In free-range and organic production systems, hens can make choices according to their needs and desires, which is in accordance with welfare definitions. Nonetheless, health and behavioral problems are also encountered in these systems. The aim of this article was to identify welfare challenges observed in these production systems in the EU and the most promising solutions to overcome these challenges. It is based on a review of published literature and research projects complemented by interviews with experts. We selected EU specific information for welfare problems, however, the selected literature regarding solutions is global. Free range use may increase the risk of infection by some bacteria, viruses and parasites. Preventive methods include avoiding contamination thanks to biosecurity measures and strengthening animals' natural defenses against these diseases which can be based on nutritional means with new diet components such as insect-derived products, probiotics and prebiotics. Phytotherapy and aromatherapy can be used as preventive and curative medicine and vaccines as alternatives to antibiotics and pesticides. Bone quality in pullets and hens prevents keel deviations and is favored by exercise in the outdoor range. Free range use also lead to higher exposure to variable weather conditions and predators, therefore shadow, fences and guard animals can be used to prevent heat stress and predation respectively. Granting a free range provides opportunities for the expression of many behaviors and yet many hens usually stay close to the house. Providing the birds with trees, shelters or attractive plants can increase range use. Small flock sizes, early experiences of enrichment and personality traits have also been found to enhance range use. Severe feather pecking can occur in free range production systems, although flocks using the outdoor area have better plumage than indoors. While many prevention strategies are facilitated in free range systems, the influence of genetics, prenatal and nutritional factors in free range hens still need to be investigated. This review provides information about practices that have been tested or still need to be explored and this information can be used by stakeholders and researchers to help them evaluate the applicability of these solutions for welfare improvement.

E and Mounier L, 2015. Preparatory work for the scientific opinion on welfare assessment of dairy cows in small scale farming systems. EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-852, 109 pp. The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as authors. This task has been carried out exclusively by the authors in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the authors, awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors. 2 ABSTRACTObjectives of this preparatory work were (i) to collect data for the description and the categorisation of European Small-Scale Dairy Farms (SSDF) based on size, farming system and husbandry practices and (ii) to analyse the feasibility in SSDF of animal-based measures usually used for intensive farming. Criteria identified, through a public call for information and a literature review, to consider a farm as a SSDF were herd size (up to 75 cows including dry and lactating) and a categorisation as "non-conventional". To be eligible as non-conventional, a farm should fulfil at least two criteria of the four following criteria: the farm should be family-run, have low concentrate use, be in a local breed scheme and in a specific production scheme. Literature was reviewed for identifying the risk factors in SSDF and for adapting the welfare assessment to SSDF. An on-farm survey was carried out to assess the feasibility of the protocol and to collect data from 124 dairy farms in four European countries (Austria, France, Italy, and Spain). Assessors were asked to assess the feasibility of the protocol in general, the animal based measures and to suggest improvements where necessary. Farmers were asked about the usefulness of animal-based measures. From 124 dairy farms visited 119 were considered as SSDF. From assessor's experiences, animal-based measures may be applied in SSDF at least during the winter housing period. And there are no reasons to assume that methods and measures of welfare assessment in SSDF is substantially different from larger, intensively run farms. Feeding and access to pasture were the most relevant criteria for the farmers to warrant that animal welfare is ensured in their farm. A large majority of them agreed that animal based measure could be a relevant tool for the improvement of health and welfare and half of them would prefer an external assessment and advice rather than a self-tool assessment. © European Food Safety Authority, 2015 KEY WORDSDairy farms, non-conventional, animal based measures, risk factors, small scale farming DISCLAIMERThe present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as authors. This task has been ca...

No abstract

Animal welfare is an essential part of the sustainability of animal production. While low-input farming, such as organic animal production, is often considered animal-friendly, several ways to enhance animal welfare in low-input animal production exist. However, currently there is little information on how farmers and other supply chain actors view different innovations and tools which may influence animal welfare in low-input outdoor and organic production systems. The aim of this study was to examine farmers’ and experts’ reactions to new approaches to pig and poultry production, with special attention to their animal welfare-related measures. The reactions were tested formally in by using a quantitative survey instrument in nine European countries (Finland, UK, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Romania). In the survey, respondents’ views on production practices and novel measures were asked. These included aspects such as applicability and advantages and disadvantages of various measures such as avoiding mutilations, using dual-purpose or local breeds, or in-ovo sexing. The data included altogether 218 responses from nine countries. Differences between countries were tested and groups of respondents were identified. The results suggest that supply side stakeholders foresee the welfare benefits and some disadvantages of welfare improving measures proposed to them. However, they also indicate that several measures were considered inapplicable despite their benefits. Inadequate financial provisions to adopt a measure was considered as one of the most important reasons for inapplicability of a measure. This may imply either high costs of implementing measures of low market incentives or perceived low demand for animal-friendly products. Other barriers for adopting welfare-friendly measures included farm-specific factors such as limitations imposed by housing. The respondents indicated a high relative preference for feeding, breeding, shelter from predators and the use of vaccines and anti-parasitic treatments to the provision of enrichments and nesting material to pigs, and to mutilations. Farmers agreed that environmental enrichments are important welfare-improving levers and preferred their use in low-input pig and poultry production. Animal breeding-related measures in pig production were perceived quite favorably by supply side stakeholders. Despite their welfare benefits, farmers in some countries had quite high preference towards maintaining castration and tail docking in pig and beak trimming in broiler production as part of their production method.

No abstract