Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:32:29.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Repeatability of lameness, fear and slipping scores to assess animal welfare upon arrival in pig slaughterhouses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2010

A. Dalmau ,
N. A. Geverink ,
A. Van Nuffel ,
L. van Steenbergen ,
K. Van Reenen ,
V. Hautekiet ,
K. Vermeulen ,
A. Velarde  and
F. A. M. Tuyttens
A. Dalmau*
Affiliation:
Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia agroalimentàries, Finca Camps I Armet s/n, Monells, Girona 17121, Spain
N. A. Geverink
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
A. Van Nuffel
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Burgemeester Van Gansberghelaan 115, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
L. van Steenbergen
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Zootechnical Centre, Bijzondere 12, Lovenjoel 3360, Belgium
K. Van Reenen
Affiliation:
Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 65, Lelystad 8200 AB, The Netherlands
V. Hautekiet
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Zootechnical Centre, Bijzondere 12, Lovenjoel 3360, Belgium
K. Vermeulen
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Zootechnical Centre, Bijzondere 12, Lovenjoel 3360, Belgium
A. Velarde
Affiliation:
Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia agroalimentàries, Finca Camps I Armet s/n, Monells, Girona 17121, Spain
F. A. M. Tuyttens
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
*
†E-mail: antoni.dalmau@irta.es
Get access

Abstract

The EU project Welfare Quality® proposes an overall assessment system for animal welfare based on animal outcomes. The objective of this study was to test inter-observer reliability (IOR) when assessing lameness, fear and slipping and falling scores as parameters for monitoring the welfare of killing pigs during arrival at the slaughterhouse. Two Belgian and two Spanish slaughterhouses were visited by six to seven observers. Lameness, slipping and falling were assessed twice; during unloading and in the passageway to the lairage zone (lairage). Fear, which was assessed in the unloading area, was based on four indicators: reluctance to move, retreat attempts, turning back and vocalisations. Lameness had low-to-moderate IOR when observed in the passageway to lairage (r = 0.46), but the IOR was low during unloading (r = 0.25). IOR for slipping and falling was moderate to high (r = 0.71 and r = 0.50, respectively), when assessed in the unloading area, but low for observations in the passageway (r = 0.13). Fear indicators had only moderate or low IOR. Turning back was the measure with the highest IOR (r = 0.43) and retreat attempts had the lowest IOR (r = 0.25). Based on these results, we concluded that scoring lameness could be reliable when assessed from the unloading bay to lairage, whereas slipping and falling should be scored in the unloading area of the slaughterhouse. We suggest scoring a maximum of two measures of fear on the same animals at the unloading area, with the most reliable parameters being turning back and reluctance to move. The three indicators of animal welfare (lameness, fear and slipping and falling) should be measured in a way to reduce overtax of the observers in order to achieve accurate results.

Keywords

fear, falling, lameness, slaughterhouse, slipping
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 5 , May 2010 , pp. 804 - 809
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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, 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Geers, R, Miele, M, Veissier, I 2003. Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12, 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Buttherworth, A, Bracke, MBM, Keeling, LJ 2007. Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16, 225–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM, Metz, JHM, Schouten, WGP 2002. Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows A: Model structure and weighting procedure. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1819–1834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalmau, A, Fabrega, E, Velarde, A 2009. Fear assessment in pigs exposed to a novel object test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2000. Handling and welfare of livestock in slaughter plants, Chapter 20. In Livestock handling and transport, 2nd edition (ed. T Grandin). CAB International, Oxon, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2003. Good managament practices for animal handling and stunning, 2nd edition. AMI Meat Institute Foundation, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Martin, P, Bateson, P 1993. Measuring behaviour. An introductory guide. Cambridge University Press, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, DB, Perry, GC 1990. The effects of restraint, handling, simulated and real transport in the pig (with reference to man and other species). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Borrell, EF, Bockisch, W, Büscher, W, Hoy, S, Krieter, J, Müller, C 2001. Critical control poits for on-farm assessment of pig housing. Livestock production Science 72, 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar