Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T09:33:35.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal-based parameters are no panacea for on-farm monitoring of animal welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

MBM Bracke
MBM Bracke*
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
*
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.

On-farm monitoring of animal welfare is an important, present-day objective in animal welfare science. Scientists tend to focus exclusively on animal-based parameters, possibly because using environment-based parameters could be begging the question why welfare has been affected and because animal-based parameters would be better indicators of welfare. However, selection of even the best animal-based parameters that have conventionally been used in experiments could have unacceptable consequences. Systems that are generally considered to be poor welfare systems may generate unacceptably high welfare scores. The monitoring systems could fail to match basic intuitions in society and the scientific community. In order to avoid this problem, available knowledge, eg about animal motivation derived from consumer demand studies and knowledge about the natural behaviour of the animals, should be used explicitly in welfare assessment. This requires making welfare inferences from knowledge about the relationships between environment-based and animal-based parameters using standard operating procedures. The on-farm measurement of animal-based parameters may be regarded as the measurement of critical control points, which must be compared and reconciled with predictions based on available scientific knowledge. For this purpose the formalisation of welfare assessment should be developed further.

Keywords

animal welfareassessmentdesign criteriahousingmonitoringperformance criteria
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. 229 - 231
Copyright
© 2007 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 1999 A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animal's well-being in housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61: 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Geers, R, Miele, M and Veissier, I 2003 Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12: 445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Metz, JHM, Spruijt, BM and Dijkhuizen, AA 1999a Overall welfare assessment of pregnant sow housing systems based on interviews with experts. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47: 93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM and Metz, JHM 1999b Overall animal welfare assessment reviewed. Part 1: Is it possible? Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47: 279–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM and Metz, JHM 1999c Overall welfare reviewed. Part 3: Welfare assessment based on needs and supported by expert opinion. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47: 307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM, Metz, JHM and Schouten, WGP 2002a Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows A: Model structure and weighting procedure. Journal of Animal Science 8: 1891–1834Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Metz, JHM, Spruijt, BM and Schouten, WGP 2002b Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows B: Validation by expert opinion. Journal of Animal Science 8: 1835–1845Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Hulsegge, B, Keeling, L and Blokhuis, HJ 2004a Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs: 1. Modelling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87: 31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Hulsegge, B, Keeling, L and Blokhuis, HJ 2004b Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs: 2. ‘Validation’. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87: 45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, LJ 2005 Healthy and happy: Animal welfare as an integral part of sustainable agriculture. Ambio 34: 316–319CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, AB, Appleby, MC and Macleod, HA 1988 Measuring hunger in the pig using operant conditioning: the effect of food restriction. Animal Production 47: 131–137Google Scholar
Spoolder, H, De Rosa, G, Hörning, B, Waiblinger, S and Wemelsfelder, F 2003 Integrating parameters to assess on-farm welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 529–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF and Main, DCJ 2003 Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. Animal Welfare 12(4)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 An animal-based welfare assessment of group-housed calves on UK dairy farms. Animal Welfare 12: 611–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willeberg, P 1991 Animal welfare studies: Epidemiological considerations. In: Proceeding of the Society of Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine. 17-19 April 1991. London, UKGoogle Scholar