The document discusses using animal-based measures (ABMs) versus resource-based measures (RBMs) to evaluate welfare during long distance animal transport. Several participants argue that ABMs should be the most heavily weighted since they directly assess the animal's experience, but that RBMs are also important to evaluate risks. It is important to consider both measures and not focus solely on ABMs if transport conditions were poor. Fitness of animals, stocking density, and driving behavior are proposed as key criteria. Developing more quantitative and standardized ABMs, like pain enzymes or facial expression scales, may help evaluation.

1. 24/05/2014
1
Improvement of Animal Welfare
During Long Distance Transport
SANCO/2011/G3/CRPA/SI2.610274
CP2 FINAL CONFERENCE
Kurhaus, Scheveningen The Hague
7° May 2014
Animal based measures for a ‘Welfare-plus’
certification scheme for long distance transport
-
Linkedin discussions
Should we use ABMs only?
It is obviously tempting to use animal based indicators to
evaluate the condition of transport, but you cannot ignore
the factors linked to the truck, to the organisation of the
travel, to the road condition or to the documentation
accompanying the documents.
Is it acceptable to transport, for instance, animals in
overcrowded vehicles, knowing that most of them will
show, if the travel is short enough, acceptable ABMs,
whereas their conditions of transport have been
unacceptable, even inhumane?
Michel Courat
Policy officer Farm Animals at Eurogroup for Animals
Should we use ABMs only?
The most heavily weighted criteria though should be
the animal based indicators.
The assessment tool itself should never put the
animal’s welfare in jeopardy by extending the journey
and time on the truck in order to assess.
Even if that particular load did not show any
discrepancies in ABMs, it still is valuable to see how
that risk was managed by management and the driver.
Jennifer Woods
Livestock Handling Specialist
Welfare Risks vs Current Status
With RBMs you can evaluate risks. ABMs reflect the
animals' experience.
But the temporal aspects need to be considered in
interpretation; e.g. age of a wound (pre-transportation
damage or happened at transport?), lean/emaciated
body condition but the animal has been fed properly for
3 days, or visa versa?
The legal aspects of transports may complicate an
improvement; who is actually responsible for the
animal? Where should improvements be done?
Stefan Gunnarsson
Senior lecturer at Swedish University of Agricultural Science
ABMs and RBMs
The most important things are:
- fitness of animals (ABMs);
- stocking density (visual);
- the way of driving (tachograph);
The information on geographical coordinates,
temperatures, opening and closing of the doors in
general, in my opinion, are not useful to evaluate the
level of health and welfare of the animals
Savino Marco Di Trani
Dirigente veterinario presso Ministero della Salute

2. 24/05/2014
2
ABMs and RBMs
I agree with the comments of Savino Marco from Italy:
fitness of animals, stocking density and the way of
driving are good measures to understand if the
transport has well done. It's probably a general opinion
in Catalonia and Spain.
Ricard Parés
Director de PORCAT - Associació Catalana de Productors de Porcí
Go beyond rigid rules
I want to express my total agreement with the need to
find a balance between animal-based and resource-
based criteria.
But we should also go beyond the rules looking for
uniform application criteria. It should be based on the
rules but be a living and upgradeable instrument
incorporating new criteria continuously to respond to
the doubts and difficulties of inspectors.
Jose Luis Puerta Villegas
Head of Veterinary Inspection Area. Xunta de Galicia
ABMs and Fitness to Travel
All the comments are good and we do need a balance.
But constantly animals are found traveling that were
never fit to transport.
Staff must receive proper training on which animals
should load - which leans more toward emphasis on the
animal based measures.
Kelly Wheeler
Export Manager at Aviagen
Fit to Travel
Talking about "risks", I agree that RBMs are
appropriate to evaluate risks to animal welfare, and that
ABMs reflect the experience of the animals.
In Denmark, we have ongoing research projects
focusing on fitness for transport, aiming to develop
scales for the fitness for transport for sows, dairy cows
and broilers.
Mette Herskin
Senior scientist at Aarhus University
Develop new criteria
I believe that animal based measures should be the
dominant factor in assessing welfare.
Traditionally a lot of the criteria which are used for
such are clinically subjective. However, if quantitative
data such as "pain enzymes" (Acute Phase Proteins) in
a blood sample was used post transport, this could
characterise the degree of comfort/pain experienced by
the animal over the duration of transport.
Why not validate this method and have it standardised
in protocols along with the resources measures also?
Tim Kirby
Develop new criteria
In the AWIN (animal welfare indicators) project, we
validated and tested ABM for horses and donkeys,
including a new method – the Horse Grimace Scale
(HGS) - to assist in pain detection in horses. Changes
in facial expressions in the horses were reliably
detectable by observers with differing expertise, so this
method could possibly assist in welfare assessment of
horses after a long journey.
Michela Minero
Researcher at Univ of Milan

3. 24/05/2014
3
Animal Based Measures?
• Is a combination of ABMs and RBMs required for a
welfare certification scheme?
• Use RBMs and MBMs to assess risks, and ABMs to
determine the actual welfare status?
• Does a focus on ABMs allow transporters sufficient
freedom to decide on best practices?
• Are ABMs sufficiently objective? Would you trust
them to judge a good quality transport?