At a slaughter plant, cattle are sometimes exposed to rough handling which may reduce animal welfare (AW). In an observational study at four Swedish commercial slaughter plants, AW-related behaviours of cattle and actions of abattoir stockpersons handling the same animals were recorded simultaneously. The objective was to estimate the occurrence of different behaviours and actions related to negative AW during driving and stunning at largescale cattle abattoirs, assess associations between such behaviours and actions, and analyse differences between plants and animal categories (dairy cows, beef cows, adult bulls and heifers/bullocks). Direct continuous observations of focal animals were made using laptops either in a section of the driving race to the stun box (132 animals) or in the stun box (313 animals), generating a total of 14.5 h of observations. The animals were stunned using a penetrating captive bolt gun or a rifle. Counts per animal of 14 behaviours and 16 stockperson actions were calculated. Sixteen percent of the observed animals displayed total behaviour counts >5 in the driving race, and 2% did so in the stun box; 32 and 8% of the observed animals received total counts >5 of stockperson actions in the race and stun box, respectively. We estimated that two-thirds of the animals were processed without displaying/receiving any of the behaviours/actions associated with severely negative AW. AW scores were acquired by adding together all observed behaviour counts (and action counts, separately) weighted by expert-assessed ratings denoting the degree of impaired AW. Spearman rank correlation was used to analyse associations between behaviour counts, action counts and AW scores. Only three moderate to strong correlations (ρ ≥ 0.4, P ≤ 0.001) between single behaviours/actions were found ("slapping rear" and "slapping front"; "prodding" and "shouting"; and "prodding" and "beating rear" in the driving race). The correlation between AW scores based on behaviours and actions was statistically significant but rather weak both in the driving race (ρ = 0.37, P < 0.0001) and stun box (ρ = 0.22, P = 0.0002). The effects of slaughter plant and animal category on behaviour counts and AW scores were estimated using standard or zeroinflated negative-binomial regression. The risks of most behaviours related to negative AW differed considerably between plants. In the stun box, adult bulls had a 2.5 times higher risk of "struggling-kicking" (P = 0.016) and a 2.0 times higher risk of displaying "backingturning" (P = 0.016) than had dairy cows, indicating poorer welfare for the bulls.

Organic pig farming aims at maintaining a high health and welfare state of the animals through appropriate housing, management and feeding. Better knowledge of health and welfare indicators should help to identify critical points and hence to improve health and welfare as well as performance of organic pigs. This paper describes the health and welfare of organic pigs from 101 farms across six EU countries, using selected animal-based parameters from the Welfare Quality® protocol. Parameters were collected in sows, suckling and weaned piglets in 3 to 20 farms per country. Their assessment was trained before farm visits and inter-observer agreement determined after farm visits. The most prevalent problems identified in sows were thinness (median farm prevalence 18.8 %, range 0–81.0), injuries on the anterior part of the body (15.5 %, 0–66.7), injuries on hind part of body (7.9 %, 0–50), obesity (4.9 %, 0–50.0) and vulva lesions (3.5 %, 0–42.9). In suckling piglets, the median prevalence in terms of groups affected per farm was 0 % for all parameters but ‘> 50 % dirty piglets in group’, for which it was 10 %. Farm prevalence ranged from 0 to 100 % for ‘≥ 1 lame piglet in group’, presence of diarrhoea, and ‘> 50 % dirty piglets in group’. In weaned piglets, the median prevalence in terms of groups affected per farm was 0 % with a range of 0 to 100 % for all parameters. Based on the collected data, body condition, skin and vulva lesions in sows, lameness, diarrhoea and respiratory problems in piglets could be used as management and welfare indicators, with good potential for enhancement through farm improvement schemes like herd health planning. However, some definitions could be improved, especially lameness, diarrhoea and respiratory problems in piglets