Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:17:12.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An analysis of animal-based versus resource-based comments in official animal welfare inspection reports from organic and conventional farms in Sweden

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

LJ Keeling
LJ Keeling*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7068, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden
*
email: [email protected]
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 study analysed the free use of phrases related to animal-based and resource-based measures of animal welfare in Swedish state animal welfare inspection reports on conventional (C) and organic (O) farms. From 244 reports by 35 inspectors, 88 were analysed as matched pairs of C and O farms (same inspector, species and size of farm). They were analysed ‘blind’ for negative comments referring to the animals or to the resources (buildings and facilities). The most commonly reported deficiencies were poor body and hoof condition and dirty animals, accounting for a total of 79% of all animal-based remarks. Deficiencies in measures and equipment or excessively high stocking density together accounted for 78% of all resource-based remarks. The total number of general (non-compulsory) comments was similar for O and C farms. But the number of (compulsory) requirements for change to comply with legislation was almost twice as high for O than C. There were significantly more comments about body condition and hooves in C than O but a tendency for the opposite to be the case for animal health. Despite this, the number of requirements for change was greater for O-farms regarding their animals. There was no difference in number of comments on resources, but once more a tendency for more requirements for change was seen on O-farms. The study demonstrates that the analysis of inspection reports can be useful in terms of identifying where, in practice, animal welfare problems lie as well as further developing the methodology of animal welfare control.

Keywords

animal welfarecontrolfarmsinspectionlegislationorganic
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2009 , pp. 391 - 397
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

European Commission 2006 Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on Official Controls Performed to Ensure the Verification of Compliance with Feed and Food Law, Animal Health and Animal Welfare Rules. Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Hollander, M and Wolfe, D 1999 Nonparametric Statistical Methods. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Keeling, L 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 Quality Conference Proceedings pp 46–50. 17-18 November 2005, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Loberg, J, Telezhenko, E, Bergsten, C and Lidfors, L 2004 Behaviour and claw health in tied dairy cows with varying access to exercise in an outdoor paddock. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89: 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Whay, HR, Leeb, C and Webster, AJF 2007 Formal animal-based welfare assessment in UK certification schemes. Animal Welfare 16: 233–236Google Scholar
Norring, M, Manninen, E, de Passillé, AM, Rushen, J, Munksgaard, L and Saloniemi, H 2008 Effects of sand and straw bedding on the lying behavior, cleanliness, and hoof and hock injuries of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 570–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesarin, F 2001 Multivariate Permutation Tests. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Segerdahl, P 2007 Can natural behavior be cultivated? The farm as local human/animal culture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20: 167–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaarst, M, Thamsborg, SM, Bennedsgaard, TW, Houe, H, Enevoldsen, C, Aarestrup, FM and de Snoo, A 2003 A Organic dairy farmers’ decision making in the first 2 years after conversion in relation to mastitis treatments. Livestock Production Science 80: 109–120Google Scholar