This document discusses animal welfare and how feed additives may potentially improve it. It defines animal welfare using concepts like freedom from fear/distress, hunger/thirst, discomfort, and ability to express natural behaviors. Animal welfare is assessed using behavioral, physiological, and performance-based criteria. The document provides an example using feed additives in weaned piglets' diets. Studies found certain additives improved feeding motivation and preference over control diets in short-term tests. However, effects varied by additive type and concentration, and long-term impacts need more research. While feed additives may help animals in transitions, their effects depend on individual animal factors and housing conditions. A multi-criteria approach is needed to fully assess

1. Animal Welfare:
definition, assessment and improvement
Feed additives,
can they improve animal welfare?
MC Meunier-Salaün
14-16 th may 2014, IRTA Tarragona
Seminar on animal feeding

2. • Animal welfare : central in the issues of animal ethic
what are the places of animal within human societies ?
 Human responsibility towards animals ?
Animal Welfare concept
- a life companion for human (pets)
- a working tool but also a social partner (horse, elephant)
- a laboratory model (rodent, farm animal)
- a social economic value (farm animals)
- a life component to preserve wild life (natural species)
Status of animal
Representation and perception of human of
- their role towards animals
- the needs and/or rights of animals

3.  Brambell report (1965) : physical and mental well-being
where behaviour is a key signal
Animal Welfare: definitions
 Farm Animal Welfare Council (1976)
Freedom from Fear and Distress
Freedom from Hunger and Thirst
Freedom from Discomfort
Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease
Freedom to Express Normal Behavior
5 Freedoms
used by legislator for EU standard rules
How the animal welfare is defined in biology ?

4.  the adaptation concept : associated to the effort for the animal to
cope to its environment Broom, 1987
 the harmony concept: state of complete mental and physical health
in which an animal is in harmony with its environment
Hughes, 1975; Fraser, 1995, Boissy et al, 2002
Definitions are refering also to
 the subjective experience with negative and positive feelings
 mental representation, emotional and cognitive capacities
Duncan et Petherick, 1989, Dawkins, 1990, Boissy et al, 2007
Animal Welfare: definitions

5. * Repeated events related with negative emotions
(fear, pain, frustration), difficulties to cope,
physiological abilities of adaptation overloaded
Ideal = harmony = all motivations are fullfilled
Welfare
* Events: novelty, unpredictable, impaired expectation
-> emotions, coping
Impaired Welfare : chronic stress
Animal Welfare: a continuum

6. sensibility recognised for animals
subjective state
towards the internal/external environment
Whatever the definition
Animal Welfare
 complex and multidimensional
Animal Welfare: definition

7. Step 1/ produce scientific knowledge
 on behavioural and physiological needs
 on the coping strategies
 on the human-animal relationships
 on the expression and processes involved in the
- animal sensibility
- sensorial perception,
- emotional and cognitive abilities
Animal Welfare assessment
Are they are in good physical and psychological state ?
What do they want ? What are their motivations ?
What can they learn ?
What are their emotions ?

8. - to assess the welfare at individual or group level
- to evaluate farming practises, to improve or
promote new systems respecting the AW
Step 2/ define and validate criteria on animal welfare
Harmony
animal –– farmers
living conditions / working conditions
Animal Welfare assessment

9. Multicriteria approach
• Behaviour : budget-time, social relationships, play, comfort
behaviour, redirected behaviours (stereotypies, tail biting,
featherpecking)
* behaviour
• Stress physiology: HPA, Autonomous Nervous System
* stress physiology
* health
• Health : immune function, disease lameness, cannibalism
• Animal performance : growth, reproduction
* animal performances
Animal Welfare criteria
Ressource-based criteria : housing, livestock practises
Animal-based criteria

10. CEAV Module Ethologie-Bien-Etre Production Porcine
14-16 Janvier 2014 Nantes ONIRIS
 Assessment of welfare inputs and welfare outputs :
* inputs being the factors that affect the animal’s welfare : risk factors
* outputs being the actual impact of these factors on the animal’s welfare :
responses
Animal Welfare assessment
Three components (EFSA, 2012)
 Use of the Five Freedoms:
* Freedom from Hunger and Thirst
* Freedom from Discomfort
* Freedom to Express Normal Behavior
* Freedom from Fear and Distress
* Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease
applications to nutritional issues : use of feed additive
ex : impact of feed additive in weaned piglets Dr MC Meunier-Salaün
Additives for happier poultry. Dr. Borja Vilà
Improving welfare using feed additives. Dr. Maria Devant
Use of feed additives for fish health and welfare. Dr. Enric Gisbert

11. CEAV Module Ethologie-Bien-Etre Production Porcine
14-16 Janvier 2014 Nantes ONIRIS
 assessment of welfare inputs and welfare outputs :
Animal welfare assessment
Three components (EFSA, 2012)
 use of the Five Freedoms
 Quantification of welfare problems : practical tools for stakeholders
(severity, duration of problems, number of animals affected 
applications to nutritional issues : use of feed additive
example in pigs
Additives for happier poultry. Dr. Borja Vilà)
Improving welfare using feed additives. Dr. Maria Devant
Use of feed additives for fish health and welfare. Dr. Enric Gisbert
Talk “Welfare indicators at farm level” A. Velarde

12. Application : nutritionnal issues
- limited access to feed or at feeder/drinker
* competition within group
* body lesions due to agressive interactions
* physical constraints for the access
 fear and distress
 pain, injury, disease
 express normal
behavior (specie-specific)
- Feeding practises :
restriction : unsustained feeding motivation
unique diet supply, abrupt dietary transition
 discomfort
- diet with inapropriate components :
unpalatable, low technology and hygienic quality
: roughness, contamination, high bulkiness, …
- inappropriate diet to nutritionnal needs
- lack of continuous access to water
 hunger and thirst
Risk factors Five Freedoms

13. Behaviour : redirected behaviours (frustration): stereotypies, belly suckling
feeding motivation : spontaneous dietary preferences, operant responses
agressive behaviour at feeder or drinker (related to feeding competition)
Physiology : Stress responses linked to frustration and competition:
glucocorticoids, inflammation proteins
Health : body lesions related to competitive interactions at feeder or drinker
digestive troubles (diarrhea, constipation, ….)
Performance : body condition, growth rate
Animal-based
Ressource-based • Dietary supply (Feed component and practises)
• Stocking density (related to feeder access)
• Equipment : Feeder - Drinker (type, number)
• Temperature
• Environmental enrichment : fibrous substrate
Assessment of Animal Welfare : criteria
Application : nutritionnal issues

14. nutritional changes: inadequate feeding
behaviour => digestive disorders, growth
depressed
 hunger and thirst
mixing unfamiliar conspecifics
social stress
agressive interactions : body lesions
 fear and distress
 pain, injury, disease
 express normal
behavior (specie-specific)
early breakdown of the mother-young bond :
accelerated weaning process
 discomfort
- housing overcrowding : limited feeder access
- diet with inapropriate components : unpalatable,
low technology and hygienic quality: digestive
disorders
Risk factors related to weaning Five Freedoms
Application: Feeding transition in weaned piglets

15. Application: Feeding transition in weaned piglets
How to improve the welfare state in nutritionnal issue ?
 increase the feeding motivation
previous experience : habituation to new diet, improve transition
weaning diet : more palatable , preferred by piglets
Use of feed additive
feeding motivation promoted by adjunction of
sensorial additive ingredients in the weaning diet

16. Example : Feeding transition in weaned piglets
studies on experimental diets with sensory functional ingredients
(i.e. phytogenic products) Clouard et al, 2012, 2014
1/ preference towards various nuclei ? nuclei from essential oils, plant
extracts or flavouring compounds : stevia, citrus, hot-flavoured spices,
cinnamom, camphor, star anise, aromatic analdehyde…
Paradigms
2/ impact of concentration of the additive component
3/ impact at short and long term
 key points for methodology to assess
the impact of feed additive on AW
- impact on feeding motivation (hedonic effect) and performance
- factors of variation involved in the effects of the feed additive

17. Example : Feeding transition in weaned piglets
• preference during two-choice feeding tests
- between diets with or without additive components
- during various time duration: 30 min- meal test, one hour or 22 hours
Criteria
feeding motivation promoted by adjunction of sensorial
additive ingredients in the weaning diet
Feeding motivation :
• feed consumption
during a one-way test (30 min-meal test)
during the postweaning period
Growth performance
Health

18. Food consumed, % total intake N+C
Example : Feeding transition in weaned piglets
no significant preference N-C : N1 stevia and saponin 3.7ml/kg
N3 hot-flavoured spice 0.045 ml/kg
N4 aromatic aldhehyde and MCFA 0.58 ml/kg
(Clouard et al, 2012)
1/ preference towards various nuclei : essential oils, plant extracts or
flavouring compounds (stevia, citrus, hot-flavoured spices, cinnamom, camphor,
star anise, …) Concentration : 0.02 to 3.7 mg/kg diet, dilution water/oil
two-choice feeding tests : 30 min meal  between Nn and control (C) diets

19. Example : Feeding transition in weaned piglets
three two-choice tests : - avoidance of N2B
- high and stable consumption with N1
- increasing consumption with N3.
two-choice feeding tests : 30 min meal  between « additive » diets
N1 Stevia and saponin (3.7ml/kg), N2B orange (0.03 ml/kg)
N3 hot-flavoured spices (0.45 ml/kg), N4 aromatic aldhehyde and MCFA (0.58 ml/kg),
(Clouard et al, 2013)
Food consumed, % total intake N-N

20. Example : Feeding transition in weaned piglets
2/ impact of concentration of additive ingredient
two-choice feeding tests : 30 min meal, diet with extract of orange
Preference depends on the incorporation rate of the additive
from welfare point of view : attraction  emotion > 0
aversion  emotion < 0
not prefered
N2B N1 (stevia)vs
N3 (hot-flavoured spice)
N4 (aromatic aldhehyde & MCFA)
(Clouard et al, 2012)
N2
N2A 0,12 ml/kg
High concentration
: stronger aversion
N2B 0,03 ml/kg
vs control (C) diets

21.  feed intake and growth performance over the whole period : no effect
(Clouard et al, 2012)
N1 enable to maintain a normal consumption just after the transition
N1
N3
Day 9 – Day 10
C
Nuclei tested : N1 stevia and saponin 3,7ml/kg, N3 hot-flavour spice 0,045 ml/kg)
additive ingredient to weaning diet may potentially enhance
the welfare by improving the feeding transition
3/ impact of additive ingredients over time
Example : Feeding transition in weaned piglets

22. 32 females
8,32 ± 0,15 kg
Individual pen
Criteria :
Feeding preference : two-choice test : Fan vs T
3 sessions : day 6 - 23 – 26
Short term : 1H test (9-10h) long term : 22H test (11- 9h following day)
measure : % feed intake (Fn) / total feed intake (Fn+T)
Performance : growth and feed intake during the post- weaning period
Clouard et al, 2014
Example : Feeding transition in weaned piglets
3/ impact of additive ingredients over time
Ad Lib
1er- 2sd âge
Weaning
Transition
T
1 2616 23 287 14 21 Days
diet 1er age FA1 diet 2ème age FA1
diet 1er age FA2 diet 2ème age FA2
diet 1er age T diet 2ème age T
diet 1er age FA3 diet 2ème age FA3
Incorporation: FA1: 0,4%; FA2 : 0,003125% ; FA3 : 0,0405% in a wheat matrix (10 kg/t)

23. Feeding preference two-choice test
 Palatabilité :
1h- test
**
*
0
200
400
600
800
D23D16 D26
22h- Test
FA2 > C stronger
at long term
FA2 vs C
0
25
50
75
100
125
†
0
200
400
600
800
D23D16 D26
FA3 > C only after
10 days after transition
0
25
50
75
100
125
*
FA3 vs C
Example : Feeding transition in weaned piglets
Feed intake - growth performance during the weaning period not affected

24. • Variation in biological responses according to characteristices of
animal : age, sex, breed
emotional state: stressful responses to novelty
cognitive abilities : learning / coping strategy
ressources : source of nutritionnal components, feeding practises,
social context (competition or social facilitation)
CONCLUSIONS
How to take into account the Animal Welfare concept
in nutritionnal issues
• Keep in mind that the assessment of animal welfare needs a multicriteria
approach : animal-based & ressources based criteria
• Identify the risk factors related to housing and feeding practises which can
interact with the nutritional treatment tested : importance for the
interpretation of results and their application to various contexts

25. CONCLUSIONS
Feed additives, can they improve animal welfare ?
Feed additives may potentially
* promote the feeding motivation
* help animals in feeding transitions linked to novel feed or
changes in feeding and housing practises
==> positive effect on performance and health
 improvement of animal welfare
to components : sources, concentration in diet
to time schedule : short, mid, long term
But
effects vary according
cautions in interpretation of data using experimental paradigms

26. * multichoice test : preference relative rather than absolute
* one-way with unique diet : individual variation, impact of satiety state
* group context vs individual :
social facilitation process or feeding competition context which can modulate
individual preferences or responses
CONCLUSIONS
Feed additives, can they improve animal welfare?
Experimental paradigms to assess feeding motivation, preference/aversion
Operant conditionning paradigm: the animals need to work to obtain
a food reward / access to diet
previous learning needed to use the design
 work required can modulate the intensity of responses
Ordinateur
Choice test:

27. CONCLUSIONS
Applications to other species : next talks
Poultry: Dr. Borja Vilà
Ruminant: Dr. Maria Devant
Fish: Dr. Enric Gisbert
Feed additives, can they improve animal welfare?
Thanks for your attention