité : L économie, le respect des traditions, l éthique du métier d éleveur et la reconnaissance par le consommateur sont les principaux leviers pour leur engagement. Bony, J., Barbet, M., Comparaisons de différentes natures de couchage pour les vaches laitières en logettes. Rencontres Recherches Ruminants 7, 82. Bracke, M.B.M., RICHPIG: a semantic model to assess enrichment materials for pigs. Animal Welfare 17, Cooper, J.J., Appleby, M.C., The Value of Environmental Resources to Domestic Hens: a Comparison of the Work-Rate for Food and for Nests as a Function of Time. Animal Welfare 12, Desire, L., Boissy, A., Veissier, I., Emotions in farm animals: a new approach to animal welfare in applied ethology. Behavioural Processes 60, European Forum Livestock housing for the future October 22/23 LILLE (France) 169

4 Duncan, I.J.H., Poultry welfare: Science or subjectivity? British Poultry Science 43, European Union, The Amsterdam treaty modifying the treaty on European Union, the treaties establishing the European communities, and certain related facts. Official journal C 340. Farm Animal Welfare Council, FAWC updates the five freedoms. Veterinary Record (The) 17, 357. Friend, T.H., Gwazdauskas, F.C., Polan, C.E., Change in adrenal response from free stall competition. Journal of Dairy Science 62, Greiveldinger, L., Veissier, I., Boissy, A., Emotional experience in sheep: Predictability of a sudden event lowers subsequent emotional responses. Physiology & Behavior 92, Greiveldinger, L., Veissier, I., Boissy, A., Behavioural and physiological responses of lambs to controllable vs. uncontrollable aversive events. Psychoneuroendocrinology 39, Harding, E.A., Elizabeth, E.S., Mendl, M., Animal behaviour: Cognitive bias and affective state. Nature 427, 312. Hickey, M.C., Earley, B., Fischer, A.D. (Eds.), The effect of floor type and space allowance on the welfare of finishing steers. Teagasc, Grange Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath. Langbein, J., Siebert, K., Nürnberg, G., On the use of an automated learning device by group-housed dwarf goats: Do goats seek cognitive challenges? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 120, Lensink, B.J., Rôle de l éleveur dans le bien-être et la production des veaux de boucherie. These pour l'obtension du doctorat de l université de Rennes I, 209 pp. Lensink, B.J., Fernandez, X., Cozzi, G., Florand, L., Veissier, I., The influence of farmers behaviour towards calves on animals responses to transport and quality of veal meat. J. Anim. Sci. 79, Mackintosh, N.J. (Ed.), The Psychology of Animal Learning. Academic Press, London/New-York/San Francisco. Madsen, E.B., Tail tip inflammation in young fattening bulls on slatted floors, In: Schlichting, M.C., Smidt, D. (Eds.), Welfare Aspects of Housing Systems for Veal Calves and Fattening Bulls, Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp Mirabito, L., Logement et bien être du lapin: les nouveaux enjeux, Sciences et Techniques Avicoles, pp Mirabito, L., Michel, V., L'aménagement des bâtiments de dindes: une solution pour enrichir le milieu et réduire les lésions, Sciences et Techniques Avicoles, pp European Forum Livestock housing for the future October 22/23 LILLE (France) 170

5 Mounier, L., Dubroeucq, H., Andanson, S., Veissier, I., Variations in meat ph of beef bulls in relation to conditions of transfer to slaughter and previous history of the animals. Journal of animal Science 84, Nicol, C.J., Caplen, G., Edgar, J., Browne, W.J., Associations between welfare indicators and environmental choice in laying hens. Animal Behaviour 78, Princz, Z., Radnai, I., Biro-Nemeth, E., Matics, Z., Gerencser, Z., Nagy, I., Szendro, Z., Effect of cage height on the welfare of growing rabbits. Applied Animal Behaviour Science In Press, Corrected Proof. Veissier, I., Andanson, S., Dubroeucq, H., Pomiès, D., The motivation of cows to walk as thwarted by tethering. Journal of Animal Science 86, Veissier, I., Boissy, A., Stress and welfare: Two complementary concepts that are intrinsically related to the animal's point of view. Physiol Behav 92, Veissier, I., Capdeville, J., Delval, E., Cubicle housing systems for cattle: Comfort of dairy cows depends on cubicle adjustment. J. Anim. Sci. 82, Wiepkema, P.R., Behavioural aspects of stress, In: Wiepkema, P.R., Van Adrichem, P.W.M. (Eds.), Biology of Stress in Farm Animals: an Integrative Approach, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster, pp Wiepkema, P.R., Van Adrichen, P.W.N., (Editors), Biology of Stress in Farm Animals : an Integrative Approach, A Seminar in the EEC Programm of Coordination Research on Animal Welfare, Martinus Nijhoff Publ., Oosterbeek, the Netherlands, p Williams, C.M., Riddell, P.M., Scott, L.A., Comparison of preferences for object properties in the rat using paired- and free-choice paradigms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112, European Forum Livestock housing for the future October 22/23 LILLE (France) 171