Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T13:06:29.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of animal welfare indices in dairy herds based on different sources of data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

ND Otten ,
T Rousing ,
H Houe ,
PT Thomsen  and
JT Sørensen
ND Otten*
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Groennegaardsvej 8, DK-I870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
T Rousing
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
H Houe
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Groennegaardsvej 8, DK-I870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
PT Thomsen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
JT Sørensen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: nio@sund.ku.dk
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.

The present study seeks to evaluate the potential of a more cost-efficient animal welfare assessment by investigating the association between animal welfare indices (AWI) based on different data sources, namely register data (AWI 1, ie routine registrations, such as treatment, reproduction and abattoir data) and resource data (AWI 2, ie barn design and equipment) validated against animal-based data (AWI 3, ie direct animal observations). AWIs were created based on data from 73 Danish dairy herds. Indices for each information source were created by a weighted linear aggregation of herd level incidence and prevalence of the given indicators. Indicator weights were assigned by expert opinion for each of the AWIs. Linear dependency between the high cost AWI 3 and the two low cost AWI 1 and AWI 2 was investigated. Additionally, different time-periods of 90, 180 and 365 days prior to the actual on-farm collection of AWI 3 measures were evaluated in order to find the most predictive time-period of AWI 1. Predictive key indicators for on-farm animal welfare were investigated in uni- and multivariable analyses. Significant associations were found between the AWI 1 based on incidences 180 days prior to the farm visit and the AWI 3. Predictive key indicators were milk yield, abattoir and mortality data. Predictive models for 180 and 365 days prior to the on-farm assessment consisted of abattoir indicators, while the model 90 days prior included mortality and milk yield. The limited associations between indices and the predictive key indicators and models suggest that these cost-effective welfare assessments are not suitable to stand alone and cannot replace the actual animal welfare assessed by on-farm collection of animal-based measures.

Keywords

aggregation modelanimal-based measuresanimal welfaredairy cattleregister dataresource-based measures
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 207 - 215
Copyright
© 2016 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Andreasen, S, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2014 Can animal-based welfare assessment be simplified? A comparison of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle and the simpler and less time-consuming protocol developed by the Danish Cattle Federation. Animal Welfare 23: 81–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.1.081Google Scholar
Andreasen, S, Wemelsfelder, F, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2013 The correlation of Qualitative Behavior Assessments with Welfare Quality®protocol outcomes in on-farm welfare assess-ment of dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 143(1): 9–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.013Google Scholar
Bonde, M, Boutreau, R, Bracke, MBM, Butterworth, A, Capdeville, J, De Rosa, G, Engel, B, Keeling, LJ, Perny, P, Rousing, T, Sørensen, JT, Van Reenen, K and Veissier, I 2009 Final model of multicriterion evaluation of animal welfare. http://pure.au.dk/portal/files/3054923/2009_06_17_D2_28_deliv-erable_WP2_3_Final_model_of_multicriterion_evaluation_of_ani mal_welfare.pdfGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007 Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225–228Google Scholar
Burow, E, Rousing, T, Halekoh, U and Knierim, U 2009 Social interactions of dairy cows introduced postpartally to a separated barn section – pilot study. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A 59: 192–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09064700903160710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burow, E, Rousing, T, Thomsen, PT, Otten, ND and Sørensen, JT 2013 Effect of grazing on the cow welfare of dairy herds evaluated by a multidimensional welfare index. Animal 7(5): 834–842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112002297CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrt, T, Bishop, J and Carlin, JB 1993 Bias, prevalence and kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 46: 423–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-VCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeVries, M, Bokkers, EA, Dijkstra, T, van Schaik, G and de Boer, IJ 2011 Invited review: associations between variables of rou-tine herd data and dairy cattle welfare indicators. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 3213–3228. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVries, M, Bokkers, EA, van Schaik, G, Engel, B, Dijkstra, T and de Boer, IJM 2014 Exploring the value of routinely col-lected herd data for estimating dairy cattle welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 97(2): 715–730. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-6585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, C, Haley, C, Widowski, T, Friendship, R, Sunstrum, J and Richardson, K 2009 Using data collected for production or economic purposes to research production animal welfare: An Epidemiological Approach. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12(2): 105–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888700902719781CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2012 Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on Guidance and Risk Assessment for Animal Welfare. EFSA Journal 10(1): 2513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical con-cerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205Google Scholar
Keeling, L 2009 An Overview of the Development of the Welfare Quality Project© Assessment Systems. Welfare Quality Reports no 11. Cardiff University: UKGoogle Scholar
Kelly, PC, Moore, SJ, Blake, M and Hanlon, AJ 2011 Identification of key performance indicators for on-farm animal welfare incidents: possible tools for early warning and prevention. Irish Veterinary Journal 64: 13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-0481-64-13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirchner, MK, Schulze Westerath, H, Knierim, U, Tessitore, E, Cozzi, G, Pfeiffer, C and Winckler, C 2014 Application of the Welfare Quality® assessment system on European beef bull farms. Animal 8(5): 827–835. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114000366CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knage-Rasmussen, KM, Rousing, T, Sørensen, JT and Houe, H 2015 Assessing animal welfare in sow herds using data on meat inspection, medication and mortality. Animal 9(3): 509–515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114002705CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landis, JR and Koch, GG 1977 The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulleder, C, Troxler, J, Laaha, G and Waiblinger, S 2007 Can environmental variables replace some animal-based parameters in welfare assessment of dairy cows? Animal Welfare 16(2): 153–156Google Scholar
Nyman, AK, Lindberg, A and Sandgren, CH 2011 Can pre-collected register data be used to identify dairy herds with good cattle welfare? Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 53 (S1): S8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otten, ND, Nielsen, LR, Thomsen, PT and Houe, H 2014 Register-based predictors of violations of animal welfare legislation in dairy herds. Animal 8(12): 1963–1970. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114001918CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Otten, ND, Toft, N, Houe, H and Thomsen, PT 2013 Adjusting for multiple clinical observers in an unbalanced study design using latent class models of true within-herd lameness prevalence in Danish dairy herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 112(3-4): 348–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team 2012 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Rousing, T, Jakobsen, IA, Hindhede, J, Klaas, IC, Bonde, M and Sørensen, JT 2007 Evaluation of a welfare indicator protocol for assessing animal welfare in AMS herds: Researcher, production advi-sor and veterinary practitioner opinion. Animal Welfare 16: 213–216Google Scholar
Sandgren, CH, Lindberg, A and Keeling, LJ 2009 Using a national dairy database to identify herds with poor welfare. Animal Welfare 18: 523–532Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Nolan, AM and Fitzpatrick, JL 2001 Conceptual and methodological issues related to welfare assessment: A framework for measurement. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A- Animal Science 30: 5–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/090647001316922983Google Scholar
Thomsen, PT, ⊘stergård, S, Sørensen, JT and Houe, H 2007 Loser cows in Danish dairy herds: Definition, prevalence and con-sequences. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 79: 116–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2006.11.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Jensen, KK, Botreau, R and Sandøe, P 2011 Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the Welfare Quality® scheme. Animal Welfare 20(S1): 89–101Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009a Welfare quality assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009b Welfare quality assessment protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009c Welfare quality assessment protocol for poultry. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: Direct observations and investigation of farm records. The Veterinary Record 153: 197–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.153.7.197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Otten et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 111.6 KB