Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:50:36.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Short communication: Evaluation of the sample size of individual indicators in gestating sows concerning the Welfare Quality® protocol applied to sows and piglets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2020

L. Friedrich Open the ORCID record for L. Friedrich [Opens in a new window] ,
J. Krieter ,
N. Kemper  and
I. Czycholl
L. Friedrich*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Kiel University, Olshausenstr. 40, D-24098 Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
J. Krieter
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Kiel University, Olshausenstr. 40, D-24098 Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
N. Kemper
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, D-30173 Hannover, Lower Saxony, Germany
I. Czycholl
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Kiel University, Olshausenstr. 40, D-24098 Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
*
†E-mail: lfriedrich@tierzucht.uni-kiel.de
Get access

Abstract

Sample sizes of welfare assessment protocols must warrant to reflect prevalences on-farm properly – regardless of farm size. Still, solely a fixed sample size was specified for the Welfare Quality® protocol for sows and piglets. The present study investigated whether animals may be assessed from only one body side as applied in the protocol and whether the pre-set sample size of 30 animals mirrors the prevalences of the animal-based indicators on-farm in the gestation unit considering different farm sizes. All indicators were assessed for both sides of an animal’s body by one observer on 13 farms in Germany, which were visited five times within 10 months. The farm visits were treated as independent since different animals were housed in the gestation units. The number of sows in the gestation units varied between 18 and 549 animals. The comparison of sides was carried out calculating exact agreement between animals’ sides and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test (W). The results signified that it is sufficient to assess the animal from one side (exact agreement: 88.3% to 99.5%, except for bursitis (70.0%); W: P-values 0.14 to 0.92). However, if side preferences existed in the indicator bursitis a potential bias must be considered. In the following, the sample size was evaluated by comparing samples’ prevalences against true prevalence, that is, the prevalence of all observed animals in the gestation unit in each farm visit. Therefore, subsets of data were generated by applying simple random sampling without replacement. The samples randomly included the animals’ right or left sides. Linear regression was rated as appropriate provided: coefficient of determination R2 ≥ 0.90, slope = 1 and intercept = 0 signifying exact agreement. The results revealed that the sample size required by the protocol and the application of calculation formulas are solely appropriate to mirror the prevalences of frequent indicators in the gestation unit, for example, bursitis (mean prevalence 34.4%). Using a proportion of animals, for example, a sample of 30% of all observed animals in a farm visit, pointed out that proportions must increase with indicators’ underlying prevalence narrowing 0.00%. Local infections (mean prevalence 13.3%) needed samples including 60% of all observed animals in each farm visit, whereas vulva lesions (mean prevalence 7.28%) only reached accuracy with the inclusion of 70% of the animals. Indicators with a mean prevalence of <1% were not analysed but can most likely only be ascertained by the assessment of all animals.

Keywords

animal welfarefeasibilityon-farm assessmentreliabilityside comparison
Type
Short Communication
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 6 , June 2020 , pp. 1278 - 1282
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

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

Cochran, WG 1977. Sampling techniques, 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York City, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Endres, MI, Lobeck-Luchterhand, KM, Espejo, LA and Tucker, CB 2014. Evaluation of the sample needed to accurately estimate outcome-based measurements of dairy welfare on farm. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 3523–3530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Main, DCJ, Barker, ZE, Leach, KA, Bell, NJ, Whay, HR and Browne, WJ 2010. Sampling strategies for monitoring lameness in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 1970–1978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullan, S, Browne, WJ, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2009. The effect of sampling strategy on the estimated prevalence of welfare outcome measures on finishing pig farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naing, L, Winn, T and Rusli, BN 2006. Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies. Archives of Orofacial Sciences 1, 9–14.Google Scholar
SAS Institute 2008. User’s guide, edition 9.4. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Scott, K, Binnendijk, GP, Edwards, SA, Guy, JH, Kiezebrink, MC and Vermeer, HM 2009. Preliminary evaluation of a prototype welfare monitoring system for sows and piglets (Welfare Quality® project). Animal Welfare 18, 441–449.Google Scholar
van Os, JM, Winckler, C, Trieb, J, Matarazzo, SV, Lehenbauer, TW, Champagne, JD and Tucker, CB 2018. Reliability of sampling strategies for measuring dairy cattle welfare on commercial farms. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 1495–1504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welfare Quality® 2009a. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009b. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar