Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T01:26:05.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrating Parameters to Assess On-Farm Welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

H Spoolder ,
G De Rosa ,
B Hörning ,
S Waiblinger  and
F Wemelsfelder
H Spoolder*
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Animal Husbandry, P O Box 2176, 8203 AD Lelystad, The Netherlands
G De Rosa
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze zootecniche e Ispezione degli alimenti, Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II” — Via Università 133, 80055 Portici (NA), Italy
B Hörning
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Animal Behaviour and Management, University of Kassel, D-37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
S Waiblinger
Affiliation:
Veterinärmedizinische Universität, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Wien, Austria
F Wemelsfelder
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: H.A.M.Spoolder@pv.agro.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Given the absence of a ‘Golden Standard’ for the objective determination of welfare, the collection and interpretation of data involving different parameters is essential for assessing the well-being of farm animals. The choice of parameters and the relative weights assigned to each of them are crucial for the outcome of the assessment. Both elements involve a certain degree of subjectivity. In this paper we discuss the basics of different methods used to integrate welfare parameters, focussing on the issue of scientific objectivity. We begin by addressing parameter selection, the assignment of parameter weightings or rankings and the qualifications necessary for ‘experts’ designing and applying the methodology. Five different approaches to integrating parameters are then discussed. The paper does not state a preference for any method, but aims to encourage discussion of key elements involved with the on-farm assessment of welfare.

Keywords

animal welfarefarm animalshusbandryparameter integrationwelfare assessmentwelfare index
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2003 , pp. 529 - 534
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bartussek, H 1999 A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61: 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokkers, E A M 1996 De Dierenwelzijnsindex: Een aanzet tot het kwantificeren van het niveau van dierenwelzijn in Nederlandse veehouderijsystemen. Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren: Den Haag, The Netherlands [Title translation: The Animal Welfare Index: an attempt to quantify the level of welfare in Dutch animal husbandry systems]: an attempt to quantify the level of welfare in Dutch animal husbandry systems]Google Scholar
Bracke, M B M 2001 Modelling of animal welfare. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1995 Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Animal Welfare 4: 103–117Google Scholar
Hörning, B 2001 Assessment of housing conditions of dairy cows in littered loose housing systems using three scoring methods. In: Sørensen J T and Sandøe P (eds) Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm or Group Level. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 45–49 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Main, D C J, Webster, A J F and Green, L E 2001 Animal welfare assessment in farm assurance scheme. In: Sørensen J T and Sandøe P (eds) Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm or Group Level. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 108–113 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Spoolder, H A M, Burbidge, J A, Lawrence, A B, Simmins, P H and Edwards, S A 1996 Individual behavioural differences in pigs: intra- and inter-test consistency. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, E A, Mendl, M T and Lawrence, A B 2001 Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a Free-Choice-Profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62: 209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar