Acta agriculturae slovenica, suplement 1(avgust 2004), 55–66. 12th Int. Symp. “Animal Science Days”, Bled, Slovenia, Sept. 2–4, 2004. Review paper Pregledni znanstveni prispevek ON FARM MONITORING OF ANIMAL WELFARE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS A BASIS FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMMES * Eberhard von BORELL a), b) and Frank M. MITLOEHNER b) a) Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg, Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry with Veterinary Clinic, Adam-Kuckhoff-Str. 35, D-06108 Halle, Germany, Prof., Ph.D., e-mail: BORELL@landw.uni-halle.de. b) Univ. of California, Dept. of Animal Science, One Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616-8521, USA, Prof., Ph.D. ABSTRACT The welfare, health and management of farm animals as well as environmental concerns are relevant issues that impact the success of the producer in the market and need to be considered to increase public and consumer acceptance. Criteria for the assessment of housing and management systems have been proposed by several groups and minimal standards for animal welfare, hygiene and environmental stewardship are already implemented in the legislation of most European countries. Issues of animal welfare, health and environmental care are often dealt with separately. As it can be foreseen that housing and management conditions will be increasingly regulated in future, a documentation and certification process that safeguards all requirements is needed. Concepts for the assessment of animal housing and management according to welfare and environmental criteria are proposed as part of a quality assurance scheme according to international standards. Based on these concepts, critical control points (CCP) and critical management points (CMP) have been developed for the categories health, behaviour, management and environmental impact. These criteria were first established to be used primarily by the farmer as an internal on-farm assessment scheme. However, they can also serve as quality assurance criteria used by government agencies, consumer organisations and commodity groups that have an interest to evaluate, monitor and licence housing and management systems. The following paper reviews quality assurance issues using examples from existing concepts in Germany (Pig Housing and Management Assessment according to Welfare and Environmental Criteria) and the United States (California Dairy Quality Assurance Program). Keywords: pigs / dairy cows / animal welfare / quality assurance / environmental care SPREMLJANJE POČUTJA ŽIVALI NA KMETIJI IN VPLIVOV NA OKOLJE KOT OSNOVA PROGRAMOV ZAGOTAVLJANJA KAKOVOSTI IZVLEČEK Počutje in zdravje domačih živali ter gospodarjenje z njimi, pa tudi skrb za okolje, so dejavniki, ki vplivajo na uspeh proizvajalca na tržišču in jih je potrebno upoštevati za povečanje zaupanja potrošnikov. Merila za ovrednotenje rejskih sistemov in načinov gospodarjenja so predlagale že različne skupine. Minimalni pogoji za zagotavljanje dobrega počutja živali, higiene in varstva okolja so v večini evropskih držav že določeni z zakonodajo. Počutje živali, zdravje in skrb za okolje so pogosto obravnavani ločeno. V prihodnosti bodo pogoji reje in gospodarjenje vse bolj nadzorovani, zato je potrebno pripraviti dokumente in predpise, ki jamčijo izpolnjevanje teh zahtev. Predstavljajo načrt za določitev načina reje in gospodarjenja z domačimi živalmi v * The authors acknowledge the generous support of E. von Borell via a fellowship under the OECD Co-operative Research Programme: “Biological Resource Management for Sustainable Agriculture Systems” http://www.bfro.uni-lj.si/zoo/publikacije/zbornik/suplementi/index.htm Acta agriculturae slovenica, suplement 1(avgust 2004). 56 skladu z dobrim počutjem živali in varstvom okolja kot del jamstva kakovosti glede na mednarodne standarde. Na osnovi tega načrta so razvili kritične kontrolne točke (CCP) in kritične točke gospodarjenja (CMP) za dejavnike: zdravje, obnašanje, gospodarjenje in vpliv na okolje. Ta merila so bila prvotno razvita kot pomoč kmetom za ovrednotenje lastne kmetije. Lahko pa služijo tudi kot kriteriji zagotavljanja kakovosti vladnim agencijam, potrošniškim organizacijam in interesnim skupinam, ki želijo ovrednotiti, nadzorovati in izdajati dovoljenja za rejske in gospodarske sisteme. Prispevek je pregled meril zagotavljanja kakovosti v Nemčiji (Reja prašičev in gospodarjenje z njimi glede na počutje in varstvo okolja) in v ZDA (Kalifornijski program zagotavljanja kakovosti pri prireji mleka). Ključne besede: prašiči / krave / molznice / dobro počutje živali / kakovost / zagotavljanje kakovosti / varstvo okolja QUALITY ASSURANCE BASED ON THE HACCP PRINCIPLES The Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) concept was originally developed as a microbiological safety system to ensure food safety for astronauts. It was based on an engineering system called Failure, Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), which focuses on weaknesses at each operational stage including problem cause and effect (Mortimore and Wallace, 1998). Effective control mechanisms are then put in place to ensure that the potential failures are prevented from occurring. HACCP looks for hazards in the product-safety sense and will eventually become a legislative requirement for food safety and food hygiene in many countries. Noordhuizen and Welpelo (1996) addressed the principles of the HACCP concept in relation to animal health management strategy. They demonstrated that process control (expressed in terms of controlling both general and specific disease risk factors) and product control (expressed in terms of testing animals or animal products for specific disease agents) could form the basis for improving animal health. HACCP can be considered as a strategy of quality control at the level of production process and the resulting product. Wood et al. (1998) considered the consumers perception in relation to meat quality, food safety, animal welfare and sensory aspects as major features of quality assurance schemes that are based on HACCP principles or best practice rules. The Dutch Integrated Chain Control (IKB) program is based on elements of the quality assurance system ISO-9000 (Vesseur and Den Hartog, 2000) and has recently implemented husbandry practices and transportation requirements relevant to animal welfare (Dutch Meat Board, 2003). The National Pork Board in the United States introduced a Pork Quality Assurance Program in 1989 which emphasizes 10 management practices for handling of pigs and use of animal health products that are based upon HACCP principles and food and drug compliance policies. HACCP principles have been mainly implemented in slaughterhouses and in the meat processing sector. However, more recently, critical control points and HACCP-type audits for livestock transportation and pre-slaughter handling were established (Grandin, 2000; von Borell and Schäffer, 2002) and the US National Pork Board (2003) has implemented a Swine Welfare Assurance Program (SWAP) consisting of nine major Care and Well-being Principles (CWPs) indicative of on farm welfare conditions. Most welfare standards and auditing programmes in the USA are currently retail-driven by organisations like the National Council of Chain Restaurants and the Food Marketing Institute (Mench, 2003). PIG HOUSING AND MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT BASED ON WELFARE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA Prerequisites Prerequisites for defining CCP are usually support systems that can be verified according to the same principles that relate to the HACCP system in general (see previous Chapter). In the von Borell, E. and Mitloehner, F.M. On farm monitoring of animal welfare … quality assurance programmes. 57 food processing sector these could be good manufacturing practice, supplier quality assurance and quality management systems. The development of assessment criteria and potential risks for animal housing and management should be based on sound scientific data, ensuring that the necessary parameters can be objectively measured and verified. Several of the control points for pig housing assessment proposed in the literature actually do not fulfil the formal criteria of a CCP as described in quality assurance and management textbooks. A CCP basically ensures that a certain process is absolutely under control (e.g., a procedure in meat processing intended to exclude bacterial contamination), whereas many of the critical points on housing assessment are intended to reduce and minimize a risk. For example, welfare can not be seen as an absolute state of well-being within strict limits as many factors contribute to this state in a rather gradual way within a continuum between good and bad. For many situations the combination of specific factors (i.e., minimal technical, social and animal care requirements) determines whether the welfare of an animal is at risk. HACCP principle 2 relates to "points where control is critical to assuring the safety of the product". In the context of housing assessment, a control point could relate to certain limits that are already defined (i.e., by legislation) or relate to measures intended to reduce the risk for impaired welfare, health and pollution control. A number of prerequisites are already established in existing technical standards and legislation (e.g., for pig welfare, disease control, security of housing installations and technical requirements for pollution control). Control points for pig welfare are mainly based on existing European legislation and on the current knowledge of good farming practice. Control points for the assessment of pig housing The working group on "Animal Husbandry and Welfare" (von Borell et al., 2001) has elaborated control points for all stages of pig housing from breeding to fattening pigs. Table 1 illustrates the CCP concept using assessment of housing for fattening pig as an example. The main assessment criteria to be controlled are based on behaviour, health, management and environmental impact. These control points could be either seen as critical management points (e.g., manure handling) or critical control points (e.g., temperature requirements), depending on whether or not they fulfil the formal requirements for the HACCP concept. Control points and goals (yes or no) are listed in the order in which they should be assessed (specified under interval: from basic requirements that need to be controlled prior to entry of pigs into the housing system to control points that need to be assessed at the end, after or between fattening periods). Assessment tools and methods for sampling are further explained in a separate list (not included in this paper). Categories of animal behaviour, health, management and environmental impact are ultimately influencing each other but are often handled separately. This can be explained by the different approaches and specific contributions from various scientific disciplines. Therefore, we have merged all categories together in one list. As welfare not only implies freedom from suffering in the sense of prolonged pain, fear, distress, discomfort, hunger, thirst, etc. we included control points for preventive health, and measures to assess injuries and malnutrition. Animal behaviour is considered a reliable and sensitive indicator through which the animal expresses basic needs, deficits and contentment in a given housing environment. As behavioural observations are difficult to perform by a short time on-farm assessment, we have to assess the prerequisites for allowing the animals to perform basic behaviours such as the provision of materials that allow exploratory behaviour. Acta agriculturae slovenica, suplement 1(avgust 2004). 58 Table 1. Check list with suggested control points for the housing of fattening pigs (emphasis on welfare, management and environment; modified from von Borell et al., 2001) CCP Assessment Criteria Interval Goal 1 Buildings or rooms managed according to all-in/all-out principle? B Yes 2 Cleaning and disinfection of rooms according to the specific on-farm condition? B Yes 3 Origin of all pigs from a known producer? B Yes 4 All pigs within a group born within the same week? B Yes 5 Information and documentation from the piglet producer (i.e., vaccinations, feeding regime)? B Yes 6 Do vaccinations fulfil the specific requirements? B Yes 7 Monitoring and controlling of rodents? B Yes 8 Provision of pens for sick animals (for 1% of pigs)? B Yes 9 Climatic conditions in the building according to legal requirement and farm specific needs?* S/B Yes 10 Fans in the building with a max. speed of 900 revolutions/min (low speed fans)? B Yes 11 Controlled exhaust air discharge over fans? B Yes 12 Exhaust air blown outside 1.5 m above middle of the ridge? B Yes 13 Air supply via drop down channels or via feeding alley? B Yes 14 Air exhaust under the floor with a min. distance of 0.5 m between manure and slatted floor? B Yes 15 Separate drainage of liquid manure in deep bedding systems? B Yes 16 Storage capacity for liquid manure (for a defined period)? B Yes 17 Covered liquid manure storage or artificial layer over the entire surface (e.g., with chopped straw)? B Yes 18 Provision of a separate lying area? B Yes 19 Separate area for defecation, resting and feeding? B Yes 20 Feeder design according to the number of animals in the group? B Yes 21 Feeding hygiene according to the legal requirements? B Yes 22 Adjusted diet composition according to the requirements during the fattening period? B Yes 23 Drinker design according to the hygiene requirements? B Yes 24 Water quality and amount according to requirements? B Yes 25 Provision of grooming devices? B Yes 26 Floor design according to legal requirements? B Yes 27 Opportunity for thermoregulation, if applicable? B Yes 28 No mixing of pigs during the fattening period? B Yes 29 Hiding/escape opportunities? B Yes 30 Licensed stockperson in charge of operation? B Yes 31 Application of liquid manure close to the soil surface (e.g., by dragging hoses on grassland) or directly into soil? R Yes 32 Use of performance data software? R Yes 33 Performance data used for analysis of operation deficiencies? R Yes 34 Effective worming treatment of pigs at entry? E Yes 35 Scoring of pigs at entry? E Yes 36 Unrestricted standing up and lying down? E/F Yes 37 Cleanliness of perforated floor? E/F Yes continued overleaf von Borell, E. and Mitloehner, F.M. On farm monitoring of animal welfare … quality assurance programmes. 59 38 Passage of faeces through slots guaranteed? E/F Yes 39 Provision of natural materials to allow for exploratory activities? E/F Yes 40 Sufficient space according to legal requirements? E/F Yes 41 Consideration of group composition? E/D Yes 42 Dryness and cleanliness of the bedding material? D Yes 43 Cleanliness of solid floor surface in partly slatted pens? D Yes 44 No incidence of behavioural deviations? D Yes 45 Health inspection by the stockperson? D Yes 46 Functionality of technical installations? D Yes 47 Preparation for shipment of slaughter pigs according to legal requirements? F Yes 48 Feed back information from abattoir on lung and liver rejections? C Yes 49 Documentation and analysis of performance data? C Yes B=Basic requirement (e.g., structural prerequisites), C=following each production cycle, E=at entry; D=daily, F=at the end of the fattening period, R=on routine, S=season (winter, summer, transition period). * Measurement requires methodological expertise and special monitoring equipment. Quality Assurance/Audits on Pig Transportation Audits for the documentation of pig welfare during transport and at the abattoir have been proposed and tested for organic pig production in Denmark (Barton-Gade, 2002). Based on an on-farm assessment scheme that has been developed by a working group (von Borell et al., 2001), an additional scheme has been proposed for the assessment of all pre-slaughter handling processes of pigs between farm and stunning area of the slaughter house (Schäffer and von Borell, 2002a,b,c; Schäffer and von Borell, 2003, 2004). Checklists that require mandatory answers contain critical control points (CCP) for transport execution including loading and un- loading, resting in the waiting pen, driving to the restrainer and the stunning procedure. The following tables refer to CCPs that are proposed for the transport of pigs. These control points do specifically relate to the conditions in Germany; they might need to be adjusted for the situation in other regions or countries (e.g., vehicle and equipment requirements for transport). Table 2. Checklist for transport assessment in pigs – critical control points (CCP) relating to vehicle requirements (Schäffer and von Borell, 2002a) CCP Assessment Criteria Goal 1 Vehicle: single deck (solid top or tarp)? Yes 2 Double deck vehicle: lowering of upper deck? Yes 3 Double deck vehicle: manual unloading in case of emergency? Yes 4 Distance between neck of pigs and ceiling 25 cm? Yes 5 Elevator for unloading at the docking ramp? Yes 6 Partitions between individual pens? Yes 7 Separate access to individual pens? Yes 8 Non-slippery flooring material? Yes 9 Tachograph use? Yes 10 Provision of absorbent litter (summer)? Yes 11 Provision of straw (winter)? Yes 12 Availability of mechanical ventilation? Yes 13 Control of ventilation from the drivers cab? Yes 14 Inside light for loading and control? Yes 15 Availability of a stunning bolt in case of emergency? Yes 16 Symbol and note „Live Animals“ on the vehicle? Yes Acta agriculturae slovenica, suplement 1(avgust 2004). 60 Table 3. Checklist for transport assessment in pigs – critical control points (CCP) relating to transport logistics (Schäffer and von Borell, 2002a) CCP Assessment Criteria Goal 17 Definite delivery appointment? Yes 18 Signs on vehicle indicating area and height? Yes 19 Consideration of outside ambient temperature (not > 25°C)? Yes 20 Additional space provided if temperature > 25°C? Yes 21 No mixing pigs of different origin? Yes 22 Route planning (road surface, curves, jams, traffic lights)? Yes 23 Domestic transport duration of < 8 h? Yes 24 Complete transport declaration (origin, owner, dispatch location and place of destination, day and time of loading)? Yes Table 4. Checklist for transport assessment in pigs – critical control points (CCP) relating to the state of the animal (Schäffer and von Borell, 2002a) CCP Assessment Criteria Goal 25 Any pig losses? No 26 Any injured pigs? No 27 Density within the required range (100 – 110 kg / 0.42 – 0.6 m2)? Yes 28 Are pigs dirty? No 29 Are all animals marked? Yes 30 Separate pens for sows? Yes 31 Separate pens for boars? Yes CALIFORNIA DAIRY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (CDQAP) The California Dairy Quality Assurance Program (CDQAP) is a voluntary partnership programme of governmental agencies, the University of California, Davis, and the dairy industry, working together to help California dairy producers understanding and complying with federal, state and local regulations. It provides education, resources, and funding for the certification of dairy producers in the areas of environmental stewardship, animal welfare, food safety and specific diseases. This programme is an example of how the general principles of quality assurance can be applied to the specific needs of regions and commodity groups.. Air Quality Curriculum of the CDQAP For CDQAP certification, dairy producers have to undergo a six-hour Environmental Stewardship Short Course (that covers various environmental laws and what they mean for the dairies) in addition to an air quality short course. An on-site evaluation, which includes dairy records and facilities, are conducted at no cost to the producer by third-party evaluators that visit dairies to ensure they are in compliance with all environmental laws. Evaluators are independent of both the producer and environmental regulators. Due to the specific climatic conditions in the California Central Valley, where most of the 2.3 million dairy cows are housed in open sided free stalls and dry lot corrals (average herd size 700 cows) particulate matter emissions (which largely is fugitive dust) from dairies are of particular concern. The California Air Resource Board considers agriculture as one the primary source of von Borell, E. and Mitloehner, F.M. On farm monitoring of animal welfare … quality assurance programmes. 61 PM10 (particulate matter with less than 10 microns in size) emissions in California. In addition to PM10, ammonia, and volatile organic compounds are other pollutants of concern. The CDQAP partners (under leadership of University of California Cooperative Extension) have developed a risk assessment document for particulate matter. The worksheet is designed to help the producer to: – understand the options available to control particulate matter emissions on his dairy – rank activities according to how much impact they have on air quality – provide easy-to-understand rankings that help to analyse the emission potential of certain management procedures – determine which of the practices are reasonably safe and effective, and which practices might require some modification to better protect air quality. Table 5. Assessing direct particulate matter emissions from dairy facilities and activities (modified checklist adopted from CDQAP, 2004) Emission category Low emissions (Rank 3) Moderate emissions (Rank 2) High emissions (Rank 1) 1) Housing type All cattle in free stalls with no exercise pens Free stalls with exercise pens or corrals with shades Corrals with no shades. No free stalls 2) Corral shape and condition Pen shape and condition allows complete removal of dry manure Pens are irregularly shaped and/or have obstacles to complete removal of dry manure 3) Surface characteristics Even, compacted surface with no holes, pits, or depressions to accumulate dust Holes, pits, or depressions are corrected at least annually after manure removal Holes, pits, or depressions that may accumulate dust are uncorrected 4) Maximum depth of dry loose manure in corrals at cleaning Corrals are firm and hard with less than 1 inch of dry manure Corrals have between 1 and 3 inches of dry loose manure Corrals have more than 3 inches of dry loose manure 5) Bulk materials (dry loose feed) Stored inside a commodity barn or covered with a tarp Materials partially covered or located partially inside commodity barn No protection from wind 6) Bulk materials (bedding and dry manure) Covered with a tarp Materials partially covered No protection from wind 7) Feed preparation High moisture ingredients added at beginning of mixing High moisture ingredients added at end of mixing No high moisture ingredients used 8) Vegetative barriers downwind (May - Oct.) of corrals, & manure storage (shelterbelt) A dense shelterbelt or other vegetative barrier is maintained Sparse, immature or partial shelterbelt or other vegetative barrier present No vegetative barrier 9) Total daily vehicle trips (Regulation VIII & CMP compliance) Less than 10 trips on a day Between 10 and 75 trips per day More than 75 trips per day 10) Road surface Treated and/or firm compacted surface Compacted coarse textured surface Untreated loose and/or fine textured surface continued overleaf Acta agriculturae slovenica, suplement 1(avgust 2004). 62 11) Track out No access to public roadways from unpaved surfaces or access over track out control mechanisms Heavily used access points to public roadways that have only partial pavement or have track out control All frequently used access points to public roadways are from unpaved roads without track out control 12) Direction of prevailing winds during summer months Prevailing winds from animal housing and manure storage area blow away from neighbours Prevailing winds from animal housing and manure storage area blow towards neighbours 13) Proximity of animals and manure storage facilities to NEAREST business, home, school, church, etc., IN ANY DIRECTION More than 1.0 mile Between .25 and 1.0 mile Less than .25 mile 14) Proximity of animals and manure storage facilities to NEAREST DOWNWIND business, home, school, church, etc., from the property line More than 1.0 mile Between .25 and 1.0 mile Less than .25 mile 15) Intensity of wind gusts during summer months 5 mph or less Between 5 and 20 mph 20 mph or more 16) Proximity of animals and manure storage facilities to nearest roadway More than 1.0 mile Between .25 and 1.0 mile Less than .25 mile 17) Roadside vegetation and fence line enhances aesthetics Well maintained and landscaped operation No landscaping, debris and weeks present, facility in disrepair 18) Vector control management (flies, mosquitoes and rodents) Vector control plan implemented. Plan is in compliance with local regulations. Feed, animals, manure, etc., managed to minimize vectors Vector control plan developed but implementation lax No vector control plan in place 19) Mortality management Mortality removed from corrals within 24 hours and isolated from scavengers, pets, rodents etc. Mortality not visible from roadside Mortality removed from corrals within 24 hours and isolated from scavengers, pets, rodents etc. Stored away from roadside but still in public view Mortality not removed from corrals within 24 hours or mortality stored in public view at roadside 20) Odour Odour management plan developed and implemented Odour management plan developed and not completely implemented No odour management plan von Borell, E. and Mitloehner, F.M. On farm monitoring of animal welfare … quality assurance programmes. 63 Table 6. Animal Welfare Assessment of the Dairy Facility (preliminary checklist adopted from UC Davis, Cooperative Extension – Stull et al., in preparation) Item Statement Yes No N/A 1 Management establishes and implements standards for the care, handling and well-being of animals on the dairy and communicates expectations to employees 2 On-farm written policies are reviewed twice per year to remind employees, management, field staff or other personnel of the importance of animal care, well-being, and comfort 3 Dairy personnel are trained in proper animal handling and animal behaviour 4 All animals on the dairy are observed daily for comfort, locomotion, and behavioural changes 5 Written emergency/weekend/holiday animal care plans (emergency phone numbers, contacts and protocols) are posted in a visible location in both English and Spanish 6 The dairy operation has a valid veterinarian-client relationship (name of veterinarian and contact information is posted) 7 Tail docking is not performed as a routine practice 8 Vaccine schedule 9 Pest and parasite control schedule 10 Quarantine procedures for newly arrived animals 11 Reproductive examinations 12 Locomotion scoring 13 Hoof trimming 14 Body condition scoring 15 Cleanliness and hygiene scoring 16 Fresh cow and calving observations 17 Sick and injured animal care, including non-ambulatory animals 18 Euthanasia protocols for animals 19 Castration 20 Dehorning 21 Extra teat removal 22 Facilities are designed and maintained to provide safe and comfortable conditions for all dairy animals 23 Adequate lighting allows for inspection of animals and provides safe working conditions 24 All animals are provided with a clean, dry area to lie down and ruminate 25 If free stalls are used, there is a stall for every cow 26 Animals in corrals can avoid standing in mud or manure over their dewclaws 27 Facility is sized so cows can exercise at will, and timid cows can avoid dominant cows and still have access to feed, water, and resting place 28 Milking facilities are designed to that cows are standing on concrete for less than 2 hours from the time they leave the pen until they return at each milking 29 Milking equipment is tested and maintained to prevent injury or discomfort to cows 30 Heat stress is reduced using one or more of the following as needed: shades, sprinklers, misting, fans, or dietary alterations 31 An isolation area is provided for sick animals, and is separated from the calving, fresh cow, and calf areas continued overleaf Acta agriculturae slovenica, suplement 1(avgust 2004). 64 32 All animals, including replacement stock, have access to shade in the summer and shelter in the winter 33 Animals must receive adequate levels of nutrition for growth and production needs. Rations are formulated and fed to meet NRC (2001) requirements for growth and production 34 Adequate feed bunk space allows for all cows in a pen to eat at the same time, including timid cows 35 When not being milked, lactating cows have continuous access to feed 36 Cows have free access to clean water 37 Water is protected from freezing 38 Waterers are positioned at a convenient height for the animals 39 Flags and plastic paddles are used during handling of animals to encourage movement. Whips and electric prods are only used when animals or human safety is in jeopardy, and as a last resort 40 Cows are not restrained for more than two hours for routine care and management procedures 41 Loading facilities are designed to avoid animal injuries and facilitate ease of animal movement 42 Transportation is planned to minimize transit time and avoid extreme temperatures 43 Sorting animals according to size prior to transport and using proper loading densities within the transport vehicle are used to minimize stress and injuries during transport 44 Non-ambulatory animals are not transported off the dairy to market channels or processing facilities 45 On the dairy, appropriate equipment (sling, sled, or bucket) is used for moving injured or non-ambulatory animals 46 Calving area is clean, dry, well lit, and well ventilated 47 All calves (bulls and heifers) receive appropriate amounts of quality colostrum 48 Dry, clean housing is provided for calves 49 Calves which are tethered or housed in a small enclosure are able to turn around, lie down and groom themselves 50 Navels are dipped in an appropriate disinfectant soon after birth 51 Only calves with a dry navel and able to walk unassisted are transported off the dairy 52 Calves are moved by walking or lifting them, not by pulling or dragging by body parts such as the ears or tail The risk assessment relates to emission categories for corral management (lactating cows 1–4), overall management (5–8), unpaved roads (9–11) and nuisance conditions (12–20). Emission categories for replacement heifers and dry cows as well as for unpaved vehicle and equipment areas and confined spaces are not reported here. After having assessed the rank of emissions (Low, Moderate and High) from a section of his operation, the farmer is asked to identify management practices from a handbook for air quality conservation management practices to reduce the emissions of PM for categories with high emissions (Rank 1). Dairy Welfare Assurance The California Dairy Welfare Guide (Stull et al., in preparation) is designed to accurately evaluate well-being of dairy cows on facilities of all sizes and geographical locations throughout California. It consists of two parts: Assessment of the Dairy Facility and a Technical Guide, which provides science-based information on best management practices. Future certification von Borell, E. and Mitloehner, F.M. On farm monitoring of animal welfare … quality assurance programmes. 65 and audits of dairy facilities for animal welfare are foreseen. Nationwide (for the USA), certification programmes that are either industry driven (DQA, 2004: Five-Star Dairy Quality Assurance) or initiated by the humane societies (HFAC, 2003: Certified Humane) are already in place. The Assessment of the Dairy Facility is designed to objectively evaluate the major areas of welfare on the dairy, including check points for management policies (1–5), health care (6–21), facilities and environment (22–32), feed and water (33–38), handling and transport (39–45), and management of calves (46–52). The programme is still under development and may be further modified. The Table 6 contains statements to which detailed information is provided in the Technical Guide (not included in this paper). The dairy manager is asked to check “Yes” if the entire statement supports the current practices and policies of the dairy, or “No” if the statement is not an accurate description. The “N/A” denotes a statement that does not apply to the specific facility. IMPLICATIONS Welfare, health, management, economy, public perception, consumer acceptance and environmental impact are factors that depend on each other and therefore need to be addressed as integral components of sustainable animal production systems. Voluntary or legislated standards for quality assurance could be based on HACCP-like critical control points or management points as outlined in this paper for pig housing and transportation as well as for dairy management. Although recent efforts from international organisations are aimed towards uniform standards (such as the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE, 2004) initiative to create international acceptable animal welfare standards), these standards will be of a very general nature when considering the cultural and geographical diversity in farming practices around the world. However, basic principles of on-farm quality assurance can be applied to any specific regional need as long as they are based on sound ethical and scientific principles that are accepted by the society. REFERENCES Barton-Gade, P.B. Welfare of animal production in intensive and organic systems with special reference to Danish organic pig production. Meat Sci., 62(2002), 353–358. CDQAP (California Dairy Quality Assurance Program). Air Curriculum. University of California at Davis, Cooperative Extension, 2004. Dutch Meat Board. Animal welfare. 2003. http://www.hollandmeat.nl. DQA (Dairy Quality Assurance). Five-Star Dairy Quality Assurance. 2004. http\\www.dqacenter.org. Grandin, T. Animal welfare during transport and slaughter. 2000. http://agriculture.de/acms1/conf6/ws5atransport.htm. HFAC (Humane Farm Animal Care). Standards for Chickens, Laying Hens, Turkeys, Sheep, Dairy Cattle and Beef Cattle. 2003. http\\www.certifiedhumane.org. Mench, J.A. Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: a United States perspective. Anim. Welf., 12(2003), 493–503. Mortimore, S./ Wallace, C. (eds.). HACCP – A Practical Approach. 2nd Edition. Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, Aspen Publishers, 1998, 1–403. National Pork Board. Swine Welfare Assurance Program (SWAP). Des Moines, Iowa, USA, National Pork Board, 2003. Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M./ Welpelo, H.J. Sustainable improvement of animal health care by systematic quality risk management according to the HACCP concept. Vet. Quart., 18(1996), 121–126. OIE. World Organisation for Animal Health, Global Conference on Animal Welfare, Paris, 2004-02-23/25. http://animal-welfare.oie.int Acta agriculturae slovenica, suplement 1(avgust 2004). 66 Schäffer, D./ von Borell, E. Tiergerechtes Handling (Welfare conform handling). 1. Kontrollpunkte für den Transport von Schlachtschweinen (Control points for the transport of slaughter pigs). Fleischwirtsch., 82(2002a)9, 41–46. Schäffer, D./ von Borell, E. Handling von Schlachtschweinen (Handling of slaughter pigs). 2. Kontrollpunkte für das Entladen von Transportfahrzeugen (Control points for un-loading transport vehicles). Fleischwirtsch., 82(2002b)10, 22–26. Schäffer, D./ von Borell, E. Handling von Schlachtschweinen (Handling of slaughter pigs). 3. Kontrollpunkte für den Ruhestall im Schlachthof (Control points for the abbatoir waiting room). Fleischwirtsch., 82(2002c)11, 51–56. Schäffer, D./ von Borell, E. Handling von Schlachtschweinen (Handling of slaughter pigs). 4. Kontrollpunkte für den Zutrieb zur Betäubung (Control points for the driving of pigs to the restrainer). Fleischwirtsch., 83(2003)2, 17–24. Schäffer, D./ von Borell, E. Handling von Schlachtschweinen (Handling of slaughter pigs). 5. Kontrollpunkte für die Betäubung (Control points for the stunning procedure). Fleischwirtsch., 84(2004)2, 22–29. Stull, C.L./ Berry, S.L./ Reed, B.A./ Payne, M.A. Dairy Welfare Evaluation Guide. University of California at Davis, Cooperative Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources (in preparation). Vesseur, P.C./ Den Hartog, L.A. 2000. Integrated quality management – the base of future pig production. Arch. Tierz, Dummerstorf, 43(2000)Special Issue, 116–123. von Borell, E./ Schäffer, D. Measuring and monitoring of stress and welfare during transportation and preslaughter handling of farm animals. In: Proceedings of the 53th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Cairo, Egypt, 2002-09-01/04. EAAP handout, 2002, 1–4. von Borell, E./ Bockisch, F.J./ Büscher, W./ Hoy, S./ Krieter, J./ Müller, C./ Parvizi, N./ Richter, T./ Rudovsky, A./ Sundrum, A./ Van den Weghe, H. Critical control points for on-farm assessment of pig housing. Livest. Prod. Sci., 72(2001), 177–184. Wood, J.D./ Holder, J.S./ Main, D.C.J. Quality Assurance Schemes. Meat Sci., 49(1998)Suppl. 1, S191–S203.