Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T16:22:26.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voluntary Animal Welfare Assessment of Mass-Produced Farm Animal Housing Equipment Using a Standardised Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

U Knierim ,
D Hesse ,
E von Borell ,
H-J Herrmann ,
C Müller ,
H-W Rauch ,
N Sachser  and
F Zerbe
U Knierim*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Committee of the German Agricultural Society (Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft, DLG) Institute of Animal Hygiene, Welfare and Behaviour of Farm Animals, School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Buenteweg 17p, D-30559 Hannover, Germany
D Hesse
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Committee of the German Agricultural Society (Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft, DLG) Competence Centre for Animal Housing and Engineering, Uelzen, Germany
E von Borell
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Committee of the German Agricultural Society (Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft, DLG) Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
H-J Herrmann
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Committee of the German Agricultural Society (Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft, DLG) Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft (DLG), Groß-Umstadt, Germany
C Müller
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Committee of the German Agricultural Society (Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft, DLG) Trenthorst 15, 23847 Westerau, Germany
H-W Rauch
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Committee of the German Agricultural Society (Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft, DLG) Institute for Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry Celle, Federal Agricultural Research Center (FAL), Germany
N Sachser
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Committee of the German Agricultural Society (Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft, DLG) Department of Behavioural Biology, University of Münster, Germany
F Zerbe
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Committee of the German Agricultural Society (Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft, DLG) Institute for Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry Celle, Federal Agricultural Research Center (FAL), Germany
*
* 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.

Assessment of mass-produced animal-housing equipment can serve as a basis for improving animal welfare. A number of European countries have adopted various legal approaches to such assessment. In Germany, welfare assessment of housing equipment is voluntary, but minimum standards can be set by regulation for the assessment procedure and for the qualifications of the persons involved. From a scientific perspective, the time and resource constraints pose some problems, particularly as they apply to a voluntary procedure. For reasons of practicability, certain compromises will be required. Nevertheless, it is important to ensure that each assessment procedure is based upon scientific principles and considers animal welfare aspects to a sufficient extent. A proposal for the minimum standards of an assessment procedure has been elaborated by the Animal Welfare Committee of the German Agricultural Society (Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft, DLG), a shortened version of which is presented here. The animal welfare impact of such a regulated but voluntary procedure will be less than that of an obligatory assessment; however, the relatively flexible approach may still significantly contribute to the improvement of welfare aspects of livestock housing.

Keywords

animal welfareanimal welfare assessmentcattlehorsespigspoultry
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , February 2003 , pp. 75 - 84
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Appleby, M C and Lawrence, A B 1987 Food restriction as a cause of stereotypic behaviour in tethered gilts. Animal Production 45: 103–111Google Scholar
Appleby, M C and Waran, N K 1997 Physical conditions. In: Appleby M C and Hughes B 0 (eds) Animal Welfare pp 177–190. CAB International: Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Baum, S, Bernauer-Münz, H, Buchholtz, C, Cronjaeger, C, Ebel, M, Feulner, A, Fink, A A, Feddersen-Petersen, D, Korff, J, Maisack, C, Martin, G, Müller, H, Persch, A, Quandt, C, Schmitz, S, Teuchert-Noodt, G, Winterfeld, T, Wolff, M and Zimmermann, B 1998 Workshop der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Nutztierhaltung (IGN) zum Thema “Leiden”, 30 Jan-1 Feb, Marburg. Der Tierschutzbeauftragte 2/98: 180–185Google Scholar
Bennett, R M 1997 Economics. In: Appleby M C and Hughes B 0 (eds) Animal Welfare pp 235–248. CAB International: Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Bøe, K E 1999 Regulations and approval of housing systems for cattle and swine in Norway. Paper presentation, International Seminar on Pretesting of New Farm Animal Management Technologies, 20-21 October 1999, Jönköpping, Sweden.Google Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1983 The current status of preference tests in the assessment of animal welfare. In: Baxter, S H, Baxter, M R and MacCormack, JAD (eds) Farm Animal Housing and Welfare pp 20–26. Martinus Nijhoff: Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H 1978 The interpretation of preference tests in animal behaviour. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H 1992 Measuring preferences and the strength of preferences. Poultry Science 71: 658–663CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekesbo, I and Van den Weghe, S 1998 Genehmigungsverfahren und Prüfung neuer Technik und Methoden in der landwirtschaftlichen Tierhaltung in Schweden. In: Beurteilung der Tiergerechtheit von Haltungssystemen pp 55–70. KTBL: Darmstadt, Germany [Title translation: Licensing and testing of new techniques and methods in farm animal husbandry in Sweden]Google Scholar
Fell, C R and Shutt, D A 1989 Behavioural and hormonal response to acute surgical stress in sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, A F and Broom, D M 1990 Welfare. In: Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Edn 3 pp 256–384. Baillière Tindall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D and Matthews, L R 1997 Preference and motivation testing. In: Appleby M C and Hughes B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 159-173. CAB International: Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P H, Coleman, K and Barnett, J L 1994 Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpersons towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 349–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse, D, Knierim, U, Borell, E von, Herrmann, H-J, Koch, L, Müller, C, Rauch, H-W, Sachser, N and Zerbe, F 2000 Tiergerechtheit auf dem Prüfstand. Anforderungen an freiwillige Prüfverfahren gemäß § 13a TierSchG 16pp. Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft: Merkblatt 321, Frankfurt, Germany [Title translation: Animal welfare assessed. Requirements for a voluntary assessment procedure in line with § 13a of the Animal Welfare Act]Google Scholar
Holst D von 1998 The concept of stress and its relevance for animal behaviour. Advances in the Study of Behavior 27: 1–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P, Algers, B and Ekesbo, I 1986 Methods of Sampling and Analysis of Data in Farm Animal Ethology. Tierhaltung 17, Birkhäuser Verlag: Basel, SwitzerlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnsen, P F, Vestergaard, K S and Norgaard-Nielsen, G 1998 Influence of early rearing conditions on the development of feather pecking and cannibalism in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60: 25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knierim, U and Jackson, W T 1997 Legislation. In: Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 249–264. CAB International: Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Ladewig, J 1987 Endocrine aspects of stress: evaluation of stress reactions in farm animals. In: Wiepkema, P R and Van Adrichem, P W M (eds) Biology of Stress pp 13–25. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1993 Measuring Behaviour, Edn 2. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J 1986 Some problems with the physiological concept of “stress”. Australian Veterinary Journal 63: 359–361CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sachser, N 1998 Was bringen Präferenztests? In: Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemäßen Tierhaltung 1997 pp 9–20. KTBL-Schrift 380, KTBL: Darmstadt, Germany [Title translation: Preference tests — what are they good for?]Google Scholar
Stephens, D B and Toner, J N 1975 Husbandry influences on some physiological parameters of emotional responses in calves. Applied Animal Ethology 1: 233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Lawrence, A B and Illius, AW 1991 Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour 42: 981–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Scheuten, W G P and Ladewig, J 1997 Physiology. In: Appleby M C and Hughes B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 143-158. CAB International: Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Tierschutzgesetz 1998 Tierschutzgesetz in der Bekanntmachung der Fassung vom 25 Mai 1998. Bundesgesetzblatt I: 1105, 1818 [Title translation: Animal Welfare Act as of 25 May 1998]Google Scholar
Tschanz, B 1985 Kriterien für die Beurteilung von Haltungssystemen für landwirtschaftliche Nutztiere aus ethologischer Sicht. Tierärztliche Umschau 40: 730–738 [Title translation: Criteria for the assessment of housing systems for farm animals from an ethological view]Google Scholar
Wechsler, B, Fröhlich, E, Oester, H, Oswald, T, Troxler, J, Weber, R and Schmid, H 1997 The contribution of applied ethology in judging animal welfare in farm animal housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Würbel, H and Stauffacher, M 1997 Age and weight at weaning affect corticosterone level and development of stereotypies in ICR-mice. Animal Behaviour 53: 891–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar