This document provides methodological guidance developed by the EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare to produce Scientific Opinions in response to mandates received from the European Commission in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy. The mandates relate to the welfare of (i) animals during transport, (ii) calves, (iii) laying hens, (iv) broilers, (v) pigs, (vi) ducks, geese and quails, and (vii) dairy cows. This guidance was developed in order to define the methods and strategy to be applied for responding to the Terms of Reference (ToRs) of the mandates. The mandates each consist of a set of General ToRs which refer to the husbandry systems used in the production of each animal species or the current transport practices for free moving animals and animals transported in cages, and a set of specific ToRs for which difficulties in ensuring animal welfare have been identified and where specific scenarios are envisaged. Part I of the guidance includes a description of welfare consequences for the animals. Part II includes a new methodology for providing quantitative recommendations regarding animal welfare. The proposed methodology follows the assumption that the effect of an exposure variable (e.g. space allowance) on animal welfare can be quantified by comparing the expression of an animal-based measure (ABM) under 'unexposed conditions' (e.g. unlimited space) and under high exposure (e.g. restrictive conditions). The level of welfare as assessed through this ABM can be quantified for different levels of the exposure variable (e.g. at increasing space allowances) and quantitative recommendations can thus be provided. The final version of the methodological guidance was endorsed for public consultation, which took place between 14 February 2022 and 31 March 2022. The comments received are integrated in this document.

In the Italian market, voluntary certifications implying higher levels of animal welfare generally fall into wider production schemes. Despite of the results of EU surveys indicating that about 50% of Italian consumers can easily identify and find animal-friendly products, they still are distributed scarcely or discontinuously in the main retail chains. To assess the apparent contradiction between the intricate information consumers receive from labels and their declared awareness about animal welfare, a survey was conducted in Emilia Romagna region on 355 Italian consumers (face-to-face interviews based on a structured, semi-close-ended questionnaire). Overall, consumers showed a low degree of knowledge about animal welfare attributes, animal farming conditions and animal protection policies (about 30% of correct answers), and a low level of awareness of the effects of their purchasing choices on the welfare of farmed animals (22%). The respondents also showed difficulties in identifying animal-friendly products and often confused them with other certified foods, having sometimes a weak connection (or none at all) to animal welfare (e.g., Protected Designation of Origin products). However, most consumers declared to be ready to pay a premium price in name of animal welfare. In conclusion, a labelling system for the welfare content of animal-derived foods is confirmed to be an effective strategy to compensate the efforts of farmers in improving animal welfare, provided that the information given is clear and able to fill the substantial lack of consumer knowledge.

Two experimental trials were carried out in order to test the effectiveness of different environmental enrichments in improving the welfare of weaned pigs. A total of 120 undocked piglets was used. In trial one, group C1 received a metal chain and group WL a wooden log mounted on a frame. In trial two, the enrichments proposed were a hanging chain (group C2), an edible block (group ED) and a wooden briquette (group WB) mounted on a frame. The effectiveness of the enrichments was assessed in terms of animal behaviour, cortisol from bristles, hematologic and hematic profiles, cutaneous (skin and tail) lesions. Growth parameters were also recorded. Although some differences were detected in growth parameters in trial 1 (with C1 group having better productive outcomes than WL group) and some minor differences were observed in animal behaviour in both trials, the overall welfare status did not differ among the experimental groups. On the other hand, no welfare issues emerged in groups C1 and C2, receiving the enrichment device which is generally believed to be scarcely attractive, i.e. the hanging chain. We can therefore conclude that, if no managerial errors are made (floor space availability, feed inadequacy, group stability, microclimate, illumination), under the tested experimental conditions, hanging chains can provide a sufficient environmental enrichment for undocked piglets, even when compared to more attractive enrichments (e.g. an edible block).

A retrospective observational study evaluated the risk factors for pre-slaughter losses (i.e. animal deaths occurring during transport and lairage) and their economic impact in Italian heavy pigs (~160 kg bodyweight). Of the 3 344 730 pigs transported, 1780 (0.053%) died before slaughter, with most losses occurring during transport (56.6%). The estimated economic impact was of 424 000 €. The percentage of batches with at least one animal lost pre-slaughter increased during summer (P < 0.001). The proportion of pre-slaughter losses was higher when journey lasted more than 90 min (P < 0.001) and was positively correlated with transport duration (P < 0.01). Losses were higher (P < 0.01) in batches transported at low stocking densities (i.e. when heavier pigs were transported). Batches with lower slaughtering order (i.e. longer lairage time) had higher proportions of losses (P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that the odds of a given batch to have at least one animal lost pre-slaughter were 1.32 times higher for batches slaughtered in summer, 1.54 times higher if journey durations exceeded 90 min, 1.25 times higher for batches with low slaughtering order, and not significantly influenced by stocking density during transport.Additional keywords: economic impact, pig welfare, transport.The identification of critical points during transport and slaughtering procedures may significantly improve animal welfare during transport. In heavy pigs, long travel duration, low stocking density and overnight lairage resulted in increased animal losses. The routine collection and analysis of animal-loss data at slaughterhouses could reduce the economic impact of animal losses and be of help in improving future legislation on the protection of pigs during transport.

This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of laying hens, pullets and layer breeders on farm. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal‐based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. The highly relevant welfare consequences based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence are bone lesions, group stress, inability to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour, inability to perform comfort behaviour, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, isolation stress, predation stress, resting problems, restriction of movement, skin disorders and soft tissue lesions and integument damage. The welfare consequences of non‐cage compared to cage systems for laying hens are described and minimum enclosure characteristics are described for laying hens, pullets and layer breeders. Beak trimming, which causes negative welfare consequences and is conducted to reduce the prevalence and severity of pecking, is described as well as the risks associated with rearing of non‐beak‐trimmed flocks. Alternatives to reduce sharpness of the beak without trimming are suggested. Finally, total mortality, plumage damage, wounds, keel bone fractures and carcass condemnations are the most promising ABMs for collection at slaughterhouses to monitor the level of laying hen welfare on farm. Main recommendations include housing all birds in non‐cage systems with easily accessible, elevated platforms and provision of dry and friable litter and access to a covered veranda. It is further recommended to implement protocols to define welfare trait information to encourage progress in genetic selection, implement measures to prevent injurious pecking, rear pullets with dark brooders and reduce male aggression in layer breeders.