Welfare assessment and the Five Freedoms

Module 2

This module will enable you to

• Understand
– the concept and potential uses of the Five Freedoms
– the difference between factors affecting welfare (inputs) and actual welfare performance
(outcome)
• Assess welfare by using Severity, Duration, and Number Affected
• Appreciate that science can provide information on the severity of welfare problems, but not on
the acceptability

Assessing human welfare

• Overall, how are you feeling at the moment?
– Several different areas of life
Welfare continuum

Good • “Fantastic”
Welfare
• “Pretty good”
• “Reasonable”
• “OK”
• “Not good”
• “Miserable”
Poor Welfare
• “Terrible”

Some aspects of your welfare

Poor Welfare Good Welfare

Chair comfort
Hungry
Hot / cold
Work
Social life
OVERALL

What are the main areas of animal welfare?

The Five Freedoms and Animal Welfare

Poor Welfare Good Welfare
– Freedom from hunger and thirst
– Freedom from discomfort
– Freedom from pain, injury and disease
– Freedom to express normal behaviour
– Freedom from fear and distress
– OVERALL
Are all Freedoms equally important?
• Producer attitude (344 farmers) – questionnaire distributed by Tesco plc
• “In your opinion, how much importance should be placed on providing animals with the
Five Freedoms?”
The importance of the Five Freedoms to 344 UK farmers

What do the results of the survey mean?

• The results are not generalisable
– The proportion of concerned individuals will be different for different groups of users and
different countries
• Even in the surveyed population, there are significant welfare problems
– For example, in the UK 20% of dairy cattle are lame, and lamb mortality is more than 20%

Problems with Five Freedoms

• The freedoms conflict
– Keeping animals “Free from disease” can cause them Fear and distress, from handling
during treatment
– If animals have “Freedom to express normal behaviour”, they can suffer Fear and
distress, during normal social interactions
 All farming systems restrict normal behaviour

 Restriction of ‘normal’

Obvious - farrowing crates

Not So Obvious
Cubicle surface
Significance of Five Freedoms
• Scientists & politicians in many countries agree
– Consider welfare in terms of the Freedoms
• Freedoms do not define minimum standards
– Very difficult to always provide all the Freedoms
• Freedoms provide an initial indication
– what should be assessed
– what should be provided to animals

Objections to the Five Freedoms (Korte et al 2007, in press)

• Concern ethics more than science
• Are anthropocentric
– Restricts the scientific investigation of animals as sentient beings
• Are unrealistic
– Complete freedom is undesirable
• Are applied very inconsistently
– e.g. laboratory animals vs. farm animals

Welfare Inputs and Outputs

STOCKMAN ENVIRONMENT ANIMAL
WELFARE
INPUTS

Stockman’s Training Housing and Diet Breeding

E.g. training E.g. housing, diet E.g. breeding

ANIMAL BASED MEASURES

Disease / Production Behavior Physiology

WELFARE
OUTPUTS

The Five Freedoms & welfare inputs

• Freedom from hunger & thirst
– Ready access to fresh water, and a diet that maintains full health and vigour
• Freedom from discomfort
 – An appropriate environment, including shelter and a comfortable resting area

• Freedom from pain, injury and disease

– Disease prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment
• Freedom to express normal behaviour
– Sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind
• Freedom from fear and distress
– Conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering

Quantifying a welfare problem

• Severity
• Duration
• Number affected

Measures of severity
Severity: example how severe is the social isolation
• Behaviour of sheep?
– e.g. fearfulness
• Disease
– e.g. lameness, pneumonia
– Production
• Physiology
– e.g. heart rate, cortisol
• Production
-e.g. growth rates

Severity: It has been found out that visual isolation of sheep causes increase of vocalization (4.5 per
minute and an increase in heart rate of 20 beats/minute from the normal baseline as compared to spatial
isolation (Baldock and Sibley, 1990)

Duration: example for how long are sheep sensitive to pain after a lameness episode?

Threshold
Stimulus 2.5
(Normal)

0
Normal Lame 3 Months After
Not Lame Lameness is Cured
It was found out that severely lame sheep were sensitised to pain stimulus and responded at a lower
pressure. This increased pain sensitivity was still present three months later, despite effective treatment
of the lameness. (Ley et al.1995)

Number affected: example at any one time, approximately what percentage of UK farm animals are
lame?

15% 22% 26%

Quantifying welfare: sows in farrowing crates

Severity: Nest building & distress in sows (Lawrence et al 1994)

Pen (Loose) Farrowing Crate

60

Cortisol
(ng/ml) 40

20

0
Baseline During Farrowing

Farrowing crate
• Severity
– Restrict freedom to move around
– Restrict freedom to nest build
– Restrict freedom to avoid the piglets
• Duration
– 3-4 weeks
• Number affected
– Most indoor sows in intensive systems

Intrinsic problem
• Farrowing crates are used throughout the world
• Currently considered intrinsic (unavoidable) in commercial indoor pig production
– i.e. Benefits for piglets and production exceed Costs to the sow

Quantifying welfare: thin cattle

• Severity
– How thin are the cattle (body condition score)?
• Duration
– How long have they been thin?
• Number affected
– How many cattle are thin?

Conclusions / Summary
• Welfare can be assessed
– Five Freedoms are a useful framework
• Consider welfare inputs
– Stockman, Environment, Animal
• Include animal-based measures
– Severity, Duration and Number affected

Further reading
• Baldock NM, Sibley RM (1990) Effects of handling and transportation on the heart rate and
behaviour of sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 15-39
• Brambell Committee (1965). Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of
Animals Kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. Command Report 2836, The Stationery
Office, London (http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp)
• Farm Animal Welfare Council (1992) FAWC updates the Five Freedoms. Veterinary Record 131:
357
• Gregory NG (2004). Physiology and Behaviour of Animal Suffering. Blackwell: Oxford. pp.12-21.
• Herlin AH (1997) Comparison of lying area surfaces for dairy cows by preference, hygiene, and
lying down behaviour. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 27: 189-196.
• Korte SM, Olivier B, Koolhaas JM. A new animal welfare concept based on allostasis. Physiology
and Behaviour 2007 92(3):422-8.
Further reading
• Lawrence AB, Petherick JC et al (1994) The effect of environment on behaviour, plasma cortisol
and prolactin in parturient sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39:313-330
• Ley SJ, Waterman AE, Livingston A (1995). A field study of the effect of lameness on mechanical
nociceptive thresholds in sheep. Veterinary Record 137: 85-87
• Tucker CB, Weary DM (2001) Stall design: enhancing cow comfort. Advances in Dairy
Technology 13: 154-167. Available from: http://www.wcds.afns.ualberta.ca/Proceedings/2001/Chapter
%2013%20Weary.pdf