1st Annual Conference: Oscarsborg, Norway: 21st

1st Annual Conference: Oscarsborg, Norway: 21st-24th May 2012.
Consolidated (abridged) Conference Proceedings.
Deliverable 5.3
Animal Welfare Indicators, “AWIN”, is an animal welfare research consortium
involving 10 institutions, in ten different countries, coordinated by the Scottish
Agricultural College (SAC), UK. Additional consortium members are: The
Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; The University of Milan, Italy;
Neiker-Tecnalia, Spain; Centro de Estudos Superiores Positivo, Brazil;
POSITIVO; Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal, UTL; University of
Cambridge, England; Indiana University, USA; Institute of Animal Science, Czech
Republic and Havelland Horse Clinic, Germany. The project hosted its first
annual conference on the beautiful island of Oscarsborg, in Norway, 21st-24th of
May, 2012. www.oscarsborghotel.no All beneficiaries were represented at the
conference which was a productive and enjoyable event. The project
management group met with several key stakeholders who attended the
presentations and poster session on the 23 rd.
AWIN aims to develop practical, science-based, easy-to-recognise indicators of
animal welfare will study, initially, sheep, goats, horses, donkeys and turkeys.
The project is developing practical pain mitigation protocols for husbandry
procedures and diseases. The study is examining how husbandry, density and
group size can affect animal welfare and welfare outcomes in their offspring. A
further critical aspect of the consortium activity is the development of the Animal
Welfare Science Hub which is an online, ‘one -stop shop’ information resource for
researchers, students, teachers and others. This ‘virtual environment’ will bring
together existing knowledge and practice with the aim of raising animal welfare
standards internationally – the Hub was successfully launched at Conference.
Presentations and full posters are available on SharePoint or from
neil.ramsay@sac.ac.uk
CONTENT :
Conference Programme
Delegate List
Work Package Meetings
Species Group Meetings
Project Meetings
Acknowledgements
Poster Abstracts
st
AWIN 1 AGM, Oscarsborg, Norway.
Work Package 1 Minutes
Work Package 2 Minutes
Work Package 3 Minutes
Work Package 4 Minutes
Goat Discussion Group Notes
Horse Discussion Group Notes
Sheep Discussion Group Notes
Turkey Discussion Group Notes
Project Management Group Minutes
General Assembly Notes
EC & UMB
Annex
Photo: Audun Braastad.
Programme.
Mon 21st May
20:00
Dinner. Informal opportunity to meet and welcome
delegates
Tue 22nd May
08:30–15:00
PhD Student Workshop*, Statistics Training
(Coffee 10:15, Lunch 13:00)
Wed 23rd May
08:45-10:15
Project Management Group Meeting
10:15-10:45
Coffee
10:45–13:00
Review of the report with all AWIN beneficiaries
13:00-14:00
Lunch
14:00- 15:00
Work package discussions
15:00-17:00
Species group discussions
17:00-17:15
Feedback
19:00
Dinner
20:30
Post dinner reception –Informal opportunity to meet
and welcome delegates
09:00-09:30
Welcome : AWIN, The year past and day ahead (AZ)
Work Package 1
09:30-09:45
Introduction/Overview (EC)
09:45-10:20
Work package presentation/case study/results/plans
10:20-10:30
Questions & Answers
10:30-10:45
Coffee
Work Package 2
10:45-11:00
Introduction/Overview (DL)
11:00-11:35
Work package presentation/case study/results/plans
11:35-11:45
Questions & Answers
Work Package 3
11:45-12:00
Introduction/Overview (ILA)
12:00-12:35
Work package presentation/case study/results/plans
12:35-12:45
Questions & Answers
12:45-12:50
Close of session, key points and arrangements (AZ)
12:50-13:45
Lunch
Work Package 4
13:45-14:00
Introduction/Overview (FL)
Thu 24th May
14:00-14:35
Launch of the Animal Welfare Science Hub (AV)
14:35-14:45
Questions & Answers
14:45-15:00
Work Package 5 & Interim Report (NR/AZ)
15:00-16:45
Poster & Informal Discussion Session (Refreshments
served throughout)
16:45-17:00
Feedback and close of session (AZ)
18:30
Conference Dinner
09:00-12:00
Student group meeting – report and feedback on
statistics and learning objects for the students own
projects. QBA discussion.
09:00-12:00
SSC-PMG feedback and review – meeting with
advisors
12:00-12:30
Closing General Assembly
12:30-13:30
Lunch
13:45
Ferry to Drobak
14:00-16:00
UMB tour
16:00-16:30
Refreshments
*Statistical Workshop 22nd May
0830-1015:
1015-1045:
1045-1300:
1300-1400:
1400-1440:
1440-1500:
Assoc. prof. Tormod Ådnøy, UMB: Statistics and planning of projects
based on on-farm data collection. Incl. discussion of on-farm studies in the
AWIN project
Coffee
Senior advisor in statistics, Torfinn Torp, Bioforsk: Experimental Design.
Planning, implementation and analysis of data “from a statistical point of
view”.
Lunch with all delegates
Final discussion led by Rachel Chojnacki: Still further questions to be
raised and discussed on the 24th
Learning Objects, Fritha Langford, SAC.
DELEGATES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
First Name
Adroaldo
Alexandra
Andreia
Andrew
Bjarne
Carol
Cathy
Diana
Dirk
Elisabetta
Elisiv
Emanuela
Eva
Fritha
George
Gianluigi
Ignacia Beltran
Ines
Inger Lise
Inma
Jesse
Jitka
Joanna
Judit
Karen
Katharina
Katrina
Malcolm
Martina
Michela
Miroslava
Monica
Murray
Neil
Nicola
Rachel
Robert
Roberto
Sara
Sarah
Silvana
Susan
Tatiane Terumi
Torfinn
Tormod
Valentina
Xavier
Surname
Zanella
Hammond-Seaman
De Paula Vieira
Voas
Braastad
Thompson
Dwyer
Stucke
Lebelt
Canali
Tolo
Dalla Costa
Leim
Langford
Stilwell
Giovagnoli
De Heredia
Ajuda
Andersen
Estevez
Fritz
Bartosova
Marchewka
Banfine Vas
Hiestand
Kluge
Franken
Mitchell
Komarkova
Minero
Pokorna
Battini
Corke
Ramsay
Martinelli
Chojnacki
Malinowski
Ruiz
Barbieri
Hall
Mattiello
Richmond
Watanabe
Torp
Adnoy
Ferrante
Averos
Country
UK
UK
Brasil
UK
Norway
UK
UK
Germany
Germany
Italy
Norway
Italy
Germany
UK
Portugal
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Norway
Spain
USA
Czech Republic
Spain
Norway
UK
Germany
UK
UK
Czech Republic
Italy
Czech Republic
Italy
UK
UK
Italy
Norway
USA
Spain
Italy
UK
Italy
UK
Italy
Norway
Norway
Italy
Spain
Affiliation
SAC
RSPCA
Positivo
Scottish Government
UMB
SAC
SAC
Pferdeklinik Havelland
Pferdeklinik Havelland
UMIL
Animalia
UMIL
Landesamt fur Natur
SAC
UTL
Equestrian Federation
Neiker
UTL
UMB
Neiker
Michigan State University
IAS Prague
Neiker
UMB
SAC
Ministry of Agriculture
SAC
SAC
IAS Prague
UMIL
IAS Prague
UMIL
University of Cambridge
SAC
Izsler-Italy
UMB
Michigan State (SSC)
Neiker
UMIL
SAC
UMIL
SAC
UMIL
Bioforsk
UMB
UMIL
Neiker
WORK PACKAGE MEETINGS :
WP1 Discussion Group
Participants
IgnaciaBeltran De Heredia, Roberto Ruiz (Neiker)
Malcolm Mitchel (SAC),
Elisabetta Canali, Michela Minero, Sara Barbieri, Silvana
Mattiello, Valentina Ferrante (UMIL)
1. Pilot reporting exercise - Advisors reviews & suggestions
Elisabetta briefly described the outcome of the phone call with David Fraser last
night about his reviews and suggestion. Adroaldo was also present. During the
discussion, it was agreed to send to him WP1 answers and proposals for
amendments.
Elisabetta explained that the report will be amended as soon as the Coordinator
will circulate a template for reporting to the Commission. WP1 coordination will
prepare the document integrating the amendments provided by each beneficiary
according to the reviewer’s suggestions.
In order to avoid excessive length of the report without loosing important
information, the WP1 project coordination propose to move detailed descriptions
of experiments (e.g. material and methods, methodologies) to specific annexes.
Action:Elisabetta to circulate the document for David Fraser and the report after
receiving the Report Template.
2. Milestones and deliverables - Timetable for the 18 month report
WP1 will be asked to deliver 1 Milestone and 1Deliverable at month 13 about the
consensus reached during the November meeting (MS3) on list of
indicators/further actions for each species and the report on the indicators (D1.3).
Action:As no template is required and most of the reporting was already
prepared after the November meeting, Elisabetta to circulate the document in
WP1 for feed back.
3. Learning Objects
Elisabetta stressed the importance of defining a good communication strategy to
improve the efficiency of LO preparation and coordination in WP1. We will be
asked to deliver 6 learning objects before the end of the project: one about the
early warning system and one for each welfare assessment protocol produced.
About the materials (mainly videos and photos) to be used to prepare the LO,
Malcolm arose a point about the image for the stakeholders. Welfare problems
connected to certain production systems can be easily related to specific
stakeholders. A policy to protect the stakeholders and a communication strategy
to increase their understanding on the aim of this specific LO should be defined.
Elisabetta reported the request of WP4 to have a contact person in WP1 mainly
on LO. Because of her previous experience in the preparation of the LO material
for horses and her technical skills, Elisabetta proposed Emanuela Dalla Costa as
the contact person in WP1 in charge of WP4communication. The WP1 agreed.
Action: Sara and Emanuela to submit to WP4 the question from Malcolm during
the WP4 meeting on the 22nd. Emanuela to follow up.
4. Other items
Participatory survey: To increase the acceptability of stakeholders on indicators
to be included in the protocols, a participatory survey will be organised June/July
2012. Elisabetta briefly described the questionnaire.
Action: Elisabetta to circulate the draft version of the questionnaire in 5
languages (English, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese) for comments and a
“mother tongue” revision.
Task 1.1:Malcolm brought to the WP1 members’ attention the next emanation of
the new EU regulation on slaughterhouses and its impact on data collection at
abattoir. These changes would have an impact on Task 1.1 leading to a revision
of the activities.
Donkeys: Michela updated WP1 on this species, as due to time constraints,
identification of the most promising donkey welfare indicators was not completed
during the Expert Meeting in November. In order to find a consensus and develop
some of the most promising indicators for donkeys, collaboration with different
NGOs and academic institutions involved in donkey welfare is crucial and finding
new resources is relevant. New proposals on donkeys that could be meaningfully
combined with AWIN are in preparation. In Milan we have been working hard to
find a way to fund donkeys research and we finally agreed to move some money
from projects and activities other than AWIN in order to start as soon as possible
the research on donkeys. In AWIN we have all been very committed toward
getting donkeys more visibility and this effort has not finished yet, Adroaldo is in
contact with the Brooke (Dr. Karen Reed) and the Donkey Sanctuary (Dr.
Stephen Blakeway). Both ONGs offered full collaboration in terms of sharing their
knowledge and facilitating our work but the question whether they will give us
funds is still in the air.
Action: A consultation with ONGs and experts from academic institutions will
take place electronically before summer 2012.
WP2 Discussion Group
Present: Dirk Lebelt (DL), Murray Corke (MC), George Stilwell (GS), Sarah Hall
(SH)
Agenda:
Assign deputy – George Stilwell
Assign WP4 contact – Inês
Report discussion
All advisors points were taken on board and were fairly easy to implement. The
main points for the WP2 report as a whole were as follows:
 Comments will be incorporated
 Tables will have the same format throughout the report for consistency
and clear setting out of deliverables/details.
 Where ‘reviewed produced’ written, a link to the relevant SharePoint
site/folder will be shown. This will be the same for abstracts/posters etc
that are on the AWIN website.
 The report will be ordered by species, with the survey part first and the
foot rot genetics part to be a subheading within the Cambridge sheep
group work.
 Deviations will only state deviations from the deliverables/milestones –not
changes in protocol.
 Some suggestions on changing format of training section for clarity.
Other points:
We will all put a list of literature used for experimental protocols in the WP2 folder
on SharePoint. WE will do this by DATE. (Action: all members of WP2).
We will upload literature reviews/summaries for work onto SharePoint for others
benefit.
WP3 Discussion Group
Review of the report
Prof. Sylvia Kaiser reviewed the March report of WP3. She stated that the studies
in WP 3 are well designed and that the progress of the work package is fine. The
main criticism was that we need to include small introduction sections for the WP
and the subtasks to give a better insight into the aims. The level of details in the
report has to be discussed and the different chapters should be more concise in
the ways the different subtasks have been presented, use of tables etc. Kaiser
suggested that we should include much more info about methods and
behavioural tests used, but we consider that to be beyond the request from the
EU. Still, we concluded that in addition to a more condensed report, we will
attach appendixes with the more detailed protocols in case needed. Although the
different subtasks are well related and linked together especially in terms of
animal-based measures there are also differences with respect to methods used
and this has to be clarified and justified in the October report. Although we aim to
use as similar methods and as much comparative work as possible, we think that
it is not feasible to use the exact same behavioural tests and methods due to
species differences and different management routines in the different countries.
The brain part of the WP3 sub-tasks is following the original aims, and although
prof. Kaiser would like us to extend that part, we are not willing to do that due to
limited capacity and budget. We agree that investigating dendrite branching in
selected brain areas such as hippocampus and prefrontal cortex is still the main
aim, and we do not have the ambition to extend this part within the frames of the
present project.
The link between WP3 and the other WPs
WP 3 has a role in being the experimental model that can validate animal based
welfare measures also involving the most important resource based measures
represented on farms, namely animal density, group size and human handling.
This is also where we have a clear link to WP1. However, the link to WP 2 is not
as obvious and active, and this has to be given more attention. We have to
improve our input to WP 4 in producing learning objects from WP3 as this is a
major aim of the entire EU-project. This is now more established through our new
WP 4 contact person, Judit Vas that has a special role in pushing the other WP3s
in creating material for the hub. Another criticism from Kaiser on the report was
that we have to highlight the links to the other WPs in a better way, and this will
be done in the next version.
Experience and progress in WP3 so far
All the experiments are progressing as planned and we are able to provide more
data than originally promised in the grant application. The amount of data from
WP3 as a whole is huge and the potential for producing results both in more
basic journals and applied journals is great, also with a comparative approach
and in close collaboration between the beneficiaries. Most sub-tasks started in
the autumn 2011, but the horse part in Prague started in February 2012. There is
a great similarity in data collections, tests and measures used in sheep, goats
and horses in WP 3, but rather than using the exact same tests in the different
species we are more concerned about measuring the same type of behavioural
responses. While WP3.1 and 3.2 are strictly experimental, the horse part (WP3.3
and WP3.4) is more related to management routines, and 3.4 will be conducted
on horse farms. We see no reason to make big changes in our original plans, but
the goat handling experiment belonging to WP 3.2 at SAC that was originally
planned to be located in Norway, will now most likely be placed in Scotland
instead.
WP4 Discussion Group
Present: Fritha, Adroaldo, Bjarne, Andreia, Judit and Rob, Jesse, Brian, Perode
from MSU. Apologies: Don, Carla, Pericles
1. RM gave a detailed account of his review of the WP4 section of the pilot
report.
His main comments were:
 The report was not detailed enough, more information on exactly what we
have done and what we have used to get it done were needed (i.e.
technical details).





Illustrate the report with figures (e.g. the logo!)
Don’t use jargon –and define terms (e.g. learning object)
Carry out some analytics on the website use to give accurate statistics on
usage
Provide details of the pre-set template to help WP1,2,3 to transform
research into Los
He acknowledged that we have achieved a lot in the time we have had.
All of these suggestions were received very gratefully by the WP4 team and will
be acted on.
Action points: Fritha to compile the report with suggested additions and
amendments
Brazil team to carry out analytics on website (for 1st report) and Hub in due
course
2. WP contact people and mini-teams for Learning Objects.
We came to the conclusion that better communication between WP4 and other
WPs would help move our goals forward. This will be carried out in two ways:
 WP4 Contact person identified for each WP in order to have regular
meetings with us and can be present at some of the PMG when
necessary.
o WP1 –Manu
o WP2 –Inês
o WP3 –Judit
 Mini-teams for each learning object. Each LO has a team of 3-4
people assigned to it to act as the first port of call for both the
species group and WP4. Any queries that we have about a certain
LO can go directly to the team. These will be the people
responsible for interacting with WP4, liaising about storyboards,
being involved in file transfer...and they will report back to the rest
of the teams behind the LO. Each LO has either Fritha or Andreia
on it from WP4.
Action points: The list of the teams was given to the group in
Norway and will be on SharePoint (Fritha)
3. Discussion on the continuing collaboration of our Michigan colleagues with
the Venturit platform. We agreed that this was a worthwhile collaboration and
we will work together whenever it is mutually beneficial.
Jesse is going to help with the LO on horse pain as part of his Veterinary
doctorate.
4. We ran out of time to carry out timetabling of the next year of work for WP4 –a
further meeting was scheduled for June.
SPECIES GROUP MEETINGS :
Goat Discussion Group
1- Discussion about BCS:
a. UMB: utilization of a 5 level scale
b. Italy: utilization of a 3 point scale because for welfare matters is
only necessary to know if in the farm are too fat or too thin goats
c. SAC: =Italy
d. Portugal conjoint with Milan is going to perform a study integrated
with the protocol for pregnancy toxaemia of WP2, measuring the
thickness of the fat in the sternum and in the lumbar region in every
goat that dies, and after it the abdominal fat is going to be weighted.
Goal: To find a correlation between abdominal fat (main local for
accumulation of fat in dairy goats) and the thickness of the sternum
and lumbar region.
2- Discussion about the different aspects of lameness, overgrowth and
deformation.
3- Suggestion to utilize production as an indicator
4- Discussion about validating the indicators in different countries with
different farm systems. We concluded that Norway can only participate in
some of the trials because their goats don’t have major welfare problems
(e.g. Lameness, pregnancy toxaemia, Low/high BC, etc.)
5- Discussion about the correlation of blood/hair/faeces cortisol (UMB
protocol)
6- Arrangements for changing information and harmonize lab protocols
between beneficiaries (e.g. immunohistochemical evaluation of the brains)
7- Discussion about what type of lab analyses WP1 could do.
8- Discussion about stakeholders: “Should we involve them from the
beginning or should we just present them the methods and the results?”
Horse Discussion Group
Present;Dirk Lebelt (WP2),Michela Minero (WP1),Elisabetta Canali (WP1),Jitka
Bartosova(WP3),Emanuela Dalla Costa (WP1),Diana Stucke (WP2),Martina
Komarkova (WP3),Miroslava Pokorna (WP3)
First the group leaders discussed how to do the EU report and if we should open
SharePoint for EU officers.
Than Jitka Bartosova (WP3) told us the current state of their studies in Prague:
the first mating season is nearly closed. In March they have started the first
observations: they look for behavior (social interactions), heart rate and cortisol
level in saliva of mares. We talked about problems to determine cortisol levels in
saliva because of circadian variations and handling stress stimuli.
Michela Minero and Emanuela Dalla Costa (WP1) have the first welfare protocol
for single housed horses ready to prove (WP3). WP3 would test a proposal
protocol for group housed horses from WP1, too.
WP1 and WP2 will share a control group of horses for the castration pain
assessment. These horses undergoing routine MRI are assessed in Milan.
Michela and Emanuela will come to Germany in the end of June to share videos
of the horse’s behavior after castration and to discuss the evaluation of horse’s
facial expression. They will have a look at the castration pain assessment at the
Havelland Equine Clinic, Germany.
After these consultation how to cooperate, the members of WP4 (including Jesse
Fritz, USA) accompanied our discussion and talked with us how to do a learning
object. Furthermore we discussed the translation of LOs in different languages of
the EU countries.
Sheep Discussion Group
Topics Discussed
1) Interaction between WP1 and WP3 and possibility of more integration with
WP2 in Cambridge.
2) Engagement with stakeholders
3) Problems and concerns with current research
1) Interaction between work packages
The Work Package two team in Cambridge would like more interaction with other
researchers working on sheep in WP1 and 3. A monthly Skype meeting was
suggested and agreed upon. It was also suggested that there could be coordination between the Cambridge team and Carol Thompson (also WP2) from
SAC with their work on foot rot.
The Cambridge research team are currently looking for a new post-doc
researcher. Once they have found a suitable candidate they can begin their WP2
research with sheep. It is also possible that Susan Richmond from WP1 will work
with Murray Cole and the new researcher to give training in the welfare indicators
WP1 are developing. In particular Qualitative Behavioural Assessment may
require some training.
Xavier Averos from Neiker is planning to go to the USA for training in laboratory
work and Golgi cox staining.
2) Stakeholder involvement
The research group from Neiker have arranged upcoming meetings with local
stakeholders. They will have focus groups with sheep farmers to collect opinions
on their welfare indicator work.
It was suggested that this could be replicated in Edinburgh with local
stakeholders and farmers and that this could also help Carol Thompson to get
UK based contacts for her survey.
It was agreed that stakeholders and farmers should be involved all the way
through this project and not just at the end when we have results. Ideally this
would include international as well as local stakeholders but it was queried
whether they would have the time to travel to these meetings. It may be better to
have a stakeholder specific meeting as this may be more relevant to them.
People were anxious not to make the same mistakes as in Welfare Quality when
stakeholders complained they were not involved from the beginning and this
proved to be a big problem. It was also mentioned that there will be interested
farmers and parties who will be/are involved from the beginning, however these
will be the farmers who are interested in welfare.
The indicators developed in WP1 will have to be feasible and time efficient. The
question was raised whether we should put a time limit for farm assessment?
People agreed there should be a limit, but we will not be able to finalise that until
a later stage of the project.
It was questioned how farmers react to people wishing to collect data on their
farms and Monica Battini from Milan said farmers were happy for researchers to
collect data on their farms and were contributing with suggestions and
experience of their animals.
3) Problems/concerns
The WP1 team in Edinburgh has been looking at human animal interactions and
voluntary animal approach tests for sheep receiving various handling styles.
These sheep were from the WP3 pre-natal stress project and the videos of the
tests are currently being analysed.
Measuring human-animal interactions with animals in extensive environments is
more problematic than intensive systems. In pigs the behaviour of the
stockperson has been recorded to get data on handling styles animals
experience rather than the behaviour of the animals, but we don’t know to what
extent that the handlers’ behavior is affected by the presence of the researcher. It
was said that it was not the farmers’ attitudes and individual’s behaviour but
rather the management routines which a large difference to the animals. For this
reason management routines should be noted when assessing non-experimental
farms in the future. However as this is not an animal based indicator (which
AWIN was specifically asked for) this can not be a primary indicator.
The WP1 goat team has attempted to assess human-animal interactions
however they have had problems with the goats coming up to the researcher and
eating their clothing. They are currently looking for novel ways to run the test and
come up with a solution to this problem.
Turkey Discussion Group
Present: Inma Estevez, Malcolm Mitchell, Valentina Ferrante, Joanna
Marchewka, Tatiane Terumi, Katrina Franken
Inma gave a brief update about the transect approach, which was used after the
meeting in Spain this April. They tested in 3 broiler houses in Spain, all with 2
rooms and found the transect approach to be very practical, but there is a need
to simplify the categories of the different conditions that are scored. To validate, 3
people did individual sampling per Meat Quality protocol. As the results between
the individual sampling and the transect were highly variable, Joanna reviewed
existing literature in depth with specific focus on immobility/ leg problems, and
found that there is a variation between 2 and 20% of incidence in commercial
broilers. Marion Dawkins, who used an approach that did disturb birds only
minimally, found a 0,9% incidence, very similar to that found by the transect
approach. The difference in incidence was believed to be because of 1) you can
pick up more subtle differences during the individual scoring, 2) after handling as
per individual scoring, the birds often don’t move because of the stress
associated with this and 3) you might miss out on birds limping but moving away
from you during the transect approach. Joanna discussed the statistic workshop
where the power of both test was calculated for comparison, and it is clear that
the transect approach has more power because of the larger number of birds
sampled within a flock (eg 5.000 compared to 150). Also, she mentioned that the
results between the examiners were comparable for this first data set.
Inma argued that just as the method of Marion Dawkins, the transect approach
causes minimal disturbance of the birds. Furthermore the method is easy to
understand for the industry and the scoring is practical. It also gives flock
inspectors the option of transparency in the development of a flock and for
objective comparison between flocks. Furthermore it can be practical tool to
highlight the dimensions of the problem to farmers. If set up as a self feeding
system, it can even be used as an early warning system for potential
downgrades/ redundancies at the slaughterhouse which would be important to
the farmers. Even hard data such as variation in litter quality and air quality do
not convince the farmer, unless it is accompanied by actual problems in the
animals. Joanna highlighted this with an example of a farm where there was a
significant water leakage, which the farmer did not find relevant. Local
microclimates within the shed were discussed and it was concluded that the
location will give further transparency between the regional housing conditions
and bird welfare. Litter quality will therefore be scored during the transect at the
different locations. Another problem discussed was the fact that temperature and
air quality often did no correspond with the farmers statement. Malcolm argued
the need for retrospective records of temperature gathered from farmers’ record
which are available in the UK. Joanna mentioned that these are available in
Spain.
After a look at the data of the transect, the scoring method was discussed.
Malcolm mentioned that in his experience there is a poor correlation between
immobility and gait score, and stressed the importance of stimulating the birds to
move. He also mentioned the poor repeatability of such data. Inma argued that
immobility is one of the most significant welfare problems and as poor gait score
than result in immobility, both are to be considered. Valentina stated that it is
impossible to compare the results and that concluding that immobility is a direct
result from gait problems would be biased and also it can affect inter observer
variability. She furthermore argued for the scoring of abnormal positions in
immobile birds which was better correlated with poor gait scores. Valentina
addressed the need to simplify the scoring during transect approach. It was
decided that a scoring system based on Marion Dawkins work would be used (3
categories). Valentina underlined the need to start the validation on turkey both in
Italy and in the UK under the same protocol of the Spanish validation, we will try
to organize this activity in September/October.
The effect of light levels was discussed. Although in the warmer climates there is
usually natural light, this is not the case for the UK/ northern countries where
artificial light is used in turkey houses. Malcolm shared the study of Gentle where
light levels affect pain associated behaviours and gait problems in broilers. This
could result in problems when comparing gait problems between houses with
different light levels. Joanna argued that a highly specified protocol including
encouragement of the birds might overcome this. Malcolm added that the same
is not demonstrated in turkeys, were the pathology and mechanics of gait
problems differ to those in chicken. They have naturally a better ability to walk.
It was agreed that for now the transect approach is very practical and will give
insight in the presence of welfare problems, but there is no need to go into full
detail about the actual underlying pathology at this stage of the study. The
question of how to validate this method was raised. Malcolm argued that
validation at slaughterhouse would be an option but it would be a lot of work. A
better approach would be the earlier discussed one, where producers are asked
to indicate what their 10 best and 10 worst farms are, and these are used for
comparison and also followed through to the slaughterhouse. A potential bias
could be problems during catching and transport.
A discussion was continued regarding the poor correlation between immobility
and leg pathology. It was concluded that emaciation would be a direct result from
poor mobility. Therefore high variability in body weight would be a good indicator
at the slaughterhouse of mobility problems in the flock. It was furthermore
suggested that the bodyweight of immobile birds should be compared that that of
mobile birds to validate the welfare effect of gait problems. Malcolm argued for a
longitudinal study, since body weight and associated leg problems change
throughout the course of the production of the birds, and it was suggested that
such a study was to be conducted by Katrina in the UK.
Inma started the discussion about the next step now, and she mentioned the
option of publishing the transect approach. But the problem is that it still needs
validation. The 10 best and 10 worst farms were considered to be the best way (if
referred to in a different way in public communications). Weight variability could
be used for correlation, but Malcolm added that you can have a high number of
very mobile runts in a flock. Another potential problem would be the timing of the
visits in relation to the slaughterhouse visit. So an option is to use slaughterhouse
records of bodyweight and to freeze the feet for investigation.
The fact that farmers might remove dead birds from the shed just before arrival of
examiners was raised by Joanna. Therefore dead birds should no longer be used
in the transect approach. Instead records could be used, but there is no
distinction made between deaths and culling at the farm.
Valentina raised their study from Jan to June 2013 for which they need an acute
pain model next to their enrichment model. An important question is, does the
enrichment alter pain related behaviour. A pain model is to be developed that can
be used for this part of the study.
Malcolm mentioned the new developments with Sainsbury’s who are interested
to collaborate with AWIN. He would like to combine this with the collaboration of
the major producers in the UK. Thus could hold the potential for further funding
as well. Furthermore he stressed that the new slaughterhouse regulations that
are developed at the moment are an opportunity to have a say in what guidelines
there should be for approval of SOPs which are to be created by the producers
but approved by the local/ national authority.
PROJECT MEETINGS :
Project Management Group (PMG) Notes
Present;
Adroaldo Zanella, Inger-Lise Andersen, Sara Barbieri, Elisabetta Canali, Dirk
Lebelt, Neil Ramsay, Fritha Langford, Sarah Hall, Rob Malinowski (Guest WP4),
Vince Maloney (by skype, item 1 only).
1.Interim Report Feedback from all external advisors (SSC) positive but WP
reports were inconsistent in content – and the individual reports did not produce a
cohesive sense of connections – and overall direction. The report has provided a
useful summary and will make statutory reporting in November much easier. The
experts engaged were given the ‘raw’, draft, report last month for comment.
1.1
WP1 David Fraser
Would like to see clearer links – perhaps a diagram to illustrate (Action WP4).
Expects to see further Stakeholder interaction. Specific comments to be
addressed in WP group.
1.2
WP2 Vince Maloney (Teleconference with group & VM for this item)
VM views his external role in AWIN as being available to answer specific
questions and prefers this to a wide discussion. Regarding the report VM found
this difficult to “jump in” – too much background knowledge was assumed,
therefore VM recommends that aims are restated at start and referred to
throughout – but without duplication. VM recommends the use of tables/figures in
place of lengthy text (where possible). It was agreed that individual species
coordinators can email VM specific questions. VM asked if literature reviews
conducted as background were available to the wider AWIN project – if not these
should be circulated for comment and review. Currently such output is posted to
SharePoint but PMG unsatisfied with utlilisation of SharePoint – PMG to discuss
dissemination and in particular SharePoint strategy at next PMG (Action NR).
1.3
WP3 Sylvia Kaiser (written analysis submitted to PMG)
SK felt the report lacked specific detail but NR pointed out that the precise
descriptions and protocols she cites would more appropriately be delivered as an
annex. SK’s comments to be fully addressed in WP group.
1.4
WP4 Rob Malinowski
RM also cited lack of detail – although, again, the interim report should perhaps
not be used to deliver detail. RM recommends; more images, more definitions
and clarification when using any acronyms/jargon and more full mapping of
courses. RM will meet with WP4 to address the report later in the day.
2. Work Package Deputies
AZ would like to see a deputy appointed for each WP. DL felt this would be
duplication not deputisation. AZ asked each WP group to produce a name.
3. Communication with WP4
FL reminded the group of the need to gather materials for Learning Objects and
these need to be accompanied by a storyboard and narrative – working to finalise
these requires contact and interaction with WP4. Therefore a person needs to be
identified within each WP as a focal point for interaction with WP4. Although DL
felt this would be more appropriately organised by species it was felt this was
administratively difficult –it was agreed that this contact person would be the
‘deputy’ discussed in item 2, instead of a deputy each WP will have a WP4
Contact – who will also act as deputy for PMGs where the WP leader is
unavailable. (NR-invite nominees to next PMG). Each WP to produce a name at
next PMG. (Action DL, ILA, EC).
4. Tenders / Calls
AZ advised; Network of Excellence to be submitted 22 June 2012, Marie Curie
Animal Welfare ITN to be submitted January 2013. The final FP7 call relevant to
this group will be released in July 2012 – we intend to make a submission. AZ to
appraise PMG as appropriate.
5. Stakeholders
DL was concerned that he had strongly encouraged stakeholders to attend
(Oscarsborg) but there was a relatively small number of external stakeholders in
attendance. NR reminded the group that Stakeholders tend to be interested later
in a project and this conference was primarily a consortium meeting. PMG
discussed Stakeholder engagement and it was felt that establishment and
maintenance of existing local Stakeholder fora would be more important and
effective than conference participation. DL would prefer species fora to local
groups but these can be cross-cutting and AWIN could organise a separate
Stakeholder event to draw small local groups together. A separately pitched
‘Stakeholder Workshop’ will be considered for 2013 – although Stakeholders
remain welcome to attend the AGM. PMG agreed to make time to meet briefly
with Stakeholders during the poster session on Wednesday 23rd.
6. Meetings
6.1 National holiday in UK 4th June – also this is very soon after AGM, therefore
the next PMG will be Monday 2nd July, by Skype (Action NR).
6.2 The next physical meeting of the PMG will be in Cambridge, UK, 5 th & 6th
November where the primary agenda item will be AWIN period 1 reports (due
December 2012). (Action NR)
6.3 The next AGM will be hosted by Neiker in Victoria, Spain, week commencing
Monday 13th May 2013.
Please continue to submit ideas and materials to Sarah Hall for inclusion in the Newsletter. Next
Meeting: Monday 2nd July 2012 13:00 CET Skype.
General Assembly.
Discussion points:
Report (10 month report undertaken as interim/trial exercise)
 Importance of report for EU (18 month)
 Overall very good – major issues due to lack of inconsistency. Lack of
integration of work packages. Concerns were raised about using too many
different tests that are unexplained.
 A section explicitly entitled’ Linkages’ to be included.
 Financial aspect was fine.
 Deliverables must be uploaded to EU on time.
 Set up a timeline with deadline of October for report (Action WP5).
 Incorporate changes from advisors/conference by the end of June.
 Send new template/highlights to all WPLs (Action AZ).
 Repository of methods available to all (Action ALL).
SharePoint
 Sharing through the Hub (Action APV)
 Problems with access and saving large files/videos etc. Therefore other things
e.g. dropbox
 Use SharePoint for report & training & alert document (Action SH to send
link).
 Report technical issues to WP5 (Action ALL).
 Dedicated 18 month report folder on SharePoint (Action SH).
Videos/photos etc Talks from AWIN conference
 Give to APV
Student’s workshop feedback
 A bit basic as didn’t have specific data to work with.
 Statistician more related to ethology.
 Philosophical discussion about definition of animal welfare, but expecting
statistics lesson.
 Future: raise questions ahead of time to prepare.
 Available local level resources (Action ALL) and contact – Katrina Franken.
 Walk through of specific statistical tests/questionnaires – what are the needs?
(Questionnaire) Organise webinar e.g. need multivariate analysis.
 Possibility of attending courses/training in Norway (Contact ILA).

Inma has a statistician contact in America used to working with behaviour
data – explore possibilities of collaborations (Action IE).
Future Calls
 KBBE last FP7: Sustainable animal production – Inma, Fritha, Jitka, Milan
team.
 AZ to share any future calls – let AZ know if you are interested.
 Ongoing discussion in Europe – Network of Excellence in Animal Welfare.
o Update: countries working together to put together a proposal for
June 22nd. Co-ordinated by Teramo group.
o Need to focus on phase 2.
o If you are interested in being informed on progress–contact AZ &
can send link.
 Marie Curie training fellowships (due Jan 2013). Money for training for
PhDs and Postdocs.
o Individual calls (August 2012). 100% salary but no overheads
(Action AZ).
Learning Objects
 Feedback of LOs e.g. horse
 WP4 contacts from each WP: Emanuella (WP1), Inês (WP2), Judit (WP3).
 Communication concerning LOs from WP4 contact to Fritha & Andreia.
 WP4 to investigate possibility of online LO seminar
 WP4 to provide further examples of requirements and specifications for
LO materials.
 Individual LO deliverables – (Fritha to send list of mini teams to include
in proceedings).
 Ticketing & feedback system: annotate videos with when behaviour is
displayed.
o Showed process with horse learning objects.
Newsletter
 List of beneficiaries –highlight in different newsletters.
 Practical issues – by topics – (Action SH-2 week feedback)
 Stakeholders –feedback
 Next one... ‘Conference special’
Translations
 Template of home page & summary of AWIN will be sent to people (Action
FL) to allow them to translate into their own languages (Action ALL). This
is an additional point out with deliverables.
Roberto –
 EEAP offering space/time for workshop within their conference in 2013 in
France (Action RR).
Stakeholders:
 Hold species-specific discussions to engage stakeholders. Add meetings
onto other conferences for example.
Acknowledgements
The project management group and delegates wish to thank Inger Lise Andersen
and colleagues from UMB for hosting this conference.
Animal Welfare Indicators is a European Commission funded research initiative;
EU VII Framework programme (FP7-KBBE-2010-4). Welfare Indicators Project
no. 266213 FP7-KBBE-2010-4.
POSTERS
Abstracts are available in an Annex to these proceedings from
neil.ramsay@sac.ac.uk – full posters can be viewed in SharePoint>Project
Operation>AGM1>Posters. The winner of 1st prize for best poster was Carol
Thompson; ‘Behaviour Change, Can Attitudes Empathy and Belief in Animal
Sentience Play a Role?’
Title
Prenatal and early-postnatal environment and animal welfare - Assessment of the impact of
variation in prenatal handling on sheep
Pain assessment in horses
Effect of density on social behaviour, fear responses and cortisol level of pregnant goats
Institute
SAC
Prenatal environment in horses: Assessment of the impact of the social environment during
pregnancy in horses on mare and foal
Is ewes’ response to an unfamiliar human and percentage of visible eye white during restraint
indicative of previous handling?
Pain linked to routine procedures and some diseases in dairy goat farms
Identifying promising animal-based welfare indicators in intensively bred dairy goats
IAS
PRAGUE
SAC/UEdin
Presence of abscesses as a welfare indicator in dairy goats: a preliminary study
A novel approach for on-farm welfare evaluation
UMIL
Neiker
Leave me alone please, I am not in the mood!
Association between poultry's lesions in the slaughter line and the transect approach on farms
Neiker
Neiker
Object permanence abilities in goat kids
Havelland
UMB
UTL
UMIL / UTL
UMB
Developing a welfare assessment protocol for extensively managed sheep
Inter-observer reliability of three human-horse relationship tests
Neiker
UMIL
Behavioural indicators of pain in horses undergoing surgical castration
On-going studies: Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA) of positive emotional state of
stabled horses
On-going studies: Coding facial expressions of pain in horses (Horse Grimace Scale)
UMIL
UMIL
Behaviour Change, Can Attitudes Empathy and Belief in Animal Sentience Play a Role?
SAC
Development and Integration of Turkey Welfare Indicators
animal-welfare-indicators.net
UMIL
SAC