Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:04:00.673Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal-Based Measures for the Assessment of Welfare State of Dairy Cattle, Pigs and Laying Hens: Consensus of Expert Opinion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

H R Whay ,
D C J Main ,
L E Green  and
A J F Webster
H R Whay*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK University of Warwick, Department of Biological Sciences, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
D C J Main
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
L E Green
Affiliation:
University of Warwick, Department of Biological Sciences, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
A J F Webster
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
*
‡ Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Bec.Whay@bristol.ac.uk
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.

A Delphi technique was used to gather the opinions of animal welfare experts on the most appropriate measures for welfare assessment of farm animals. The experts were asked to consider measures that were directed towards the animal (animal-based), rather than measurement of their environment. This systematic approach was designed to achieve a degree of consensus of opinion between a large number of experts. Two rounds of postal questionnaires were targeted at people with expertise in one or more of the species of interest. The respondents suggested measures based upon observations of health status, behaviour, and examination of records. These measures reflect the animal's welfare state — in other words, how the animal is coping within the environment and husbandry system in which it lives. The measures for cattle, pigs and laying hens were categorised into 22, 23 and 28 aspects, respectively, with the highest ranking of importance being given to observation of lameness in dairy cattle and pigs and to observation of feather condition in laying hens. This Delphi study was the basis for the development of a series of protocols to assess the welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens.

Keywords

animal-based welfare measuresdairy cattleDelphi techniquelaying henspigswelfare state
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , May 2003 , pp. 205 - 217
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Algers, B and Berg, C 2001 Monitoring animal welfare on commercial broiler farms in Sweden. Acta Agriculturce Scandinavica (Section A —Animal Science Supplement) 30: 88–92Google Scholar
Bartussek, H 1999 A review of the animal index (ANI) for the assessment of animal's well-being in housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61: 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freire, R, Walker, A and Nicol, C J 1999 The relationship between trough height, feather cover and behaviour of laying hens in modified cages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63: 55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, A and Fowler, P 1992 Outcome measures for primary health care: what are the research priorities? British Journal of General Practice (June 1992): 227–231Google Scholar
Leeb, B, Leeb, Ch, Troxler, J and Schuh, M 2001 Skin lesions and callosities in group-housed pregnant sows: animal related welfare indicators. Acta Agriculturce Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science Supplement) 30: 82–87Google Scholar
Linstone, H A and Turoff, M 1975 The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley: Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
Main, D C J and Green, L 2000 A descriptive analysis of the operation of the farm assured British pig scheme. Veterinary Record 147: 162–163CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Main, D C J, Clegg, J, Spatz, A and Green, L E 2000 The repeatability of a lameness scoring system for finishing pigs. Veterinary Record 147: 574–576CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mouttotou, N, Hatchell, F and Green, L E 1999 The prevalence and risk factors associated with forelimb skin abrasions and sole bruising in preweaning piglets. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 39: 231–245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whay, H R and Main, D C J 1999 “The way cows walk” steps towards lameness management. Cattle Practice 7: 357–364Google Scholar
Whay, H R, Main, D C J, Green, L E and Webster, A J F 2001 Identification of the issues affecting the welfare of dairy cows through expert opinion. Research in Veterinary Science 70 (Suppl A): 34Google Scholar
Whay, H R, Main, D C J, Green, L E and Webster, A J F 2002 Farmer perception of lameness prevalence. Proceeding of the 12th International Symposium on Lameness in Ruminants, 9-13 January, Orlando, Florida: 355–358Google Scholar
Wood, J D, Holder, J S and Main, D C J 1998 Quality assurance schemes. Meat Science 49: S191–S203CrossRefGoogle Scholar