scholarly journals How Can We Assess Positive Welfare in Ruminants?

Animals ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 758 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattiello ◽  
Battini ◽  
De Rosa ◽  
Napolitano ◽  
Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Present Review ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Validity Evidence ◽  
Sampling Strategies ◽  
Qualitative Behaviour ◽  
Nutrition And Health ◽  
Welfare Assessment ◽  
On Farm

Until now, most research has focused on the development of indicators of negative welfare, and relatively few studies provide information on valid, reliable, and feasible indicators addressing positive aspects of animal welfare. However, a lack of suffering does not guarantee that animals are experiencing a positive welfare state. The aim of the present review is to identify promising valid and reliable animal-based indicators for the assessment of positive welfare that might be included in welfare assessment protocols for ruminants, and to discuss them in the light of the five domains model, highlighting possible gaps to be filled by future research. Based on the existing literature in the main databases, each indicator was evaluated in terms of its validity, reliability, and on-farm feasibility. Some valid indicators were identified, but a lot of the validity evidence is based on their absence when a negative situation is present; furthermore, only a few indicators are available in the domains of Nutrition and Health. Reliability has been seldom addressed. On-farm feasibility could be increased by developing specific sampling strategies and/or relying on the use of video- or automatic-recording devices. In conclusion, several indicators are potentially available (e.g., synchronisation of lying and feeding, coat or fleece condition, qualitative behaviour assessment), but further research is required.

scholarly journals Developing an Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Cows in Extensive Beef Cow–Calf Systems in New Zealand. Part 1: Assessing the Feasibility of Identified Animal Welfare Assessment Measures

Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 1597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Baby Kaurivi ◽  
Richard Laven ◽  
Rebecca Hickson ◽  
Tim Parkinson ◽  
Kevin Stafford
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Welfare Assessment ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
Beef Cow ◽  
Cattle Management ◽  
Assessment Measures ◽  
Animal Welfare Assessment ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
On Farm

Potential measures suitable for assessing welfare in pasture-based beef cow–calf systems in New Zealand were identified from Welfare Quality and UC Davis Cow-Calf protocols. These were trialled on a single farm and a potential protocol of 50 measures created. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of the measures included in this protocol on multiple farms in order, to develop a credible animal welfare assessment protocol for pasture-based cow–calf farms systems in New Zealand. The assessment protocol was trialled on 25 farms over two visits and took a total of 2.5 h over both visits for a 100-cow herd. The first visit in autumn included an animal welfare assessment of 3366 cows during pregnancy scanning, while the second visit in winter included a questionnaire-guided interview to assess cattle management and health, and a farm resource evaluation. Through a process of eliminating unsuitable measures, adjustments of modifiable measures and retaining feasible measures, a protocol with 32 measures was created. The application of the protocol on the farms showed that not all measures are feasible for on-farm assessment, and categorisation of identified animal welfare measures into scores that indicate a threshold of acceptable and non-acceptable welfare standards is necessary.

scholarly journals Animal welfare assessment of on-farm euthanasia methods for individual, heavy turkeys

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonie Jacobs ◽  
Dianna V. Bourassa ◽  
Ranjit S. Boyal ◽  
Caitlin E. Harris ◽  
L. Nicole Bartenfeld Josselson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Welfare Assessment ◽  
Animal Welfare Assessment ◽  
On Farm

scholarly journals On-farm animal welfare assessment in beef bulls: consistency over time of single measures and aggregated Welfare Quality® scores

animal ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 461-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.K. Kirchner ◽  
H. Schulze Westerath ◽  
U. Knierim ◽  
E. Tessitore ◽  
G. Cozzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Welfare Assessment ◽  
Welfare Quality ◽  
Animal Welfare Assessment ◽  
Beef Bulls ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Over Time

scholarly journals Animal Welfare Assessment of Fattening Pigs: A Case Study on Sample Validity

Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mareike Pfeifer ◽  
Armin Otto Schmitt ◽  
Engel Friederike Hessel
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Mean Squared Error ◽  
Sampling Strategies ◽  
Welfare Assessment ◽  
Welfare Indicators ◽  
Squared Error ◽  
Animal Welfare Assessment ◽  
Fattening Pigs

A guide for animal welfare assessment of fattening pigs recommends recording some of the indicators for a sample of the animals from a herd. However, it is not certain whether the herd’s level of welfare can be correctly judged using a random sample. Therefore, both the true prevalences of welfare indicators in a full census and the estimated prevalences of the indicators based upon simulated samples taken according to five strategies (termed S1 to S5) were determined. Deviations from the true level of animal welfare in the herd due to the sampling were recorded and analyzed. Depending on the strategy, between 12% and 43% of the samples over- or underestimated the true prevalences by more than 50%. The validity of the sampling strategies was evaluated using the normalized root-mean-squared error (NRMSE) and the relative bias (RB). In terms of accuracy, the strategies differed only slightly (between NRMSE = 0.13 for S2 and NRMSE = 0.19 for S4). However, the strategies varied more obviously regarding the bias (between RB = −0.0002 for S1 and RB = −0.0370 for S5). The described results are the outcome of an initial case study on the sample validity of the indicators and have to be verified using the data of more herds.

scholarly journals The Use of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment for the On-Farm Welfare Assessment of Dairy Goats

Animals ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Battini ◽  
Sara Barbieri ◽  
Ana Vieira ◽  
Edna Can ◽  
George Stilwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Principal Component Analysis ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Dairy Goats ◽  
Qualitative Behaviour ◽  
Hair Coat ◽  
Welfare Assessment ◽  
Welfare Indicators ◽  
Normal Hair ◽  
On Farm

This research investigated whether using qualitative behaviour assessment (QBA) with a fixed list of descriptors may be related to quantitative animal- (ABM) and resource-based (RBM) measures included in the AWIN (Animal Welfare Indicators) welfare assessment prototype protocol for goats, tested in 60 farms. A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted on QBA descriptors; then PCs were correlated to some ABMs and RBMs. Subsequently, a combined PCA merged QBA scores, ABMs and RBMs. The study confirms that QBA can identify the differences in goats’ emotions, but only few significant correlations were found with ABMs and RBMs. In addition, the combined PCA revealed that goats with a normal hair coat were scored as more relaxed and sociable. A high farm workload was related to bored and suffering goats, probably because farmers that can devote less time to animals may fail to recognise important signals from them. Goats were scored as sociable, but also alert, in response to the presence of an outdoor run, probably because when outdoors they received more stimuli than indoors and were more attentive to the surroundings. Notwithstanding these results, the holistic approach of QBA may allow to register animals’ welfare from a different perspective and be complementary to other measures.

Animal Welfare Assessment Tool for On-Farm Euthanasia

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-164
Author(s):  
Jennifer Woods ◽  
J. D. Hill ◽  
J. K. Shearer
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Welfare Assessment ◽  
Animal Welfare Assessment ◽  
On Farm

Animal behavior and emotions - on-farm considerations.

2021 ◽  
pp. 160-180
Author(s):  
Lily N. Edwards-Callaway ◽  
Tina M. Widowski
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Behavior ◽  
Negative Emotions ◽  
Animal Knowledge ◽  
Welfare Assessment ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Brain Circuitry ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Positive And Negative Emotions

Abstract This chapter describes the role of behaviour in animal welfare assessment; the behavioural need of an animal; knowledge on emotional brain circuitry; the positive and negative emotions experienced by animals; the different types of tests for measuring animal preference, aversion and motivation and the consequences of behavioural deprivation.

Welfare assessment of pigs

2021 ◽  
pp. 497-524
Author(s):  
Björn Forkman ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Welfare Assessment ◽  
Time Period ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Over Time

If the aim of a welfare assessment is to describe the welfare on-farm, not only here and now but for a longer time period, then the measures to be used have to be chosen with this in mind. It is by choosing relevant but common indicators that the assessment is representative of the farm over time. There are two types of animal welfare protocols, those that require the farms to comply with a set of criteria and those that attempt to assess the welfare of the animals on the farm. The advantage of the first approach is that it is transparent and easy to understand, the advantage of the second that it is more flexible and can give a better understanding of what is happening on the farm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document