METHODS FOR CALF WELFARE EVALUATION

1. METHODS FOR CALF WELFARE EVALUATION L.T. CZISZTER1, G. STANCIU1, S. ACATINCĂI1, E. SZÜCS2, SILVIA ERINA1, I. TRIPON1, SIMONA BAUL1 1Faculty of Animal Sciences and Biotechnologies, Timişoara, România,, 2Szent István University, Gödöllő, Hungary cziszterl@yahoo.com

2. Satisfactory animal welfare • Animal’s biological functioning • Health, growth, productivity • Natural living • To express normal behaviour • Affective states • Suffering or pleasure

3. Assessment at the individual level • Physical damage • Physiological responses • Behaviour

4. Assessment at the individual level • Welfare = attempts to cope with its environment (Broom, 1991) • Characteristic of an animal, not given to • Vary from very poor to very good • Can be measured • Animals may use a variety of methods trying to cope

5. Assessment at the individual level • Poor welfare (Broom, 1991) • Pain • Fear • Difficulties in movement • Frustration • Absence of specific input • Insufficient stimulation • overstimulation

6. Assessment at the individual level • Repeated regrouping and relocation of calves • Not detrimental effects (Vessier et al., 2001) • Problems when • Single calf introduced into a large established group • Mixing calves from different farms • Feeding behaviour of calves not controlled

7. Assessment at the individual level • Repeated regrouping of calves causes (Raussi, 2005) • more agonistic interactions among heifers • increases distance between animals • Lowers heifers’ reactivity to novelty, suddenness and fear • Diversity rather than stability of the social environment appears to be more beneficial

8. Assessment at the individual level • Feed intake and growth did not reveal the differences in rearing systems for dairy calves in terms of welfare (Hepola, 2008)

9. Welfare assessment at the farm (system) level • ANI (TGI)ANI 35L • 5 aspects of housing • Movement and locomotion • Social interaction • Type and condition of flooring • Light and air conditions • stockmaship • Practical and satisfactory in Austria (Bartussek, 1999) • Suitable in organic farms in Finland (Roiha, 2000)

10. Welfare assessment at the farm (system) level • ANI (TGI)ANI 35L • Six welfare categories • <11 not suitable • 11-16 scarcely suitable • 16-21 little (mediocre) suitable • 21-24 fairly suitable • 24-28 suitable • >28 very suitable

11. Welfare assessment at the farm (system) level • EFSA, 2006 major risks of poor welfare and health in intensive calf farming: • Inadequate colostrum intake – duration • Inadequate ventilation • Exposure to pathogens • Continuous restocking • Mixing calves from different sources • Other minor risks: quantity and quality of colostrum, access to water, high humidity, indoor drafts, poor air quality, poor floor, poor response of the farmer, lack of maternal care, separation from the dam

12. Romanian calves’ welfare assessment at the farm level • ANSVSA order 72/2005 (Council Directive 91/629/EC) • Evaluation from regarding the protection and welfare of calves • 76 lines to be answered to • Minimum standards 44 lines • Supplementary requirements 32 line

13. Romanian calves’ welfare assessment at the farm level (Cziszter et al., 2008) • Farms provided good rearing conditions for calves • Provision of clean and dry bedding and access to good quality food were not very well complied with requirements