Introduction
Concern for animal well-being (welfare) is not new to animal and veterinary science; however, documentation programs are relatively new. The term “animal welfare” should not strike fear in our hearts, just because activists groups have used it negatively against animal agriculture (Dairy Herd Management, 2006).
Animal agriculture has been addressing animal welfare for decades, searching out the best housing, feeding and management practices. Scientific research continues to document the best practices for modern livestock. Animal well-being has a variety of definitions, depending on the observer’s perception. “Animals can suffer” is an animal oriented definition, “animals are special” is a species orientation, and people’s ideal image is human oriented. Animals do have specific needs, including nutrients specific to species and age, social contacts, exploration, thermoregulation, rest, safety, and psychological (security and novel environments).
Well-being is an ongoing process dependent on balancing stress. Positively, stress satisfies a need for excitement. Negatively, it interferes with homeostasis and life functions. The familiar thermal neutral zone diagram can be used to examine many well-being needs of animals. These diagrams show critical (C1) temperatures, thermal neutral zone (O.K.), and areas where the animal has to adapt. Areas beyond the extremes define critical points beyond which the animals can adapt. When animals can no longer adapt or tolerate the extreme and their welfare becomes compromised.
For instance, if this is applied to number of pen mates, we know that cattle are social animals and isolation is extremely stressful for them. Alternatively, an overcrowded pen results in increased fighting and reduced and variable feed intake. Finding the parameters of a condition that we plan to evaluate (such as social contact) is essential before it can be evaluated in the field.
We must keep in mind that animal wellbeing is not just a physiological or psychological reality, but includes public perception. That public perception will likely involve anthropomorphism (attributing human needs/characteristics to animals) as the population making the perception is further removed from the farm.
The Evolution of Welfare Audits
Previously, little progress was made by activist groups addressing producers and packers, but the marketing process was a vulnerable link. Audits were initiated in response to demands of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals made of retailers. In 1999, the “McCruelty” campaign began and then ended when McDonald’s developed animal welfare standards. The year 2001 brought “Murder King” and later in 2001 “Wicked Wendys”. Both of these campaigns against the restaurants were ended as welfare standards were developed.
From these points of conflict, 3rd party audits were developed. Third party audits measure a producer’s or packer’s level of compliance against a prescribed set of animal care criteria. The driving force of the 3rd party audits has been the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and the National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR). Eighty five percent of food is sold in U.S. groceries through these organizations (FMI-NCCR Animal Welfare Program, 2003).
Presently, the major programs available for dairy (Table 1) include: the Dairy Quality Assurance Center (DQAC) 2002, Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC) 2003, Validus (formerly Environmental Management Solutions, LLC, 2004), and Farm Animal Care Training and Auditing (FACTA) has audited humanely raised veal farms (Reynolds, 2005).
California has developed its own program, California Dairy Quality Assurance Program (based on DQAC). The DQAC was developed in 1990. It features internal audits and 3rd party certification by DQA auditors. It was expanded to include animal care in 1995. In 2002, DQAC agreed to revise “Caring for Dairy Animals reference guide” to incorporate FMI/NCCR recommendations. The 2002 revision included: 1) adding a space allocation guideline for a cow to free stall ratio of 1.2, 2) switch trimming is recommended over tail-docking, and 3) specific guidelines regarding ages and methods for castration and dehorning.
The HFAC is the primary niche market auditing program. It is an independent non-profit organization developed through funding from the Humane Society of the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and regional and local animal welfare organizations. The standards were based on the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ Freedom Foods program in the United Kingdom and the Federation of Animal Science Societies’ Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching (FASS, 1999) and were customized to U.S. farms by a scientific advisory committee. It requires additional measures that are related to organic farming, such as no use of hormones and traceability of feeds and products used. Guidelines for calves prohibit tethering, muzzles, or physical alterations to prevent inappropriate suckling. A “Certified Humane Raised and Handled” label can be issued which will add market value and the USDA-recognized label can be used for the products in stores.
Nutritional Aspect of the Audit Programs
Water access and quality are evaluated in the audits. Accessibility and non-slip flooring in the watering area are scored. The animals’ approach to and use of waterers are observed. Feed quality and quantity are determined by observations and by records. All animals on the farm will be assessed for life-stage appropriate feed. The percentage of cows that can eat at once and the percentage of the day spent at the feed bunk may be scored. Adequacy of feeders and bunk space are observed, and when possible, it is determined whether or not old feed is removed on a daily basis (checking for moldy or dampened feeds). Proper feed storage, including protection from the elements, proper labeling, and vermin control, as well as separate storage of medicated feeds, are scored. Toxic compounds must be kept outside of the feeding and resting areas. Each audit will have specific paperwork that is requested from the producer (and therefore nutritionist).
What Will it Cost to Become Part of an Audit Program?
Costs to participate can vary from $200 to 1,500 annually, depending on which program is used and other variables. Auditor’s fees, travel costs, administration fees, and frequency of audits can all contribute to the cost. Presently in the US, the cost is borne by the packers and producers with no incentive to participate. Because of the US marketing system, agriculture can not fix prices to recuperate the costs.
What are the Advantages and Pitfalls of Audit Programs?
Currently, audits suffer from a lack of standardization. Programs are not standardized by species, auditing firms differ, and auditor qualifications vary. A comparison of DQAC, HFAC, and University of California-Davis (UCD) programs indicated that outcomes for commercial dairy farms will depend on the program selected (Stull et al., 2005). Although the three programs cover similar topics, the outcomes reflected the design, purpose for assessment, certification criteria, and differences in specific standards of each assessment tool (Table 2). Because of this type of problem, a national oversight program has been developed, Professional Animal Auditors Certification Organization (PAACO; http://www.animalauditor.org). This group is comprised of animal scientists and veterinarians with the goal “to promote the humane treatment of animals through education and certification of animal auditors and to promote the profession of animal auditors”.
Summary
Animal husbandry should be equivalent to animal welfare, providing clean, dry and comfortable housing, nutrition balanced for stage of life, trained employees, pain control, euthanasia programs, and verification that these needs are being met. But back to the original question, why be informed about animal welfare audits? Firstly, to make an informed decision regarding participation. Will an audit program benefit your operation? Do you want or need to sell to a market requiring audits? Eventually, farms may need to participate to remain competitive. Currently, audit programs represent extra costs for the farm operation. However, in future, the question will become “Can I afford not to participate?”.
References
Dairy Quality Assurance Center. 2002. Caring for Dairy Animals-Technical Reference Guide and On the Dairy Self-Evaluation Guide. Agri-Education, Inc., Stratford, IA.
“Embrace the term ‘animal welfare’”. Feb. 22, 2006. Dairy Alert from Dairy Herd Management, http://www.dairyherd.com.
Environmental Management Solutions, LLC. 2004. Online. http://www.validusservices.com/default.asp?keyPage=8. Accessed February 21, 2006.
Farm Animal Care Training and Auditing. 2003. Online. http://www.factallc.com/. Accessed March 10, 2006.
FASS. 1999. Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching. 1st rev. ed. Fed. Anim. Sci. Soc., Savoy, IL.
FMI-NCCR Animal Welfare Program. June 2003 Report. Online. http://www.fmi.org/animal_welfare/62602finalrpt.pdf. Accessed February 21, 2006.
Humane Farm Animal Care. April 2003. Animal care standards. Humane Farm Animal Care, Herndon, VA. Online. Available: http://www.certifiedhumane.com. Accessed March 6, 2006.
Reynolds, J. 2005. “Animal Welfare Audits on Dairy Operations”. Pennsylvania State Dairy Cattle Nutrition Workshop. Online. Available: http://www.das.psu.edu/dairynutrition/documents/reynoldswelfareaud.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2006. (This report takes quite a long time to download)
Stull, C. L., B. A. Reed, and S. L. Berry. 2005. A comparison of three animal welfare assessment programs on California dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 88:1595-1600.
Table 1. Audit programs, internet addresses, phone number, and e-mail addresses.
1 Dairy Quality Assurance Center
2 Humane Farm Animal Care
3 Animal Welfare Auditing Program
4 Animal Welfare Assurance Review and Evaluation
Table 2. Ranking of 10 dairy farms in California using 3 audit programs: Dairy Quality Assurance Center (DQAC), Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC) and the University of California Davis (UCD) (Stull et al., 2005). Bolded numbers are ranked equally across audits.
| Dairy (1) |
DQAC rank |
HFAC rank |
UCD rank |
| A |
7 |
4 |
3
|
| B |
5 |
2 |
8
|
| C |
3 |
1 |
4/5
|
| D |
6 |
3 |
4/5
|
| E |
8 |
7 |
2
|
| F |
2 |
8 |
7
|
| G |
1 |
6 |
1 |
| H |
10 |
10 |
10
|
| I |
4 |
5 |
6
|
| J |
9 |
9 |
9
|
(1) Dairy farms were designated with a letter to preserve confidentiality. |