Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:02:08.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potential animal-centred indicators of dairy goat welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

M Mazurek ,
M Marie  and
D Desor
M Mazurek
Affiliation:
Nancy-Université, URAFPA, ENSAIA, BP 172, 54505, Vandœuvre lès Nancy, France
M Marie*
Affiliation:
Nancy-Université, URAFPA, ENSAIA, BP 172, 54505, Vandœuvre lès Nancy, France
D Desor
Affiliation:
Nancy-Université, URAFPA, ENSAIA, BP 172, 54505, Vandœuvre lès Nancy, France
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Michel.Marie@ensaia.inpl-nancy.fr
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.

This paper presents five tests based on behavioural and other animal-centred observations concerning dairy goat welfare. An emotional reactivity test (n = 40) classified the animals into different groups according to their behaviour in response to fear-eliciting stimuli, and identified anxious animals. Movement parameters and behaviour, as well as quantitative (number of cries) and qualitative (pitch, intensity, length) sound parameters were recorded. A dominance test (n = 35) based on antagonistic reactions resulted in three hierarchical groups (subordinate, n = 9; intermediate, n = 6; and dominant, n = 20). A test performed in the milking parlour (n = 108) showed that the order of passage was strongly preserved and linked to limb pathology and dominance index. Finally, a lameness test (12.5% were lame) and a standing up test (8.5% had problems getting up) showed that these two parameters were highly correlated. After some simplifications, these tests could form a goat welfare evaluation method.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourdominancefeargoatindicators
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , May 2007 , pp. 161 - 164
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Barroso, FG, Alados, CL and Boza, J 2000 Social hierarchy in domestic goat: effect on food habits and production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69: 35–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beausoleil, N, Stafford, K and Mellor, D 2005 Sheep show more aversion to a dog than to a man in arena test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 91: 219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Geers, R, Miele, M and Veissier I 2005 Integration of animal welfare in the food quality chain: from public concern to improved welfare and transparent quality. In: van der Honing Y (ed) Proceedings of the 56th meeting of the European Association for Animal Production. 5-8 June 2005. Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 1991 Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El Balaa, R and Marie, M 2004 Evaluation du bien-être animal dans les élevages de petits ruminants. 11emes Rencontres Recherches Ruminants. 8-9 December 2004. Paris, France. [Title translation: Animal welfare evaluation in small ruminant husbandry]Google Scholar
El Balaa, R and Marie, M 2006 Animal welfare considerations in small ruminant breeding specifications. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19: 91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnsen, PF, Johannesson, T and Sandøe, P 2001 Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: Many goals, many methods. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavia Section A Animal Science Supplementum 30: 26–33Google Scholar
Vandenheede, M, Bouissou, MF and Picard, M 1998. Interpretation of behavioural reactions of sheep towards fear-eliciting situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 293–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar