Animal welfare audits are upon us
Jeffrey Bewley, Dairy Tech Services Manager, PerforMix Nutrition Systems
My younger sister is a
vegetarian. When she first started
this lifestyle, I pleaded for her to
come to her sensed and be like
her more carnivorous brother.
Eventually, I determined that my
pleadings were a lost cause. Since
she never forced her beliefs on me,
I decided that I should provide
her the same respect. But, in our
discussions, I have gained a better
respect for how the “generic public”
views animal agriculture as I
learned that her beliefs were rooted
in her concerns for how the animals
were being handled both before and
during the slaughter process.
Admittedly, those of us involved
directly in animal agriculture tend
to lose sight of the perceptions of
the end consumer with regards to
practices we consider to be “the
way we do things.” Although I
have been able to explain to my
sister that all successful animal
agriculturalists are truly interested
in taking proper care of their
animals, she is nevertheless able to
find flaws in my arguments from
time to time. Ultimately, there are
questions that remain in the minds
of consumers.
Recently, a group of industry
experts gathered to discuss ways
of narrowing this information gap
in a Federation of Animal Science
Societies (FASS) seminar preceding
the 2004 joint national meeting
of the American Dairy Science
Association (ADSA), American
Society of Animal Science (ASAS),
and Poultry Science Association
(PSA) in St. Louis Missouri. The
seminar, entitled “farm Animal
Welfare Audits: Reality Check,”
opened my eyes to some important
issues that must be addressed by
the dairy industry.
The concept of a third-party
audit of dairy operations has
become increasingly more accepted
as programs like Total Quality
Management (TQM), Dairy
Breakthrough Management (DBM),
Dairy Quality Assurance (DQA),
International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), and Hazard
Analysis Critical Control Point
(HACCP) have made their way onto
dairies. Why should animal welfare
audits be added to or included in
this mix? Animal welfare audits are
needed to improve animal welfare
practices.
Retailers, processors, and
producers are being pressured to
take a harder look at this issue.
According to William Patterson,
a Certified Public Accountant and
COO of FACTA (Farm Animal
Care Training and Auditing),
the independence, expertise,
thoroughness, and objectivity of a
third-party audit are what give it so
much creditability. An audit, when
complete, will provide a written
report of non-conformances and
potential areas of improvement.
In fact, the focus of an animal
welfare audit is the identification
of opportunities to improve animal
handling, not on punishment for
possible mistakes made.
However, as Temple Grandin,
the well-renowned expert in
the area of animal welfare from
Colorado State University, suggests,
“it is the auditor’s job to identify the
problems, but it is the manager’s
job to figure out how to fix them.”
It should be the goal of everyone
in animal agriculture to search for
opportunities to take better care
of the animals being managed.
Ultimately, these well-managed
animals will reward producers with
increased production, longevity,
and profitability.
What are the basics of an
animal welfare audit? To start, a
proper mind-set of an auditable
animal welfare program must
begin at the top of the organization
within its leaders and be
communicated to all employees.
Without going into great detail
(for more information, look at
the links provided at the end of
this article), documentation and
implementation of policies and
procedures are the backbone of any
animal welfare system.
Proper animal handling can
be maintained through regular
audits with an objective, numerical
scoring system. Critical Welfare
Points (CWP’s) or Critical
Control Points (CCP’s) within
the animal handling system must
be identified, and benchmarks
to measure success must be
established. Grandin proposes that
in developing these points, the
words “properly,” “adequate,” and
“sufficient” should be banned, as
they are not specific enough. She
further stresses the importance
of keeping animal welfare plans
simple with a focus on designing
single control points that measure
“a multitude of sins.” It is important
that these goals should be based on
solid science rather than personal
opinions and emotions.
Grandin recommends that
facilities and systems should be
examined from an “animal’s eye
view.” Audits are conducted at
regular intervals by an unbiased,
third party entity to determine
how well an organization is
adhering to the policies they
have established. Auditors
Continued on back page
PROGRESSIVE
DAIRYMAN
PO Box 585 • Jerome, ID 83338-0585 • 208.324.7513 or 800.320.1424 • Fax 208.324.1133
Animal welfare audits are upon us, cont’d from front
are required to meet certain
technical qualifications including
a verifiable Animal Science
or Veterinary Science degree,
verifiable experience, speciesspecific knowledge, extensive
training, and continual education.
Currently, animal welfare
audit systems are more common
at slaughter facilities and in the
more vertically integrated sectors
of animal agriculture. As an
example, the Animal Welfare Audit
Program (AWAP) is a joint venture
of the National Council of Chain
Restaurants (NCCR) and the Food
Marketing Institute (FMI) designed
to provide a thorough, objective,
and consistent review of animal
welfare practices. This program
represents a large proportion of
the organizations involved in
marketing animal-derived products
to consumers.
Eric Hess, Vice-President of
SES, Inc., the organization that
oversees this program, indicates
the Animal Welfare Audit
Program was developed with
extensive industry guidance.
AWAP auditors examine facilities
to determine how well a facility
is functioning within industry
guidelines and established Best
Management Practices. Dr. John
McGlone, Professor at Texas
Tech and CEO of FACTA, brings
his extensive swine industry
experience to the auditing of swine
facilities.
Companies that have
participated in these audits
have had extremely favorable
reactions to the feedback and
improvements made as a result of
the audit process. Ross Wilson,
Vice President of the Texas
Cattle Feeders Association,
described a beef quality assurance
system developed recently for its
producers. This program focuses
on cattle handling, availability
of quality feed and water, disease
prevention and healthcare,
identification, and shelter and
housing.
The United Egg Producers
has developed an aggressive
approach to animal welfare with
over 80% of all United States
egg-laying hens committed to
their program. Gene Gregory,
Senior Vice President of the
United Egg Producers indicated
that one of the reasons for the
success of this program was that
guidelines for this system were
based upon scientific research
rather than personal opinions
and emotions. The United Egg
Producers has taken advantage of
the marketing potential of their
system by requiring that certified
companies supply the www.
animalcarecertified.com logo on
all packaging.
Within the dairy industry, Dr.
Sandy Stokes, of Environmental
Management Solutions, LLC, has
led a team of industry experts in
developing auditing standards and
programs for the dairy industry
through a program called AWARE
(Animal Welfare Assurance Review
and Evaluation).
Areas of assessment for
this program have included
the following: general animal
management (body condition
scoring, tail docking, SCC, foot
health routine), feed and water
(availability, monitoring, clean),
Useful Animal Welfare Sites
Temple Grandin’s Website
www.grandin.com
Animal Welfare Audit Program
www.awaudit.org
Food marketing Insitute Animal Welfare Statements
www.fmi.org/animal_welfare/
Animal Welfare Assurance Review and Evaluation
www.emsllc.org/aware04/
awaredefaultpage04.asp
USDA Process verified Program
processverified.usda.gov/
Animal Care Certified
www.animalcarecertified.com/
Certified Humane Raised and Handled
www.certifiedhumane.com
Farm Animal Care Training and Audititing (FACTA, LLC)
www.factallc.com/
PROGRESSIVE
DAIRYMAN
herd health (vet-client relationship,
written health plan, verification),
facilities (footing, hygiene, facility
upkeep, housing, and environment),
housing (hock/knee swelling,
stocking rate, access to exercise,
stall size and maintenance, cow
comfort), parlor (behavior score,
time through per pen, equipment
maintained), special needs
management (body condition score,
stocking rate, calving area, record
keeping, monitoring, downer cow
management, euthanasia), handling
and transportation (animals move
calmly, facilities safe), calf care (calf
processing, colostrums, mortalities,
stillborns, protocols for care,
monitoring), calf housing (type,
management/environment), calf
health program (program elective
surgery protocol, euthanasia),
and overall management (mission
statement, written Emergency
Action Plan, personnel training,
protocol posting in language of all
employees).
This group has conducted
audits on a number of dairies in
the Midwest, West and Northwest.
On one hand, results have been
encouraging, particularly with
regard to body condition scores,
locomotion scores, hygiene scores,
somatic cell counts, herd health
plans, availability of feed and
water, special needs management,
replacement care, and facilities.
On the other hand, areas of
opportunity were observed for
commingling of hospital and fresh
cows, having protocols posted in
workers’ native language, including
wording for animal care in mission
statements, and a few issues related
to calf care. Worker and employer
reactions to these audits have
been positive thus far. Dr. Grandin
advises the following four Critical
Control Points be used for dairy
cattle: (2) body condition score, (2)
percent of lame cows, (3) newborn
calf care, and (4) handling of
non-ambulatory cows.
In her opinion, lameness is an
example of “bad becoming normal”
and this is a battle that must be
fought. She advocates that genetics,
rough concrete, improper hoof
trimming, nutritional mistakes,
rough handling, growing heifers
too rapidly, and poor stall design
be examined to counteract this
growing problem.
At the present time, there
are many different organizations
that have established various
standards for animal welfare.
Recently, the Professional Animal
Auditor Certification Organization
(PAACO) was formed to “provide a
nationally recognized opportunity
for credentialing, training, and
certification of animal auditors,”
according to chair, Dr. Angela
Baysinger. Like many other issues
facing animal agriculture such as
animal ID and odor control, the
cost of animal welfare audits will be
an issue. Baysinger, the VicePresident of On-Farm food Safety
and Animal Welfare for Farmland
Foods, estimates that this will cost
about $0.80 per head per day for the
swine industry at present costs.
Although costs will likely
decrease in the future, animal
welfare audit programs will still
be expensive. McGlone suggests
that internal audit procedures,
conducted at more regular intervals
than external audits, can be utilized
to reduce costs associated with
audits. Over the next few years, we
will continue to hear more about
animal welfare audits auditing
standards are further honed and
more consumer organizations
demand them.
William Patterson concluded
his presentation by stating,
“Welfare audits are here to stay.”
Everyone involved in animal
agriculture should be focusing
on this important issue By doing
so, maybe we can help alleviate
the concerns of well-intentioned
animal lovers like my sister
and gain a whole new group of
consumers of animal products
and supporters of animal
agriculture. PD
PROGRESSIVE
DAIRYMAN
Reprinted from October 2004
PO Box 585 • Jerome, ID 83338-0585 • 208.324.7513 or 800.320.1424 • Fax 208.324.1133