Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:00:34.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: assimilating expert opinion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

TB Rodenburg ,
FAM Tuyttens ,
K de Reu ,
L Herman ,
J Zoons  and
B Sonck
TB Rodenburg*
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences, Animal Husbandry & Welfare, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
FAM Tuyttens
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences, Animal Husbandry & Welfare, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
K de Reu
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Technology and Food Sciences, Food Safety, Brusselsesteenweg 370, 9090 Melle, Belgium
L Herman
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Technology and Food Sciences, Food Safety, Brusselsesteenweg 370, 9090 Melle, Belgium
J Zoons
Affiliation:
Provincial Centre for Applied Poultry Research, Poiel 77, 2440 Geel, Belgium
B Sonck
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences, Animal Husbandry & Welfare, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: bas.rodenburg@wur.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.

It is extremely difficult to carry out an assessment of welfare in an entirely objective manner. The choice of welfare indicators, as well as the assignment of relative weightings to these indicators, both involve a certain degree of subjectivity. The aim of this study was to create a possible method of dealing with this subjectivity, using the opinions of groups of experts to increase the consensus for a protocol for the on-farm assessment of laying-hen welfare. The selection of the 17 separate welfare indicators was based both on a questionnaire submitted to 18 international poultry welfare experts and on the practical feasibility of collecting the respective data during a one-day farm visit. Subsequently, a second group of 13 experts was asked to assign relative weightings to the welfare indicators in this protocol. This assessment was carried out twice, once with and once without provision of detailed information on the welfare indicators. When detailed information was provided, the weightings assigned to the welfare indicators were generally lower than when no detailed information was provided. In conclusion, subjectivity regarding the choice of welfare indicators and the assignment of their relative weightings, can be dealt with and made transparent by seeking consensus among experts. Although the choice of experts, the methodology for extracting consensus data, and the nature and amount of information on the welfare indicators that should be provided, are likely to benefit from further refinement, the data presented in this study should be valuable for the development and application of formalised protocols for an integrated assessment of the welfare of laying hens, on-farm.

Keywords

animal welfareexpert opinionfurnished cageslaying hensnon-cage systemswelfare assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , November 2008 , pp. 355 - 361
Copyright
© 2008 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anonymous 2001 Scientists’ assessment of the impact of housing and management on animal welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4: 3–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartussek, H 2001 An historical account of the development of the animal needs index ANI-35L as part of the attempt to promote and regulate farm animal welfare in Austria: an example of the interaction between animal welfare science and society. Acta Agricultura Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Sciences 30: 34–41Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Metz, JHM, Spruijt, BM and Schouten, WGP 2002a Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows B: Validation by expert opinion. Journal of Animal Science 80: 1835–1845CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM, Metz, JHM and Schouten, WGP 2002b Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows A: Model structure and weighting procedure. Journal of Animal Science 80: 1819–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Mol, RM, Schouten, WGP, Evers, E, Houwers, HWJ and Smits, AC 2006 A computer model for welfare assessment of poultry production systems for laying hens. Wageningen Journal of Animal Sciences 54: 157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2003 Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12: 433–443Google Scholar
Guarino, M, Caroli, A and Navarotto, P 1999 Dust concentration and mortality distribution in an enclosed laying house. Transactions of the ASAE 42: 1127–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, SM and Kestin, SC 2003 Use of conjoint analysis to weight welfare assessment measures for broiler chickens in UK husbandry systems. Animal Welfare 12: 669–675Google Scholar
Johnsen, PF, Johannesson, T and Sandøe, P 2001 Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: many goals, many methods. Acta Agricultura Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Sciences 30: 26–33Google Scholar
Keeling, LJ and Veissier, I 2005 Developing a monitoring system to assess welfare quality in cattle, pigs and chickens. In: Butterworth A (ed) Science and Society Improving Animal Welfare, Welfare Conference Proceedings. 2005, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Mollenhorst, H, Rodenburg, TB, Bokkers, EAM, Koene, P and de Boer, IJM 2005 On-farm assessment of laying hen welfare: a comparison of one environment-based and two animal-based methods. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 90: 277–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oden, K, Keeling, LJ and Algers, B 2002 Behaviour of laying hens in two types of aviary systems on 25 commercial farms in Sweden. British Poultry Science 43: 169–181CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spoolder, H, de Rosa, G, Horning, B, Waiblinger, S and Wemelsfelder, F 2003 Integrating parameters to assess on-farm welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 529–534Google Scholar
Striezel, A, Andersson, R and Horning, B 1994 Animal Needs Index for laying hens. In: Sundrum, A, Andersson, R and Postler, G (eds) Animal Needs Index 200: a Manual to Assess Housing Systems pp 73–112. Kollen Druck & Verlag: Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare 12: 205–217Google Scholar