Search

National audience

Présentation faite au Collège de Direction de l'INRA à Paris le 20/06/2011

International audience

Farm animal welfare has become an important issue for the European public, especially in the last two decades when a number of crises (eg Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Avian Influenza) have affected farm animal populations. Public concern about this issue led the European Union to fund the Welfare Quality® project. This project aimed to develop a protocol for assessing animal welfare on farms and at slaughter plants, to identify the main animal welfare problems, and to address possible welfare improvement strategies. In fulfilling these aims, the Welfare Quality® project incorporated inputs frombothscience and society. This was crucial, as the public perception of what constitutes ‘animal welfare’ sometimes differs from animal science-based definitions. Furthermore, these differences are often interwoven with broader variations in ethical- and value-based understandings about human/non-human animal relationships. This paper presents the steps that we adopted to establish a dialogue between science and society during the construction of the Welfare Quality® assessment protocols. This dialogue involved numerous interactions between animal scientists, social scientists and members of the public. These interactions took several forms, including: meetings, conferences, workshops, websites, newsletters, interviews, focus groups, and citizen and farmers juries. Here, we address four key moments within this dialogue: the development of the initial list of twelve welfare criteria; the consumer focus groups; the development of the Welfare Quality® scoring system; and the citizen juries. In particular, we focus on the results of the focus groups and citizen juries. The focus groups were conducted in France, Italy, Sweden, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Hungary and the citizen juries were carried out in Italy, the United Kingdom, and Norway. Drawing on this research, we highlight the similarities and differences between societal understandings of farm animal welfare and the views of scientific experts. Furthermore, and crucially, we outline how the animal scientists took account of societal opinion when developing their farm animal welfare assessment tools.

On-farm animal welfare assessment may be predominantly based on resource based measures such as the type of housing, feeding, health plan (e.g. in the Animal Needs Index ) or on animal based measures such as body condition, behaviour or health measures (e.g. in Welfare Quality®). The choice between the two types of measures seems dogmatic, some authors considering that resource based measures detect risk factors for animal welfare whereas animal based measures better reflect the true welfare state of animals. In order to review available resource vs. animal based measures, we first drew a list of properties for a measure to be considered valid for assessing animal welfare. These properties have been derived from analytical methods: selectivity, trueness, reliability (repeatability, reproducibility), stability over time, fitness for the purpose (including sensitivity), and feasibility in different systems. The properties of the measures for the 12 welfare criteria defined in Welfare Quality® were analysed. For some criteria, animal based measures are more suitable than resource based measures, this is the case for absence of prolonged hunger, absence of injuries or diseases or good human-animal-relationship for which different factors interact so that resource based measures have a low predictive value. In other cases, resource based measures are more suitable because animal based measures are not sensitive enough (for absence of thirst) or not feasible (detection of pain during some management procedures on farm). Finally, for some criteria a combination of resource and animal based measures is necessary. This is the case for comfort around resting where problems (negative aspects) can be detected on animals while positive aspects – the actual comfort – may be assessed through resource based measures. In conclusion, there is no general rule whether animal based measures are more or less valid than resource based ones. This depends on the welfare criterion considered and to a lesser extent on the animal type. We recommend to use a mixture of animal and resource based measures (chosen according to their validity and feasibility) to assess the overall welfare of animals on farms.

absent

National audience; We conducted two experiments on Holstein cows milked once a day from calving. The aim was to find ways to improve milk production by stimulating the udder more frequently thanks to suckling. Two groups of cows were let with their calves all day long (1TV24h) or only during daylight (1TV10h) and milked once daily. They were compared with cows milked twice daily (2T) or milked once daily but without suckling (1T). For the first 16 weeks of lactation, 1T cows produced 35% less milk than 2T cows, and their milk had higher concentrations in lipids (5.4 g/kg), proteins (1.7 g/kg), and somatic cells (113 000 /mL). Before weaning, while calves drank about 8.7 kg/d of milk, the 1TV24h and the 1TV10h cows produced respectively 11.9 kg/d and 3.4 kg/d milk less at the milking parlour than the 1T cows. After weaning (10 wk after calving), all cows were milked twice daily and produced similar amounts of milk. Suckling calves resulted in a 12 g/kg reduction in the lipid content of the milk obtained in the milking parlour (normal values were resumed after weaning) and in somatic cell counts (maintained after weaning). After weaning, the calves that had been suckled by their dam spent less time in non nutritive oral activities (licking, sucking…) than similar calves fed milk from an automatic feeder. Once a day milking combined with suckling can reduce the workload of farmers and may prevent abnormal behaviour in calves, but does not increase the subsequent milk production.; Deux essais ont été réalisés pour améliorer, par une stimulation plus fréquente de la mamelle, la production laitière de vaches Prim’Holstein en monotraite dès le vêlage. Dans le 1er, des vaches en monotraite ont donc été conduites avec leur veau dans la stabulation toute la journée (1TV24h) et comparées à des vaches traites 2 fois par jour (2T) ou en monotraite classique (1T). Dans le second, des vaches en monotraite ont été conduites avec leur veau dans la stabulation 10 h/j (1TV10h) et comparées à des vaches en monotraite classique (1T). Durant les 16 premières semaines de lactation, le lot 1T a produit 35% de moins que le lot 2T, d’un lait plus riche en TB (+5,4 g/kg), en TP (+1,7 g/kg) et en cellules somatiques (+113 000 /mL). Avant sevrage, alors que les veaux tétaient environ 8,7 kg/j, le lot 1TV24h a produit en salle de traite 11,9 kg/j de lait de moins que le lot 1T et le lot 1TV10h seulement 3,4 kg/j de moins. Après sevrage (10 semaines après le vêlage) et après passage à 2 traites par jour, la production laitière des lots 1T et 1TV n’a pas été significativement différente. La présence des veaux a entraîné une baisse de 12 g/kg du TB du lait récolté en salle de traite (avec un retour à l’identique dès le sevrage) et une réduction de plus de moitié des cellules somatiques (qui s’est maintenue après sevrage). Après sevrage, les veaux élevés avec leur mère ont passé moins de temps à des activités orales non alimentaires (succions, léchages…) que ceux élevés au distributeur automatique de lait. La monotraite combinée à l’allaitement permet surtout de réduire le travail d’astreinte et pourrait éviter des problèmes de comportement des veaux, mais sans augmentation de la production laitière ultérieure.

National audience

National audience

National audience

International audience

International audience

International audience

National audience; Science-based innovation support requires excellence in knowledge generation and procurement (research); knowledge transfer (dissemination activity) and knowledge absorption (education and training). This is particularly relevant to the future needs for research on ruminants in view of ongoing developments in specialised techniques and methodologies. Exploiting new research opportunities on ruminants will depend on access to expertise, facilities, techniques, and equipment through collaborative initiatives. One objective of the ERIN project was to collect quantitative information on present needs, future needs (in 3 – 10 years) of experimental animals, equipment, rearing or investigation methods and infrastructures for research on ruminants across Europe. Research managers from all European research organisations were questioned using an internet-based questionnaire.

International audience; Conducting research on large farm animals has led to many advances in science. Agriculture has been a major beneficiary where research on genetics, nutrition and metabolism has brought about modern, highly productive strains at a lower cost, leading directly to improvements in human nutrition. Medical science has also benefited from more fundamental studies on animals that serve as models for human diseases. For example sheep were used in research that helped to elucidate the mechanisms underlying ovulation (Baird et al., 1999). The improved understanding was applied to techniques that now combat human infertility. It is essential that animal research continues, and the challenge is how best to do this within a European context and in a way that will maximize the impact obtained from the effort invested. One important element is the infrastructure, presently dispersed. This could be shared once a clear overview is established of what is available, and what needs to be done collectively.

International audience; In the ERIN project (Towards European Ruminant Infrastructure Network), the trends in research on ruminants were identified using a bibliometric analysis. Further, a review of vision papers related to farm animal research within EU was conducted.

National audience

National audience

National audience; Le respect du bien-être animal est une préoccupation sociétale majeure, comme l'attestent les enquêtes d'opinion, la mise en place de réglementations, et le développement de programmes de certification. Toutefois, les différentes démarches - en particulier commerciales - reposent sur des approches spécifiques, ce qui ne favorise pas l'émergence d'une information claire en matière de bien-être animal auprès des citoyens ou consommateurs. Le projet européen Welfare Quality® (2004-2009) propose une méthode standardisée pour l'évaluation et l'information sur le bien-être des bovins, des porcs et des volailles. Présentation de Isabelle Veissier, unité de recherches sur les herbivores de l'INRA, lors de la rencontre professionnelle "De la douleur au bien-être des animaux d'élevage". Cette rencontre était organisée par l'Institut national de la recherche agronomique (INRA) dans le cadre du Salon international de l'agriculture, le 1er mars 2010.

National audience

International audience

International audience

ERIN analyzed the needs for a shared European infrastructure dedicated to ruminant physiology. ERIN conducted bibliometric analyses, reviewed vision papers, interviewed research managers, surveyed research groups and facilities, built scenarios for the organisation of research facilities in Europe, and organised a stakeholder conference to discuss the findings. More than 3000 scientific articles are published per year on ruminants with a slight increase over time. This gives Europe a leading position in the world, with more than 400 European institutes or universities involved. The collaborations within Europe and between Europe and outside Europe are extensive but collaborations with Eastern Europe remain limited. Cattle are the predominant ruminant species studied, followed by sheep and goats. The publications concern mainly veterinary sciences, agriculture, dairy and animal science, food science and technology. This apparent stability hides profound recent changes in terms of topics and methods. Research on ruminants need to address new challenges at global level: food security, climate change, sustainability of production systems (including protection of the environment and animals, and social equity). Innovative solutions require integrated applications of existing knowledge, science and technology; interdisciplinary networks; increased participation of stakeholders. In the past, functional traits that were looked for (e.g. growth rate) were generally controlled by few genes. Nowadays, more complex traits like fertility or behaviour are addressed. Such traits are often determined by multiple genes which expression is largely influenced by the environment. We need more detailed pools of information to understand the links between genes, environment, and phenotypes. This requires in-depth investigation such as metabolomics, proteomics, and transcriptomics. Innovative solutions for farming require taking into account the various environmental contexts of agriculture in Europe since there will certainly be no unique model of farming but several more or less adapted to specific pedo-climatic and cultural conditions. Ruminants are more and more used as models for studying human disorders such as reproductive or development disorders. Emerging scientific approaches and tools including tools for biomedical research are likely to further feed back agricultural research, especially to develop non invasive investigation techniques (e.g. imagery). Such changes already started in most places in Europe however they are limited by funding possibilities and the difficult access to sophisticated investigation techniques. Close coordination between researchers will be crucial to design innovative solutions to help farming cope with global challenges, to increase the efficiency of research, and make European research more visible within Europe and on the international scene to attract funding. Solutions should be conceived thanks to cross-fertilisation between scientists from various backgrounds (disciplines or geographic origins) and studied in various contexts. Such cross-fertilisation and testing could take place in a shared infrastructure. In addition, experimental facilities should work together to develop investigation methods (less invasive, more precise) and should have close links with ‘omics’ platforms. At the moment, the most suitable organisation seems a network of existing facilities which would increase the visibility and efficiency of research while minimising the cost of coordination. A shared infrastructure will certainly help research on ruminants and be very beneficial to this sector which at the moment appeared very disperse and not visible. It is seen as one tool among others (training networks, projects) to increase the quality and the efficiency of European research.

International audience

International audience

National audience; La prise en compte du bien-être animal dans nos élevages est devenue une attente forte. Le projet européen Welfare Quality® cherche à évaluer les aspects de bien-être à prendre en considération, du point de vue des animaux. Quatre principes doivent être respectés pour garantir le bien-être de l’animal : l’alimentation, le confort, la santé et la possibilité d’exprimer ses comportements naturels. Ces principes sont déclinés en douze critères indépendants plus précis, eux-mêmes divisés en mesures, qui permettent de les évaluer par l’obtention de scores calculés pour chaque critère, en fonction de l’espèce considérée. L’ensemble des scores permet de catégoriser le bien-être des animaux de l’élevage. Le vétérinaire peut, par ses compétences et sa vision globale de l‘élevage, conseiller l’éleveur dans ce processus.

Dire qu'un animal se comporte à l'égard de ce qui l'entoure qu'est-ce à dire ? Le comportement est constitué par un type de manifestations qui n'appartient qu'à certains vivants ; il forme un flux continu et spontané qu'une étude segmentée détruit nécessairement. Pourtant, ce sont de brèves séquences comportementales isolées au laboratoire que l'on choisit d'étudier. Mais a-t-on encore affaire à un comportement ? Ne l'a-t-on pas ainsi réduit à l'un des éléments qui le composent : les mécanismes physiologiques, le programme génétique, les opérations cognitives, etc. ? Qu'est-ce qu'un animal empêché de se comporter, qui est-il ? On doit alors s'interroger sur les raisons de la prédominance des études de laboratoire et sur les bénéfices qui peuvent être tirés d'une telle production de connaissances. Car ces méthodes décident notamment des conditions de vie de millions de mammifères et d'oiseaux destinés à la consommation. À l'opposé de cette perspective réductionniste, le comportement est compris par les approches phénoménologiques comme l'expression d'une liberté, une relation dialectique avec le milieu. Celles-ci imposent du même coup des conditions d'observation en milieu naturel. Comment, dès lors, élaborer une éthologie plus juste, tant du point de vue de la compréhension du comportement que de celui des besoins, au sens large, des animaux placés sous la domination de l'homme ?

En direct des labos : La lettre électronique de l'Inra aux entreprises; National audience; Le bien-être des animaux d’élevage est devenu un sujet de préoccupation pour les consommateurs européens. De la ferme à l’abattoir, la souffrance des animaux est de moins en moins tolérée. Pour veiller au bien-être des animaux tout le long des filières de production, les chercheurs de l’Unité de Recherche sur les Herbivores dans le cadre du programme européen Welfare Quality® ont développé un outil d’évaluation du bien-être. Cet outil permet aux producteurs agricoles comme aux managers d’abattoirs d’évaluer et de gérer un aspect devenu non-négligeable pour la qualité de la production et l’image des filières de productions animales.

National audience

National audience; More and more often European schemes for farm certification imply the fulfillment of animal welfare. The Welfare Quality® project aimed at proposing an overall assessment model of animal welfare at the unit level (farm or slaughterhouse). This model relies on a multicriterion evaluation. First, 12 welfare criteria, grouped into 4 principles, were defined. After identifying the measures needed to check that an animal unit complies with the various criteria , the model was progressively constructed so as to finally classify animal units into four categories reflecting the level of animal welfare (from excellent to very poor). We used multicriteria evaluation methods, trying to avoid the pitfalls of a naïve aggregation of the information (e.g. weighted sums authorizing full compensations between criteria, not compatible with the concept of welfare). Different persons (animal and social scientists, stakeholders) were consulted. They were presented virtual datasets to which they had to assign scores. The model was developed and parameterized so as to reflect their opinions. A post-hoc analysis of the results showed that the model gives the priority to animals in bad condition while also taking into account the average state of the group of animals, and that compensation between criteria are strongly limited. Following this rigorous methodology we were able to propose an evaluation of a multidimensional concept. Such an exercise requires value judgments that must be clarified and modelled. The methodology followed to construct this animal welfare assessment model could be transposed to the assessment of other multidimensional concepts like the sustainability of production systems.; Face au développement en Europe de programmes de certification d'élevages mettant en avant le respect du bien-être animal, le projet Welfare Quality® a proposé à l’Union Européenne d’établir un modèle d’évaluation globale des exploitations (fermes ou abattoirs) au regard du bien-être des animaux. Ce modèle repose sur une évaluation multicritère dans laquelle 12 critères de bien-être, regroupés en 4 principes, ont été définis. Après avoir identifié les mesures nécessaires pour vérifier qu’une exploitation est conforme aux différents critères, le modèle a été progressivement construit. Il aboutit à un classement des exploitations en quatre catégories reflétant le niveau de bien-être (d'excellent à très faible). Pour ce faire, des méthodes multicritères ont été utilisées, évitant ainsi les écueils d’une agrégation naïve de l’information (comme les sommes pondérées qui autorisent les pleines compensations entre critères, ce qui n’est pas compatible avec le concept de bien-être). Différentes personnes (chercheurs en sciences animales ou sociales, porteurs d’enjeux) ont été consultées au moyen de jeux de données virtuelles sur lesquelles elles devaient donner une appréciation. Le modèle a été développé et paramétré afin de refléter ces appréciations. Une analyse a posteriori des résultats produits montre que le modèle accorde la priorité aux animaux en moins bon état tout en tenant compte de l'état moyen du troupeau, et qu’il limite fortement les compensations entre critères. Cet exemple montre qu’en suivant cette méthodologie rigoureuse, il est possible d’aider l’évaluation d’un concept multidimensionnel, même si cet exercice comporte des choix de valeurs qu’il convient d’expliciter et de modéliser. La méthodologie suivie pour construire ce modèle d’évaluation du bien-être peut être transposée pour évaluer d’autres concepts multidimensionnels comme la durabilité des systèmes de production.

International audience

National audience

International audience

International audience; One major objective of Welfare Quality® is to propose harmonized methods for the overall assessment of animal welfare on farm and at slaughter that are science based and meet societal concerns. The need for such a unified scoring system became clear from the evidence that: 1. Animal welfare remains an important concern for EU citizens (Welfare Quality® results on citizens’ expectations) and an information system; 2. It may contribute to the raising of welfare standards; 3. Eurobarometer findings (2007) suggested that EU consumers do not feel sufficiently well informed about animal welfare of animals and are thus unable to adequately take it into account when purchasing food; 4. Across Europe, welfare claims are often used on animal products and several schemes have been put in place to guarantee animal welfare for consumers. These schemes differ in the measures used to check animal welfare, in the thresholds set to differentiate high vs. poor welfare, or in the way the information is integrated to form an overall judgement. A unified scoring system seems necessary to ensure both the understanding and credibility of welfare claims; 5. The EU Commission, in a white paper to the parliament in 2002, launched the idea of a unified labelling system that could be used for bilateral negotiations between countries. Again this requires a unified scoring system.

National audience

National audience

National audience

National audience

International audience

International audience

International audience