Content uploaded by Isabelle Veissier
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Isabelle Veissier
Content may be subject to copyright.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[SLU Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet]
On:
25 October 2010
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 918553313]
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713690045
The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-
being
H. J. Blokhuisa; I. Veissierb; M. Mielec; B. Jonesd
a Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
Uppsala, Sweden b INRA, Saint-Genes-Champanelle, France c School of City and Regional Planning,
Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK d Animal Behaviour and Welfare Consultancy, Edinburgh, UK
Online publication date: 20 October 2010
To cite this Article Blokhuis, H. J. , Veissier, I. , Miele, M. and Jones, B.(2010) 'The Welfare Quality® project and beyond:
Safeguarding farm animal well-being', Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science, 60: 3, 129 — 140
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09064702.2010.523480
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2010.523480
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
REPORT
The Welfare Quality†project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal
well-being
H. J. BLOKHUIS
1
, I. VEISSIER
2
, M. MIELE
3
& B. JONES
4
1
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden,
2
INRA,
UR1213 Herbivores, F63-122 Saint-Genes-Champanelle, France,
3
School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff
University, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3WA, UK, and
4
Animal Behaviour and
Welfare Consultancy, 110 Blackford Avenue, Edinburgh EH9 3HH, UK
Abstract
Welfare Quality†was the largest ever European research project on animal welfare. Here, we briefly describe some major
achievements of Welfare Quality†and identify future research priorities, potential strategies and organisational structures to
build on the outcomes. Achievements include: definition of principles and criteria of good welfare; development of
standardised, primarily animal-based measures for each welfare criterion and their integration in an overall assessment
model.
Since Welfare Quality†could not answer all the questions we recommend:
(1) Continued development and refinement of the assessment systems and extension to new species.
(2) The development of automatic measures of welfare to reduce the duration of the assessment while still retaining its
holistic nature.
(3) Exploration of potential implementation strategies across food chain actors.
(4) Establishment of an independent body to manage and update the assessment and information systems, support their
implementation and inform and engage stakeholders.
Keywords: Animal welfare, information system, policy recommendations, public involvement, welfare assessment, welfare
improvement.
Introduction
Let us state at the outset that the present paper is not
intended as a general review of farm animal welfare
and/or research in this field. Rather, it specifically
describes the background of the European Union
(EU)-funded Welfare Quality†project, its inception
and subsequent development, some of its major
achievements and our thoughts on potential ways of
implementing our findings and thereby progressing
the assessment and improvement of farm animal
welfare. We hope it will help guide the considerations
and actions of a wide range of interested stakeholders.
About seven years ago the first aims and
approaches of what became the largest piece of
integrated research work yet carried out on animal
welfare in Europe were formulated. Welfare
Quality†was a research project financed under
the European sixth Framework Programme for
Research and Technological Development. The
project began in 2004 and comprised a partnership
of 40 institutions in Europe and, since 2006, four
in Latin America. The partners were based in 13
European countries as well as Uruguay, Brazil,
Chile and Mexico. During the project’s lifetime the
Correspondence: H. J. Blokhuis, Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Ag ricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7068, 750 07
Uppsala, Sweden. Tel: 46 18671627. Fax: 46 18 673588. E-mail: harry.blokhuis@hmh.slu.se
Acta Agriculturae Scand Section A, 2010; 60: 129140
(Received 24 August 2010; revised 9 September 2010; accepted 9 September 2010)
ISSN 0906-4702 print/ISSN 1651-1972 online #2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09064702.2010.523480
Downloaded By: [SLU Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet] At: 07:17 25 October 2010
original ideas (Blokhuis et al., 2003) evolved and the
priorities were modified accordingly. However, the
main drivers underlying the vision, the general aims
and the research have remained the same.
Welfare Quality†was a huge, multidisciplinary
and complex project that generated many important
outcomes and deliverables. Many articles have been
published on specific aspects of Welfare Quality†,
but papers focusing on the implications of its
outcomes were still lacking. The first part of this
article presents a condensed overview of the back-
ground, approach and main achievements of the
Welfare Quality†project. The second part aims to
provide some guidance to policy makers and other
stakeholders on research priorities as well as the
potential implementation and use of the project’s
final deliverables, particularly the animal welfare
assessment system, the product information system
and the practical welfare improvement strategies.
We hope this paper will also illustrate how the
combination of different disciplines (ethology,
pathology, animal science, social science, economy,
mathematics ...) can bring new insights into the
issue of animal welfare.
Overview of the Welfare Quality†project
The drivers
Many and very diverse groups, factors, circumstances
and developments were influential in driving and
guiding the Welfare Quality†project (Blokhuis,
2008, 2009; Miele et al., 2010), but three crucial
external factors included: (1) citizens; (2) production
chains and markets; and (3) regulatory control.
Citizens. The closing decades of the twentieth century
saw several major changes in animal farming
(Blokhuis et al., 1998; Fraser, 2008). Production
intensified enormously, farms became highly specia-
lised and there were huge increases in the number
of animals per farm and in actual production
(Porcher, 2001). Furthermore, housing conditions
and management practices changed profoundly with
the appearance of increased mechanisation and other
technological developments. Animal production
became increasingly industrialised, with quantity
often taking precedence over quality.
Over the years, cultural, attitudinal and commercial
barriers hampered constructive communication
between farmers and the people who ultimately
eat what is produced. The activities of consumer
groups and animal protectionists and, more recently,
the effects of crises such as swine fever, bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), foot-and-mouth
disease and avian influenza led to an increased
awareness that animal production is more than just
an industry and animal welfare assumed much greater
importance for the public (in the specific form of
‘‘consumer concerns’’). Farm animal welfare is now
an important issue for ordinary people across Europe
and there is clear demand for higher farm animal
welfare standards (Eurobarometer, 2005, 2007;
Kjaernes & Lavik, 2008). The mounting interest in
farm animal welfare is also reflected in a widespread
demand for transparent information across Europe.
However, this demand varies significantly across
different countries and largely reflects differences in
primary production, processing and distribution as
well as governance structures and public discourse.
Moreover, information demand often seems to reflect
just a general interest rather than one that is apparent
through purchase choice (Kjaernes & Lavik, 2008;
Miele & Evans, 2010).
Production chains and markets. The production chain
now focuses more and more on delivering good
animal welfare as an important attribute of total food
quality. In general, farmers consider animal welfare
as an important aspect of farming (Bock, 2009) and
they are very motivated to take good care of their
animals. Farmers also realise that they are operating
in a market where they have to take peoples’
concerns about the welfare of farm animals into
account. There is also a broadening recognition that
conditions that harm animal welfare can negatively
affect production, damage specific quality aspects
and jeopardise profitability (Jones, 1998).
Farmers favour an objective standardised system
of assessing animal welfare that could be used
throughout Europe and preferably worldwide
(Bock, 2009). But, they also worry about the costs
of welfare assessments, welfare improvements and
more stringent regulations. They are also anxious
about who will bear such costs.
Producers, retailers and other food chain actors also
recognise that consumer concerns for good animal
welfare represent a business opportunity that could be
profitably incorporated in their commercial strategies
(Roe & Buller, 2008). Animal welfare is increasingly
used, particularly by retailers, as a component of
product and supply chain differentiation (Miele
et al., 2005; Eurogroup for Animals, 2007). Such
differentiation (and creation of mark ets) may be based
on an ‘‘overall’’ high welfare level; be related to specific
welfare aspects; or be ‘‘bundled’’ or not with other
product characteristics, e.g. ‘‘environment’’,‘‘global
warming’’ or ‘‘sustainability’’.
In general, animal welfare is increasingly used as
an important attribute of an overall concept of ‘‘food
130 H. J. Blokhuis et al.
Downloaded By: [SLU Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet] At: 07:17 25 October 2010
quality’’ (Blokhuis et al., 1998; Buller & Cesar,
2007).
Regulatory control. In the EU, legislation on animal
welfare has a longstanding tradition in many
member states (Blokhuis et al., 2008; Bennett &
Appleby, 2010). The Protocol on Protection and
Welfare of Animals annexed to the European Com-
munity (EC) Treaty in 1999 (the Treaty of Amster-
dam amending the Treaty on EU) is a milestone for
the development of the Community’s animal welfare
policy. This Protocol spells out the obligation to pay
full regard to the welfare of animals as sentient beings
when formulating and implementing the Commu-
nity’s policies. The legal recognition of animals as
‘‘sentient beings’’ was recently reconfirmed in the
Lisbon Treaty in 2007.
There is now a range of EU Directives and
Regulations specifying requirements, conditions and
practices to ensure good animal welfare for different
species. These cover areas such as animal housing
and husbandry, transport and slaughter. In general,
current EU legislation largely relies on input-based
measures, e.g. specifying the provision of particular
resources and practices (i.e. prescriptions). This
approach is important to guide decisions on the
banning of conditions/practices that are widely
considered to result in poor welfare, such as certain
housing systems (e.g. battery cages for laying hens)
or painful procedures. However, reliance on a pre-
scriptive ‘‘input-based approach’’ leads to several
difficulties when one seeks to promote good welfare.
For example, an ongoing assurance of good animal
welfare using prescriptive legislation requires deeper
and continuous detailing of housing design and
requirements, management procedures, etc. and
this could result in very complicated and inflexible
legislation. Moreover, it is often difficult (if not
impossible) to define detailed input measures in
such a way that they provide the same protection of
animal welfare under the very different farming and
climatic conditions that prevail in the various member
states. If input-based rules are too detailed and
restrictive they may prevent farmers from choosing
husbandry systems and practices to their liking or that
fit their specific circumstances most, even if these
could result in good welfare in that situation. Clearly,
detailed definition of systems and practices does not
stimulate innovation. Also, it is very complicated (and
very likely impossible) to prescribe all relevant details
of management practices. Finally, ensuring compli-
ance with such detailed legislation of husbandry
conditions and practices would be virtually
unachievable.
In the European Commission’s Action Plan for
Animal Welfare 20062010 (European Commission,
2006), it was stated that efforts will be made to
incorporate specific measurable animal welfare
indicators where available into existing and future
Community legislation.
Vision and approach
The Welfare Quality†vision was designed to
accommodate the above drivers and developments
and to respond to their diverse requirements. Trans-
parency of the product quality chain and provision of
guarantees in relation to animal welfare can be
considered major and overarching requirements.
These involve visibility of production processes to all
stakeholders (public, industry, government, etc.) and
a trustworthy way of quantifying how these processes
affect animal welfare (Blokhuis et al., 1998; Blokhuis,
2009). Welfare Quality†therefore set out to deliver
reliable, science-based, on-farm welfare assessment
systems for poultry, pigs and cattle as well as a
standardised system to convey welfare measures into
clear and understandable product information.
It was also recognised that a concerted European
effort in the area of animal welfare should include
research designed to identify practical ways of solving
some of the main welfare problems in current animal
production. Therefore, Welfare Quality†initiated
studies in important areas like handling stress,
injurious behaviours, lameness, temperament, etc.
Through its integrated European approach,
Welfare Quality†was instrumental in providing a
firm basis for the European harmonisation of assess-
ment and information systems. Such harmonisation is
essential to create a level playing field for European
producers and to provide transparent consumer
information and marketing. Also, as a possible basis
for future legislation, welfare measures need EU-wide
support and harmonisation.
Welfare Quality†provided instruments (assess-
ment methods and improvement strategies) which
can also drive further developments outside the EU.
European agriculture embraces diverse physical
environments (e.g. cold Nordic countries to warm
Mediterranean ones) and different socio-cultural
conditions (Kjærnes et al., 2007). The fact that we
took this diversity into account means that the
instruments developed in Welfare Quality†are likely
to be robust and applicable to many other contexts
and countries. We believe that most Welfare Quality†
outcomes can be used not only throughout the EU,
but also at the level of the Council of Europe and
beyond in the case of international trade. Indeed,
the welfare assessment protocols have already been
The Welfare Quality†project 131
Downloaded By: [SLU Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet] At: 07:17 25 October 2010
successfully tested by Welfare Quality†partners in
Latin America.
Such a harmonised assessment procedure can
also be an invaluable tool for testing and evaluating
new housing and husbandry systems as well as new
genotypes before they are allowed onto the market.
By identifying potential risks, such testing would
play a critical preventative role.
Thus, the main aims of the Welfare Quality†
project were described as:
to develop a standardised system for the assess-
ment of animal welfare;
to develop a standardised way to convey
measures into animal welfare information;
to develop practical strategies/measures to
improve animal welfare; and
to integrate and interrelate the most appropriate
specialist expertise in the multidisciplinary field
of animal welfare in Europe.
Animal welfare is a multidimensional concept. It
comprises both physical and mental health and
includes several aspects such as physical comfort,
absence of hunger and disease, possibilities to
perform motivated behaviour, etc. These specificities
of the welfare concept make its assessment a difficult
exercise, particularly when the importance attribu-
ted to these dimensions may vary between people
and change over time (Fraser, 1995, 2008). In
Welfare Quality†a primary requirement was that
the different aspects of welfare covered had to be
stated clearly. These aspects should reflect what is
meaningful to animals, as understood by animal
welfare science, and also be agreed upon by the
public and other stakeholders in order to ensure that
wider ethical and social issues are taken into
account. Therefore, in Welfare Quality†we devised
ways of establishing dialogue between the project’s
scientists and the various social constituencies
(ordinary citizens, farmers, breeders, retailers, certi-
fication bodies, NGOs, etc.; Miele et al., 2010).
Early consultation among animal scientists gener-
ated a list of four welfare principles and 12 criteria that
combined various scientific perspectives on how to
approach farm animal welfare as well as particular
aspects of an animal’s life that should be monitored in
order to gain as full an impression as practically
possible about its quality of life (Table I). In a truly
integrated fashion, this list of welfare principles and
criteria was discussed with members of the public in
focus groups in seven European countries (Evans &
Miele, 2007); with the stakeholders and external
scientific experts in the project’s Advisory Committee
and Scientific Board, respectively, and in interviews
with farmers, retailers and certifying bodies in six EU
countries (Bock & Van Huik, 2007; Roe & Buller,
2008).
Once the Welfare Quality†assessment protocols
were drafted and tested at numerous European farms,
we organised citizen and farmer juries in three EU
countries to discuss: how the various aspects of
welfare are measured; how the results are combined
to evaluate farms (see the scoring system below);
and how the scheme might best be implemented
to realise improvements in European farm animal
welfare. Welfare Quality†outcomes were presented
at three large stakeholder conferences (at Brussels
in 2005, Berlin in 2007 and Uppsala in 2009)
attended by farmers’associations, certification
bodies, retailers, NGOs, scientists, members of the
EU Parliament and the EU Commission, national
policy makers, the media, etc. Feedback from these
groups was taken into consideration when the assess-
ment protocols were refined. Intensive discussions
between animal and social scientists facilitated the
integration of the concerns and welfare priorities of
citizens and other stakeholders with a scientific
approach to animal welfare. The consultation process
is described in more details by Miele et al. (2010).
Animals differ in their genetic structure, early
experience and temperament and may therefore
experience the same environment in different ways.
Even apparently similar environments may be man-
aged differently by the stockperson, further affecting
the animals’experience of a particular situation.
Thus, resource- (e.g. housing, stocking density) or
management-based measures (e.g. feeding strategies,
health plans) provide only partial information about
the animals’welfare in particular situations. So, in
line with the Commission’s intention to adopt a more
outcome-based approach to animal welfare, the
Welfare Quality†scientists focused on animal-/
outcome-based measures that reflect the actual wel-
fare state of the animals in terms of their behaviour,
fearfulness, health, physical condition, etc. The fact
Table I. Principles and criteria for good welfare.
Principles Welfare criteria
Good feeding 1 Absence of prolonged hunger
2 Absence of prolonged thirst
Good housing 3 Comfort around resting
4 Thermal comfort
5 Ease of movement
Good health 6 Absence of injuries
7 Absence of disease
8 Absence of pain induced by man-
agement procedures
Appropriate 9 Expression of social behaviours
behaviour 10 Expression of other behaviours
11 Good humananimal relationship
12 Positive emotional state
132 H. J. Blokhuis et al.
Downloaded By: [SLU Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet] At: 07:17 25 October 2010
that such measures are sensitive to variations in farm
management and specific systemanimal interactions
makes them particularly relevant (Figure 1). It was
agreed that if no animal-based measure was available
to check a specific aspect, or if it was not sufficiently
sensitive or reliable, measures of the resources or the
management would be used to determine as much as
possible whether or not a given welfare requirement is
being met.
In Welfare Quality†’s vision, feedback of the
detailed results of the measures (assessment infor-
mation) to the farmer is essential for ongoing farm
management. Together with expert advice such in-
formation can support the farmer’s efforts to further
improve the animals’welfare. For instance, once
the welfare status of a farm has been determined
using the above system(s) the feedback of results and
the provision of practical advice on remedial strategies
will help the farmer to deal successfully with any
problems that were identified. In this context, the
welfare improvement strategies developed in Welfare
Quality†and the associated Technical Information
Resource (which describes possible risk factors and
remedial measures) will contribute significantly to
the advisory component of the cyclical process of
farm assessment feedback and advise welfare
improvement reassessment, etc.
Main achievements
Principles and criter ia of good welfare. Ongoing
dialogue between Welfare Quality†scientists and
external stakeholders resulted in a list of 12 criteria
for good animal welfare which encompass all potential
areas of concern. These criteria, which built on
and extended the ‘‘Five Freedoms’’ were broadly
supported in focus groups (general public) and in
citizens’and farmers’juries. The 12 criteria were then
grouped into four main principles to ease their
aggregation in the overall welfare assessment
(Table I). Along with methodologies developed in
operational research, the 12 criteria were defined so as
to cover all dimensions of animal welfare, to avoid
redundancies between criteria and to be interpreted
independently of each others (Bouyssou, 1990). This
logical approach is a major advance in animal welfare
science. It provides a solid framework for developing
welfare measures that will in turn be used to build a
comprehensive picture of animal welfare.
Standardised measures. Welfare Quality†researchers
developed standardised, primarily animal-based
measures to check compliance of farms or slaughter-
houses with the 12 welfare criteria. Each assessment
system focuses on one of seven categories of animals of
three species (sows with piglets, fattening pigs, dairy
cattle, beef cattle, veal calves, laying hens and broilers)
and incorporates 3050 measures. Validity was
paramount, i.e. the measures had to say something
about the animals’welfare. However, animal-based
measures that have been validated for experimental
use are often unsuitable for commercial conditions
because they are too time-consuming, require
equipment to be taken to the animal unit, or need
specialist veterinary or behavioural expertise. Clearly,
practicality demands that measures should be quick
and easy; in fact many of the current Welfare Quality†
measures simply require the assessor to count
frequencies of events and conditions or to classify
observations according to a few categories illustrated
by photographs. The scientists agreed among them-
selves upon the final composition of each assessment
system.
Many welfare measures currently used in quality
assurance schemes have not actually been tested for
reliability. So, to address concerns about subjectivity
or mood-dependent variation in assessment all
measures were tested for inter- (between observers)
and intra-observer (within the same observer) reli-
ability. Procedures were standardised as much as
possible to allow comparisons between measures
and, whenever different options were available, the
measure with the highest reliability and feasibility was
selected. The reliability of the animal-based measures
was generally high and the methodology was further
improved by the provision of instructions on how the
test animals were to be selected. If reliability was poor
the measure was rejected.
Overall welfare evaluation model. A major goal was to
develop harmonised methods for the overall evalua-
tion of animal welfare on farm and at slaughter that
are science based and meet societal concerns. Since
welfare is multidimensional its assessment requires
measures of many aspects. Welfare Quality†was
the first project to not only formulate a sound way
Management
Animal welfare
Measures
Resources
Farmer
Society
Product
information
Trade
Assessment
information Legislative
control
Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of the assessment and
information systems (adapted from Blokhuis et al. 2003).
The Welfare Quality†project 133
Downloaded By: [SLU Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet] At: 07:17 25 October 2010
of integrating scores from many measures into an
overall welfare assessment, but also to tune the
evaluation model according to the opinion of
selected experts: biologists, social scientists and
stakeholders (Veissier et al., 2009). Combining
subjective assessments with mathematical ap-
proaches from other disciplines strengthened the
method’s validity. Our formal evaluation model
transforms the data into value scores that reflect
compliance with the 12 criteria and four principles of
good welfare (Figure 2). After assessment each farm
can be allocated to one of four welfare categories:
excellent, enhanced, acceptable and not classified.
Like in all evaluation processes, ethics played an
important role, e.g. in determining the thresholds
between the welfare categories, or whether or not to
allow good results on some welfare aspects to
compensate for poor scores on others (Veissier
et al., 2010).
We created a software chain to ease collection of
data from the 3050 measures per system (using a
laptop or tablet PC), a database to store data for all
animal types and a software module to calculate
welfare scores at criterion, principle and overall level.
The results are shown on the website (http://www.
clermont.inra.fr/wq/); the farmers can access their
own results and welfare improvement strategies can
be simulated.
The ‘‘protocol’’ documents. After extensive testing of
the system(s) in practice the ‘‘protocol’’ documents
for assessing and evaluating welfare in cattle, pigs
and poultry were developed with the Dutch Stan-
dardisation Institute (NEN). This process combined
the efforts of many researchers and stakeholders to
create the ‘‘first’’ overall welfare assessment scheme
for farms and slaughterhouses using animal-based
outcomes and originating from a broad international
consensus. Although the protocols need some re-
finement and modification to facilitate application in
commercial settings, they are extremely positive
and important outputs of Welfare Quality†. The
protocols are freely available and large numbers have
already been distributed to interested parties.
Improvement strategies and management support. The
effective uptake of the assessment systems by
farmers, advisors, retailers and others demands a
cyclical process of: assessment, feedback of results and
advice, welfare improvement, reassessment, etc. The
practical welfare improvement strategies developed in
the project, e.g. stockperson training programmes,
selection criteria to improve welfare through future
breeding programmes, recommendations on housing
and husbandry, provide an extremely important
contribution to the advisory component of that
process. Moreover, by focusing on the 12 criteria
and the welfare problems considered particularly
important by a wide range of stakeholders, Welfare
Quality†scientists are continuing to develop a
technical information resource describing the causes
and consequences of welfare problems as well as the
associated practical welfare improvement strategies.
Gaps, limitations and required research
Specific measures and models
Although Welfare Quality†was the largest ever
collaborative project in animal welfare science, it is
clear that it could not have possibly covered all the
questions and every detail. So, it is not surprising that
there are still unanswered questions and discussion
points about specific welfare measures or the lack
of animal-based measures for some criteria (e.g.
prolonged thirst and thermal comfort in adult cattle).
Furthermore, no measures were developed for the
welfare at slaughter of dairy cows, veal calves, sows,
piglets and hens. Welfare Quality†also had to
prioritise some tasks and species at the expense of
others because of budgetary and other constraints.
Thus, the models for the overall evaluation of welfare
in sows and piglets on farm, laying hens on farm,
buffalos or animals at slaughter could not be fully
completed. However, these could be developed
relatively easily in a follow-on project because all the
necessary processes and principles are in place.
New species
During the project’s lifetime the Welfare Quality†
measures and evaluation models were largely
developed for the seven animal types described above.
However, in order to provide a basis for welfare
assessment in general, the system has to be extended
to include other animal types and species. The 12
welfare criteria and the methods and outcomes of
Welfare Quality†form a sound basis for such
developments.
In line with our thinking, within the context of
the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) the EU
30-50
measures
12
criteria
overallassessment
4
princples
30-50
measures
12
criteria
overall assessment
4
princples
Figure 2. The model for the overall evaluation of animal welfare
(adapted from Botreau et al. 2008).
134 H. J. Blokhuis et al.
Downloaded By: [SLU Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet] At: 07:17 25 October 2010
recently called for research proposals to further
develop and refine the welfare assessment and
monitoring systems and to bring other important
species into the model (European Commission,
2009). New species that clearly merit study include
sheep, turkeys and horses; these are all very im-
portant for the continued agricultural and rural
development in Europe and they represent specific
challenges to the application of the Welfare Quality†
system. For instance, sheep production is very
diverse and the extent to which sheep are farmed
extensively raises several issues for welfare assess-
ment, such as health problems, hunger, weather-
related discomfort, etc. that may not have been
encountered for other species. On the other hand,
the factors and issues influencing turkey welfare may
not be very different from those affecting broiler
chickens. Turkeys therefore represent an interesting
case in that they enable us to determine how
effectively the Welfare Quality†assessment system
can be transposed between two close species and
production environments.
Horses also display key differences from the other
animal models studied in Welfare Quality†. These
include: (1) horses are generally kept individually or
in (very) small groups for a large part of the day;
(2) owners’specific instructions may result in horses
being managed differently even within the same
facility; and (3) horses are kept for several different
purposes, e.g. as companion animals or for leisure
riding, sport, meat production, etc. Thus, a welfare
evaluation would need to target the individual animal
and tailor the calculation of scores accordingly.
Workload
Carrying out a complete Welfare Quality†assess-
ment may take 48 h. This is not only costly but it
also limits the number of farms that can be assessed
in a given period. So, it is essential to reduce the
workload and time required but without losing
the holistic nature of the assessment that enables an
overall and reliable view of animal welfare. The
software developed for capturing data on farms (on
a computer or a hand-held ‘‘personal digital assis-
tant’’ device) will optimise data collection in terms of
time and accuracy as well as enabling rapid avail-
ability and feedback of the results for management
support and further use in the production chain.
The workload may also be reduced by automating
some measures. Techniques developed in Precision
Livestock Farming (use of sensors, sensing systems
and real-time modelling, e.g. Silva et al., 2009)
may complement or replace manual measures in the
Welfare Quality†protocols. Such automation could
greatly increase the effectiveness and time efficiency
of the existing welfare assessment protocols while
simultaneously providing valuable management in-
formation.
Frequency of assessment
It is agreed that the Welfare Quality†assessment
protocols require further refinement to reduce the
workload and encourage their uptake. It is also
necessary to determine how often a farm must be
assessed in order to guarantee its welfare status,
e.g. if a farm is rated ‘‘excellent’’ how frequently does
that rating need to be checked? In this context, the
incorporation of risk factor analysis in a future study
would not only identify likely problem areas, but
may also establish the frequency of visits required for
particular farms and whether it is necessary to run a
full assessment on each visit.
New European Union (EU) member states and
candidate countries
Our research on public attitudes to animal welfare
(focus groups, population survey with consumers
and citizen juries) was conducted in seven European
countries: five old member states (UK, France, the
Netherlands, Italy and Sweden) one new member
(Hungary) and a non-EU country, Norway. It
revealed at least three distinct modes of governance
and institutional environments pertaining to animal
welfare: the ‘‘market’’ , the ‘‘welfare state’’ and the
‘‘terroir’’ models (Kjaernes et al., 2009); these
greatly affect how ordinary people feel they can
take action to improve farm animal welfare while
shopping for food. We now need to fill the gap in
knowledge about the modes of governance/institu-
tional environments and consumer attitudes in new
member states and candidate countries.
Implementation and incorporation into
existing schemes
Implementation
Now that Welfare Quality†has developed and field
tested a comprehensive set of animal-based welfare
assessment protocols, the implementation task today
is to achieve their widespread adoption across food
chain actors. In turn, this would establish: first, a
greater basis for improved consumer confidence in
welfare claims; second, a genuine means of validating
higher welfare systems; and third, improvements in
the quality of farm animals’lives. This mission faces a
number of challenges. The livestock sector is already
heavily regulated and assessed for a variety of reasons.
Farm inspection visits are multiplying and existing
The Welfare Quality†project 135
Downloaded By: [SLU Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet] At: 07:17 25 October 2010
procedures are often seen as offering few concrete
benefits to producers. Moreover, many private
schemes incorporate some aspect of animal welfare
and many are operated as part of retail assurance
procedures.
However, in practical terms, the Welfare Quality†
system offers several major advantages: it is animal
based, thereby responding to shifting consumer,
legislative and welfare concerns about the quality of
animal lives; it is comprehensive and holistic across
the time and space of animal production; it is
rigorously and scientifically tested; it offers scope for
market segmentation based on valid and transferable
standards; it is dynamic, in that it encourages higher
welfare performance (and the benefits thereof); and,
critically, it is flexible in that it can be integrated into
existing assessment practice thereby reducing the
impact on producers, food chain actors and assessors.
We see four principal avenues for the implementa-
tion of the Welfare Quality†assessment scheme
(Table II). The first is legislative and regulatory.
The Welfare Quality†scheme offers the potential
for comprehensive and comparable (mainly animal-
based) assessment to be undertaken as part of
legislative compliance within individual production
sectors or, more readily, as the basis for a distinctive
welfare labelling initiative at the EU level. In this
instance, the scheme might act as an essentially
undifferentiated qualifying assessment leading to the
use and display of a label or brand. A second avenue is
as the basis for assessing the potential delivery of a
recognised public good, the provision of which by
private actors over and above mandatory minimum
standards might merit payment through such
targeted schemes as are currently operating within
the EU Rural Development Regulation. Here, the
Welfare Quality†assessment system might act
in certain conditions as the basis for assessing
differentiated levels of payment, according to asso-
ciated levels of welfare provision. Third, by offering
competitive advantage and demonstrating ethical
responsibility, a critical area for implementation of
the Welfare Quality†assessment scheme lies in its
adoption by food chain actors as part of their quality
assurance procedures. Finally, the Welfare Quality†
scheme can play a vital role in farm management
through the feedback of assessment results and advice
(see section Improvement strategies and management
support). As such, it offers greater integration within
existing auditing and inspection protocols, without
duplicating procedures. Its exploration of innovative
monitoring and self-assessment methods, and poten-
tial integration with existing resource-based assess-
ment, makes the Welfare Quality†assessment scheme
a positive contribution to farm manag ement with clear
benefits to producers seeking formalised recognition
for good welfare practice or those actively wishing to
improve their own welfare standards.
Integration in existing schemes
The cost of the Welfare Quality†assessment not only
has to cover the time taken for the assessment visit
itself, but also that of getting a qualified assessor on
site in terms of training, transport and administration.
If delivered as ‘‘bolt on’’ within existing schemes, the
additional cost of time taken to deliver the Welfare
Quality†assessment is relatively low in comparison
with a ‘‘stand-alone’’ visit (Burton, 2009). Moreover,
existing schemes already have a pool of trained
assessors in place who have the skills to acquire new
competences and adopt new inspection methods and
tools. Integration of Welfare Quality†protocols into
either existing ‘‘national’’ or ‘‘international’’ schemes
or retailers’own assessment systems would there-
fore be the most cost effective way of delivering
the protocols (Burton, 2009; De Thore´, 2009). The
one danger of this method is the risk of the protocols
being taken out of context so it will be important to
make it abundantly clear how the protocols can be
grouped so that the scoring method can be applied
(Burton, 2009).
Table II. Possible ways to implementation the Welfare Quality†assessment tool (after Buller 2009).
Tool use Outcome Integration Remit
Full assessment
tool
Partial
assessment tool Pass/fail Tiered
Stand
alone Bundled
Part of
brand Inclusive Exclusive
Legislation X XX XX X X XX XX XX X
European label XX X X XX XX X X X XX
Public good XX X XX XX X X X XX
Commercial assurance XX XX X XX X XX XX X XX
Farm management XX X X XX XX X X XX X
Note: XX more probable in the implementation of the Welfare Quality†assessment scheme; X less probable in the implementation of
the Welfare Quality†assessment scheme.
136 H. J. Blokhuis et al.
Downloaded By: [SLU Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet] At: 07:17 25 October 2010
Governance of the Welfare Quality†systems and tools
Welfare Quality†no longer exists as an integrated and
collaborative structure. Scenario analyses performed
in Welfare Quality†identified the urgent need to
establish and support an independent and inter-
nationally respected body to manage, maintain and
upgrade the welfare assessment and product infor-
mation systems as well as the support instruments,
e.g. welfare improvement strategies, and other tools
developed in the project (Ingenbleek et al., 2009).
This body would have strategic responsibilities for
managing the assessment and information systems
and related tools, supporting the implementation of
these systems for the various species and informing
the general public and stakeholders about all aspects
of the assessments and other tools.
A European Network of Reference Centres
for Animal Welfare, as recently suggested by the
European Commission (2009), would be admirably
suited to fulfil the above roles. Because national
environments vary considerably within Europe, and
specific expertise is available in several member states,
such a Network could effectively and efficiently link
the national expertise and practices.
Some important tasks for such a governing body
are briefly mentioned as follows.
Management of the system and support instruments. For
a harmonised and effective implementation of the
Welfare Quality†assessment systems, it is essential
to clearly define conditions of use. These should be
made clear to all stakeholders and implemented and
complied with by all users. For an unambiguous
communication to the public, it is also crucial to
define and describe the claims that can be made
on the basis of the outcomes of the assessments.
The constraints, in terms of marketing and commu-
nication messages, must also be made very clear.
Moreover, it is important that an independent body
verifies that the implementation plans proposed by a
stakeholder comply with the above conditions.
Training. The assessor is a ‘‘critical component’’ of
every certification and inspection scheme. Without
competent and credible assessors there would be no
consistency across assessments, so the scheme would
be unable to satisfy the producer or the consumer.
Thus, appropriate and recognised training in the use
and practical application of the welfare assessment
protocols is essential (Burton, 2009; Butterworth,
2009). Assessors’performance should be evaluated
during a robust training course to ensure uniform
scoring, and then re-evaluated when they are active
in the field to ensure retention of objectivity,
impartiality and repeatability in scoring (Butter-
worth, 2009). Thus, assessor training and its deliv-
ery should focus prominently in further discussions
on implementation of the Welfare Quality†assess-
ment system. Recognition/accreditation of assessors
by an independent body (see above) is essential to
harmonise the use and application of the Welfare
Quality†systems and to guarantee consistency.
Data management and protection. The application
(by trained/certified assessors) of Welfare Quality†
assessment systems in food production chains will
generate large amounts of data from individual
farms all over Europe (and beyond). To ensure
harmonisation, processing of the data into integrated
welfare assessment scores should be entrusted to the
above independent body. These results must be
carefully stored to ensure the safe and steady
accumulation of knowledge. Indeed, such storage is
essential to keep the database up to date and
accurate. Data collected at several locations and at
various intervals can subsequently be used (with
appropriate protection) to: (1) continue to inform
stakeholders (e.g. on the progress made by a certain
population of farms/certain slaughterhouses, etc.);
(2) help farmers or slaughterhouse managers see
the progress they are making; (3) produce a yearly
‘‘European welfare barometer’’ with statistical
summaries of assessment scores; and (4) further
analyse the links between welfare problems and/or
identify their associated risk factors.
Supporting the adoption of the assessment system.
Activities one can envisage to stimulate the adoption
of the Welfare Quality†assessment system include:
advisory services; training and support packages to
help individual farmers, farmer organisations or
farmer retailer groups; and quality assurance
checks to ensure that the system is used correctly.
The resultant increase in animal welfare data would
aid the development of these support products and
services.
One can also envisage a legitimising role, in
ensuring that the system has a solid acceptance basis
among the general European public, stakeholders
(farmers, retailers, certification bodies, etc.) with
specific interests in safeguarding farm animal welfare,
NGOs, policy groups and a wider group of stake-
holders concerned with sustainable development.
Updating the assessment system. The existing Welfare
Quality†assessment protocols and evaluation models
The Welfare Quality†project 137
Downloaded By: [SLU Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet] At: 07:17 25 October 2010
need to be regularly updated and refined on the basis
of new scientific findings, societal developments and
practical experiences gained during implementation.
For example, some new measures may prove easier to
collect, or they may be more precise or more reliable
than those in the current Welfare Quality†protocols.
The inclusion of a new measure or the replacement of
one measure by another requires stringent testing of
validity, repeatability and robustness (Engel et al.,
2009) followed by consultation in order to translate
the data into a value score (Veissier et al., 2009). This
process requires an independent body with the
appropriate expertise to check new measures and to
decide whether or not they can be incorporated into
the system. Currently, the Welfare Quality†scoring
system proposes that animal units should be placed in
one of four welfare categories (excellent, enhanced,
acceptable and not classified) according to a specific
set of rules. After a few years of implementation and in
order to satisfy the demand of the public for strin-
gency, we envisage raising the requirements of some of
these rules when clear improvements in welfare status
and strategies have become apparent at farms and
abattoirs.
Upgrading a resource on welfare improvement strategies.
The provision of sound advice on ways of avoiding
welfare risks or resolving problems is critical for the
uptake and implementation of the Welfare Quality†
assessment systems and for improving farm animal
welfare in general. Remedial measures developed
within and outside the Welfare Quality†project are
described in a Technical Information Resource
which also details the causes and consequences of
welfare problems (Jones & Manteca, 2009). Clearly
there is an urgent need to maintain, update, extend
(to include new strategies and new species) and
disseminate this resource as new results emerge.
Through the management of the systems and the
efforts to support implementation, areas requiring
further research are expected to be highlighted. Such
areas may include: fundamental biological knowl-
edge required to assess all aspects of animal welfare
as well as relevant developments in stakeholder or
consumer attitudes, areas of cross-compliance, and
social, economic and environmental policy. A prior-
itisation of such R&D needs would be helpful for a
range of EU and national research funding bodies.
Discussion
The active participation of a broad range of stake-
holder organisations (farmers, breeders, retailers,
certification bodies, NGOs, etc.) in the actual
research and in an advisory capacity greatly facili-
tated the uptake of Welfare Quality†outcomes and
helped to guide the development of follow-on
projects. The strategic value of such collaborative
ventures is clear and the fact that Welfare Quality†
generated the European Animal Welfare Platform, a
multi-stakeholder project committed to safeguarding
and progressing farm animal welfare, provides the
necessary impetus to foster further cooperation.
Indeed, the need for closer collaboration between
academics and stakeholders was recognised in the
Commission’s recent call for proposals.
Ordinary people are often confused by existing
labels carrying welfare claims and they know little
about modern farming systems or animal welfare
problems. Welfare Quality†researchers revealed a
clear need for the provision of reliable, user-friendly,
science-based information to raise awareness of
farm animal welfare in the general public and
schoolchildren, to help support welfare improve-
ment initiatives, and to increase consumers’ability
to interpret welfare claims on products (Evans &
Miele, 2007; Miele & Evans, 2010).
Earlier in this article we described the disad vantages
and difficulties of resource-based legislation. To
recap, firstly welfare is the quality of life as perceived
by the animal and is therefore best measured at the
animals’level. Secondly, resource-based regulatory
efforts face difficulties in providing detailed (and
lasting) descriptions of the resources and in coping
with national and regional variations in critical factors
such as climate, farming conditions and traditions.
Thirdly, such regulatory systems would restrict the
managerial freedom of farmers and the innovative
capacity of the industry.
Since the Welfare Quality†protocols for evaluating
welfare are primarily outcome based they provide a
strong platform for the European Commission’s
intention to adopt a more outcome-based approach
to animal welfare legislation and welfare improve-
ment in the EU. Basically, this alternative approach
to legislation would simply define the minimum
acceptable level for the assessment results. These
minimum levels not only could be defined for each of
the many individual measures, but they could also be
set at the level of criteria, principles or even that of the
integrated assessment (e.g. a farm should at the very
least attain a score that places it in the ‘‘acceptable’’
category).
In order to guarantee a harmonised assessment for
the whole of the EU, it is crucial that the assessment
system itself is clearly defined in such legislation.
There must also be scope for upgrading the system
as new measures and technologies emerge. Clearly,
the establishment of an independent managerial
body (as described above) should be integral to the
governance of that system.
138 H. J. Blokhuis et al.
Downloaded By: [SLU Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet] At: 07:17 25 October 2010
This type of legislation would also enable another
type of control, i.e. the owner of the animal unit
could be made responsible for ensuring that his/her
unit is assessed by a recognised third party. Official
controls could then focus on checking the assess-
ment outcomes and the quality of the process.
Random reassessment or specific risk-based controls
could also be part of such a system. Once again, this
whole process would be enormously facilitated by
the establishment of an independent body that could
also administer the assessment outcomes. Clearly,
this type of legislative control would give a far greater
coverage (in principle all European animal units)
than at present.
The Welfare Quality†team is fully aware that it
would be dangerous to move entirely and solely to the
above type of output-based animal welfare legislation
in Europe and to abandon all prescriptive rules and
requirements. Legislation should maintain bans of
systems (e.g. battery cages) and practices proven to
induce poor welfare. This would protect the welfare of
animals and help ensure that individual farmers are
not misled into investing in systems or practices
that would simply lead to poor assessment results
according to the Welfare Quality†protocols. The
bottom line can be summarised as: ‘‘ban bad systems
and practices and assess the remaining ones’’ (c.f.
Grandin, 2010).
An important opportunity for such an assessment-
based legislation is the possibility to include the
requirements for a specific voluntary EU labelling
scheme for products that are produced by animals
with a higher animal welfare status than legally
required (European Commission, 2009). Such a
scheme could build on exactly the same assessment
protocols and procedures while offering great
advantages for their implementation and helping
farmers who want to join the scheme (since they are
already assessed).
Another relevant opportunity is the introduction
of an EU-wide pre-testing facility (for housing
systems, genotypes and husbandry practices) based
on the same assessment procedures.
The outcomes of the Welfare Quality†project
have a number of important implications for animal
welfare. Firstly, the assessment systems developed in
the project to measure welfare on farm and at
slaughter represent a whole new approach, i.e. they
primarily consist of animal-based measures. A
strongly structured evaluation model developed by
Welfare Quality†researchers then integrates the
results of all the measures into an overall welfare
assessment for the farm or slaughter house. Rather
than the previous reliance on prescriptive scores
of the environment (resources) and management
(practices) our new approach enables the assessment
of animal welfare to focus more on the animals’
experience of the farming environment. This is
also consistent with the aims of European and
national regulatory bodies as well as private industry
initiatives. Secondly, several practical welfare im-
provement strategies were developed as well as an
associated and comprehensive information resource
on methods of safeguarding and progressing farm
animal welfare. A third important innovation was
our effort to enhance societal involvement at all
levels by analysing and addressing the perceptions
and concerns of a broad sweep of stakeholders.
These included the general public, academics,
producers, animal breeders, retailers, certification
bodies, NGOs, government, etc. Our associated
dissemination activities included an interactive
web-based platform, conferences and symposia,
newsletters, fact sheets and media initiatives. Collec-
tively, the Welfare Quality†approach represents a
paradigm shift in how to give an account of the lives
of farm animals and how to make it visible to the
broad public. The adoption of a harmonised method
for evaluating an animal’s quality of life on farm or at
slaughter and the provision of advice on remedial
strategies is likely to stimulate widespread improve-
ment in farm animal welfare as well as increasing the
credibility of welfare claims on animal products.
Acknowledgements
This text was produced as part of the Welfare
Quality†research project which has been co-financed
by the European Commission, within the sixth
Framework Programme, contract no. FOOD-CT-
2004-506508. The text represents the authors’ views
and does not necessarily represent a position of the
Commission who will not be liable for the use made
of such information. The authors acknowledge all
contributors to the Welfare Quality†project who
carried out the research and produced the results on
which this text is based. Special thanks to Henry
Buller for his contribution to specific parts of this text.
References
Bennett, R. & Appleby, M. (2010). Animal welfare policy in the
European Union. In: A. Oskam, G. Meester, and H. Silvis
(eds.) EU policy for agriculture food and rural areas, pp. 243
251. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen Academic
Publishers.
Blokhuis, H. J. (2008). International cooperation in animal
welfare: The Welfare Quality†Project. Acta Veter inaria
Scandavica,50(Suppl. I), S1S10.
Blokhuis, H. J. (2009). The vision of the Welfare Quality†project.
In: A. Butterworth, H. Blokhuis, B. Jones, and I. Veissier
(eds.) Proceedings of ‘delivering animal welfare and quality:
Transparency in the food production chain’, 89 October,
pp. 1721. The Welfare Quality†Project, Uppsala, Sweden.
The Welfare Quality†project 139
Downloaded By: [SLU Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet] At: 07:17 25 October 2010
Blokhuis, H. J., Hopster, H., Geverink, N. A., Korte, S. M., &
Van Reenen, C. G. (1998). Studies of stress in farm animals.
Comparative Haematology International,8,94101.
Blokhuis, H. J., Jones, R. B., Geers, R., Miele, M., & Veissier, I.
(2003). Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: Trans-
parency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare,
12, 445455.
Blokhuis, H. J., Keeling, L. J., Gavinelli, A., & Serratosa, J.
(2008). Animal welfare’s impact on the food chain. Trends in
Food Science & Technology,19,7583.
Bock, B. (2009). Farmers’perspectives. In: A. Butterworth,
H. Blokhuis, B. Jones, and I. Veissier (eds.) Proceedings of
‘delivering animal welfare and quality: Transparency in the food
production chain’,89 October, pp. 7375. Uppsala, Sweden.
Bock, B. B. & van Huik, M. M. (2007). Animal welfare, attitudes
and behaviour of pig farmers across Europe. British Food
Journal, 109, 931944.
Botreau, R. (2008). Evaluation multicrite`re du bien-eˆtre animal:
Exemple des vaches laitie`res en ferme. The` se de doctorat
de l’Institut des Sciences et Industries du Vivant et de
l’Environnement. Agro Paris Tech, Paris, France.
Bouyssou, D. (1990). Building criteria: A prerequisite for MCDA.
In C. A. Bana e Costa (ed.) Readings in multiple criteria
decision-aid. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Verlag. 660 pp.
Buller, H. (2009). Strategies for the implementation of the
Welfare Quality†project output. Paper presented at the
Welfare Quality Advisory Committee Meeting, 26 May.
Institute of Food and Resource Economics, Copenhagen
University.
Buller, H. & Cesar, C. (2007). Eating well, eating fare: Farm
animal welfare in France. International Jour nal of Sociology
Food and Agriculture,15,4558.
Burton, I. (2009). Costs and implementation of Welfare Quality†
protocols. In: A. Butterworth, H. Blokhuis, B. Jones, and
I. Veissier (eds.) Proceedings of ‘delivering animal welfare and
quality: Transparency in the food production chain’,89
October, pp. 3132. Uppsala, Sweden.
Butterworth, A. (2009). Feeding support information back to
management. In: A. Butterworth, H. Blokhuis, B. Jones, and
I. Veissier (eds.) Proceedings of ‘delivering animal welfare and
quality: Transparency in the food production chain’,89
October, pp. 3337. Uppsala, Sweden.
De Thore´, H. (2009). The Welfare Quality†program: A farmer’s
view. In: A. Butterworth, H. Blokhuis, B. Jones, and
I. Veissier (eds.) Proceedings of ‘delivering animal welfare and
quality: Transparency in the food production chain’,89
October, pp. 8992. Uppsala, Sweden.
Engel, B., Winckler, C., Tyuttens, F., & Van Reenen, K. (2009).
Observer variability for the animal welfare monitoring system.
Internal report. Welfare Quality†, Lelystad, 14 pp.
Eurobarometer (2005). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of
farmed animals. European Commission, Brussels, 138 pp.
Eurobarometer (2007). Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal
welfare. European Commision, Brussels, 82 pp.
Eurogroup for Animals (2007). European retailers and animal
welfare. Briefing October 2007. Brussels: Eurogroup, 2 pp.
European Commission (2006). Communication from the Commis-
sion to the European Parliament and the Council on a Commu-
nity Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006
2010. COM 13 final. Brussels, 9 pp.
European Commission (2009). Report from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Options for
animal welfare labelling and the establishment of a European
Network of Reference Centres for the protection and welfare of
animals. COM 584 final. Brussels, 9 pp.
Evans, A. & Miele, M. (eds.). (2007). Consumers’ views about farm
animal welfare. Welfare Quality†Reports Series No. 5.
Cardiff: Cardiff University, 129 pp.
Fraser, D. (1995). Science, values and animal welfare: exploring
the ‘inextricable connection’.Animal welfare 4, 103117.
Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare: The science in its
cultural context. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 324 pp.
Grandin, T. (2010). Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants.
Meat Science,86,5665.
Ingenbleek, P., Blokhuis, H., Butterworth, B. & Keeling, L.
(2009). Scenario analysis report on the future implementation
of the Welfare Quality†assesment and information system.
Deliverable of the Welfare Quality†Project, Welfare Qual-
ity†, Lelystad, 24 pp.
Jones, B. & Manteca, X. (2009). Developing practical welfare
improvement strategies. In: L. J. Keeling (ed.) An over view of
the development of the Welfare Quality†project assessment
systems, Welfare Quality Reports No. 12, pp. 5765. Cardiff:
Cardiff University.
Jones, R. B. (1998). Fear and distress. In: M. C. Appleby and
B. O. Hughes (eds.) Animal welfare. Wallingford, CT: CAB
International, pp. 75-87.
Kjaernes, U., Bock, B., & Miele, M. (2009). Improving farm
animal welfare across Europe: Current initiatives and venues for
future strategies. Welfare Quality†Reports Series No. 8.
Cardiff: Cardiff University, pp. 170.
Kjaernes, U. & Lavik, R. (2008). Opinions on animal welfare and
food consumption in seven European countries. In:
U. Kjaernes, B. B. Bock, E. Roe, and J. Roex (eds.)
Consumption, distribution and production of farm animal welfare
opinions and practices within the supply chain, Welfare Quality†
Reports No. 7, pp. 1126. Cardiff: University of Cardiff.
Kjærnes, U., Miele, M., & Roex, J. (2007). Attitudes of consumers,
retailers and producers to animal welfare. Welfare Quality
Reports No. 2. Cardiff: Cardiff University, 183 pp.
Miele, M. & Evans, A. (2010). When foods become animals,
ruminations on ethics and responsibility in care-full spaces of
consumption. Ethics, Place & Environment,13,5878.
Miele, M., Murdoch, J. & Roe, E. (2005). Animals and
ambivalence, governing farm animal welfare in the European
food sector. In: V. Higgins and G. Lawrence (eds.)
Agricultural Governance, Routledge, London, pp. 169185.
Miele, M., Veissier, I., & Evans, A. (2010). Animal welfare:
Establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal
Welfare, accepted.
Porcher, J. (2001). Le travail dans l’e´levage industriel des porcs.
Souffrance des animaux, souffrance des hommes. In:
F. Burgat and R. Dantzer (eds.) Un Point Sur ... Les animaux
d’e
´levage ont-ils droit au biene
ˆtre? (Labour in industrial pig
farming: animal suffering, human suffering. In Are Farm
Animals Entitled to their Well-being?) pp. 2364. Paris:
INRA Editions.
Roe, E. & Buller, H. (2008). Marketing farm animal welfare.
Welfare Quality†factsheet. Wageningen, the Netherlands:
Welfare Quality†, 2 pp.
Silva, M., Exadaktylos, V., Ferrari, S., Guarino, M., Aerts, J. -M.,
& Berckmans, D. (2009). The influence of respiratory
disease on the energy envelope dynamics of pig cough
sounds. Computer and Electronics Agriculture,69,8085.
Veissier, I., Botreau, R., & Perny, P. (2009). Scoring animal
welfare: Difficulties and Welfare Quality†solutions. In: L. J.
Keeling (ed.) An overview of the development of the Welfare
Quality†project assessment systems, Welfare Quality†Reports
Series No. 12, pp. 1532. Cardiff: Cardiff University.
Veissier, I., Jensen, K. K., Botreau, R., & Sandøe, P. (2010).
Highlighting ethical choices underlying the scoring of animal
welfare. Animal Welfare, accepted.
140 H. J. Blokhuis et al.
Downloaded By: [SLU Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet] At: 07:17 25 October 2010
