Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:32:36.734Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A pilot study to develop an assessment tool for sheep welfare after long journey transport

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

S Messori ,
E Sossidou ,
M Buonanno ,
B Mounaix ,
S Barnard ,
V Vousdouka ,
P Dalla Villa ,
K de Roest  and
H Spoolder
S Messori*
Affiliation:
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Abruzzo e del Molise ‘G Caporale’, Campo Boario, 64100 Teramo, Italy
E Sossidou
Affiliation:
Hellenic Agricultural Organisation Demeter, Veterinary Research Institute, Thessaloniki, Greece
M Buonanno
Affiliation:
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Abruzzo e del Molise ‘G Caporale’, Campo Boario, 64100 Teramo, Italy
B Mounaix
Affiliation:
Institut de l’Elevage, Service Santé et Bien-être des Ruminants, 35652 Le Rheu Cedex, France
S Barnard
Affiliation:
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Abruzzo e del Molise ‘G Caporale’, Campo Boario, 64100 Teramo, Italy
V Vousdouka
Affiliation:
Hellenic Agricultural Organisation Demeter, Veterinary Research Institute, Thessaloniki, Greece
P Dalla Villa
Affiliation:
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Abruzzo e del Molise ‘G Caporale’, Campo Boario, 64100 Teramo, Italy
K de Roest
Affiliation:
Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali - CRPA, 42121, Reggio Emilia, Italy
H Spoolder
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [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.

Sheep transport within Europe involves 9.5 million animals yearly, 63% of which travel over long journeys (> 8 h). Livestock transport, particularly over long journeys, gives rise to concern about the welfare of transported animals. The European Commission stimulates the development of market-oriented animal welfare standards for all phases of livestock production, providing an alternative to the ‘regulatory approach’. This study aimed to develop and test a new sheep welfare assessment protocol to be used following transport, irrespective of the journey purpose. The protocol included outcome (animal-based measures) and input variables (resource-based and management-based measures), being welfare-relevant aspects of both transport and unloading procedures. Weighted Cohen's Kappa and Fleiss’ Kappa index of agreement were calculated to evaluate the raters accuracy and the inter-observer reliability. Overall, good agreement levels were found. The protocol was tested on 40 commercial transports arriving at previously selected assembly centres and slaughterhouses in Italy and Greece. The protocol was found to be feasible when applied to commercial transports, allowing for a comprehensive and quick sheep welfare assessment during unloading, wthout impairing stockman work. Univariate analysis was carried out to evaluate associations between outcome and input variables. In this study, significant association between outcome measures and risk factors were identified when associated to unloading procedures but not to travel conditions. In collaboration with the relevant stakeholders, this protocol might be developed into a tool for routine checks for certification purposes and could provide direct feedback to all professionals involved in animal transportation on the weaknesses and strengths of their work.

Keywords

animal welfarelong journeysheeptransportwelfare assessmentwelfare indicators
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , November 2015 , pp. 407 - 416
Copyright
© 2015 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Andreasen, SN, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2014 Can animal-based welfare assessment be simplified? A comparison of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle and the simpler and less time consuming protocol developed by the Danish Cattle Federation. Animal Welfare 23: 81–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.1.081Google Scholar
Baltussen, WHM, Gebrensbet, G and de Roest, K 2011 Study on the impact of regulation (EC) no 1/2005 on the protection of ani-mals during transport. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/transport/docs/study_report_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Veissier, I, Miele, M and Jones, RB 2010 The Welfare Quality project and beyond: safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculurae Scandavica A, Animal Science 6: 129–140Google Scholar
Broom, DM 2005 The effects of land transport on animal wel-fare. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l`Office International des Epizooties 24: 683–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, SN, Knowles, TG, Wilkins, LJ, Chadd, SA and Warris, PD 2005 The response of pigs to being loaded or unloaded onto commercial animal transporters using three sys-tems. The Veterinary Journal 170(1): 91–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2004.05.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burn, CC, Pritchard, JC and Whay, HR 2009 Observer relia-bility for working equine welfare assessment: problems with high prevalences of certain results. Animal Welfare 18: 177–187Google Scholar
Cohen, J 1968 Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin 70: 213–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0026256CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Passillé, AM and Rushen, J 2005 Can we measure human–animal interactions in on-farm welfare assessment? Some unresolved issues. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92: 193–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) 2011 Scientific Opinion concerning the welfare of animals during transport. EFSA Journal 9(1): 1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) 2012 Statement on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of animals. EFSA Journal 10(6): 2767Google Scholar
Eldridge, GA, Wythes, JR, Arthur, RJ, Meischke, HRC, Vowles, WJ, Hutson, GD, Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH and Davies, GT 1982 Handling and transport of meat animals in relation to efficiency, meat quality and welfare. Animal Production in Australia 15: 116–129Google Scholar
European Commission 2012 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015. EU: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
European Council 2004 Council Regulation (EC) 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97. EU: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
European Parliament 2012 Written declaration on the establish-ment of a maximum 8-hour journey limit for animals transported in the European Union for the purpose of being slaughtered. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2012-0096+0+DOC+XML+V0//ENGoogle Scholar
Fleiss, JL 1971 Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin 76: 378–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0031619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavinelli, A, Ferrara, M and Simonin, D 2008 Formulating policies for the welfare of animals during long distance transportation. Veterinaria Italiana 44(1): 71–86Google ScholarPubMed
Gebresenbet, G, Baltussen, W, de Roest, K, Neilson, K and Sterrenburg, P 2010 Evaluation of the Feasibility of a Certification Scheme for High Quality Control Posts. http://ec.europa.eu/food/ani-mal/welfare/financing/docs/call_10753-2010__ feasability_report_cepost_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Goddard, PJ 2008 The management of sheep. In: Dwyer, K (ed) The Welfare of Sheep pp 291–323. Springer Science Business Media BV: The Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8553-6_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2013 Recommended animal handling guidelines. In: Grandin, T (ed) Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines and Audit Guide: A Systematic Approach to Animal Welfare pp 11–31. AMI Foundation: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Keeling, L 2009 How did we design the welfare measures? In: Butterworth, A, Blokhuis, H, Jones, B and Veissier, I (eds) Delivering Animal Welfare and Quality: Transparency in the Food Production Chain pp 23–25. 8–9 October 2009, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Knowles, TG 1998 A review of the road transport of slaughter sheep. Veterinary Record 143: 212–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.143.8.212CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, E, Dueholm, L, Vink, D, Andersen, JE, Jakobsen, EB, Illum-Nielsen, S, Petersen, FA and Enevoldsen, C 2006 Within- and across-person uniformity of body condition scoring in Danish Holstein Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 3721–3728. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72413-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laister, S, Brörkens, N, Lolli, S, Zucca, D, Knierim, U, Minero, M, Canali, E and Winckler, C 2009 Reliability of meas-ures of agonistic behaviour in dairy and beef cattle. In: Forkman, B and Keeling, L (eds) Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves pp 95–112. Welfare Quality reports: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Landis, JR and Kock, GG 1977 The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
March, S, Brinkmann, C and Winckler, C 2007 Effect of training on the interobserver reliability of lameness scoring in the dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 16: 131–134Google Scholar
María, GA, Villaroel, M, Chacón, G and Gebresenbet, G 2004 Scoring system for evaluating the stress to cattle of com-mercial loading and unloading. Veterinary Record 154(26): 818–821. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.154.26.818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marlin, D, Kettlewell, P, Parkin, T, Kennedy, M, Broom, D and Wood, J 2011 Welfare and health of horses transported for slaughter within the European Union Part 1: Methodology and descriptive data. Equine Veterinary Journal 43(1): 78–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00124.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muri, K, Stubsjøen, SM and Valle, PS 2013 Development and testing of an on-farm welfare assessment protocol for dairy goats. Animal Welfare 22(3): 385–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.3.385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, BL, Dybkjaer, L and Herskin, MS 2011 Road trans-port of farm animals: effects of journey duration on animal wel-fare. Animal 5(3): 415–427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731110001989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCAHAW 2002 The Welfare of Animals During Transport (Details for Horses, Pigs, Sheep and Cattle). Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, European Commission Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bettina, B and Roe, E 2008 European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 279–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR 2007 The journey to animal welfare improvement. Animal Welfare 16: 117–122Google Scholar
Zhong, RZ, Liu, HW, Zhou, DW, Sun, HX and Zhao, CS 2011 The effects of road transportation on physiological respons-es and meat quality in sheep differing in age. Journal of Animal Science 89: 3742–3751. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3693CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed