Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:58:01.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of the multi-criteria evaluation system of the Welfare Quality® protocol for growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2017

I. Czycholl ,
C. Kniese ,
L. Schrader  and
J. Krieter
I. Czycholl*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr 40, D-24098 Kiel, Germany
C. Kniese
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich Loeffler Institute, Doernbergstr 25/27, D-29223 Celle, Germany
L. Schrader
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich Loeffler Institute, Doernbergstr 25/27, D-29223 Celle, Germany
J. Krieter
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr 40, D-24098 Kiel, Germany
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Animal welfare has become an important subject of public and political debate, leading to the necessity of an objective evaluation system for on-farm use. As welfare is a multi-dimensional concept, it makes sense to use a multi-criteria aggregation system to obtain an overall welfare score. Such an aggregation system is provided by the Welfare Quality® Network. The present paper focusses on the assessment of the multi-criteria evaluation model included in the Welfare Quality® protocol for growing pigs in order to aggregate the animal-based indicators first to criteria, then to principles and finally to an overall welfare score. Specifically, the importance of the indicators on the overall assessment of growing pig farms is analysed in a given population which consisted of a total of 198 protocol assessments carried out on a sample of 24 farms in Germany. By means of partial least squares modelling, the influence of measures in the calculation procedure is estimated by calculation and interpretation of Variable Importance for Projection (VIP) scores. Variable Importance for Projection scores revealed some meaningful, unexpected influences as the multi-criteria evaluation model of Welfare Quality® aimed at avoiding interferences and double-counting. Some of these influences led to the assumption that some measures might have potential as iceberg indicators, whereas others showed lesser importance. Thus, feasibility can be gained by the deletion and special weighting of indicators according to their importance. Altogether, the study is an essential contribution to the further development of the Welfare Quality® protocols as well as the application of multi-criteria decision systems in the field of animal welfare science in general.

Keywords

multi-criteria evaluationWelfare Quality®animal welfare assessmentpigspartial least squares modelling
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 9 , September 2017 , pp. 1573 - 1580
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Andreasen, SN, Sandoe, P and Forkman, B 2016. Can animal-based welfare assessment be simplified? A comparison of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle and the simpler and less timeconsuming protocol developed by the Danish Cattle Federation. Animal Welfare 23, 81–94.Google Scholar
Beattie, VE, Walker, N and Sneddon, IA 1996. An investigation of the effect of environmental enrichment and space allowance on the behaviour and production of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48, 151–158.Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Winckler, C, Velarde, A, Butterworth, A, Dalmau, A, Keeling, LJ and Veissier, I 2013. Integration of data collected on farms or at slaughter to generate an overall assessment of animal welfare. Improving farm animal welfare-science and society working together: the Welfare Quality approach (ed. H Blokhuis, M Miele, I Veissier and B Jones), pp. 147–173. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, Gelderland, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Buijs, S, Ampe, B and Tuyttens, FAM 2016. Sensitivity of the Welfare Quality® broiler chicken protocol to differences between intensively reared indoor flocks: which factors explain overall classification? Animal 11, 1–10.Google Scholar
Courboulay, V, Meunier-Salaun, MC, Edwards, SA, Guy, JH and Scott, K 2009. Repeatability of abnormal behaviour. Welfare Quality Reports (ed. B Forkman and LJ Keeling), pp. 131–141. Cardiff University, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Czycholl, I, Kniese, C, Büttner, K, grosse Beilage, E, Schrader, L and Krieter, J 2016a. Interobserver reliability of the ‘Welfare Quality® Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Growing Pigs’. SpringerPlus 5, 1–13.Google Scholar
Czycholl, I, Kniese, C, Büttner, K, grosse Beilage, E, Schrader, L and Krieter, J 2016b. Test-Retest reliability of the ‘Welfare Quality® Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Growing Pigs’. Animal Welfare 25, 447–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, IC, Hindle, VA, Butterworth, A, Engel, B, Ferrari, P, Gunnink, H, Moya, TP, Tuyttens, FAM and Van Reenen, CG 2016. Simplifying the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for broiler chicken welfare. Animal 10, 117–127.Google Scholar
Deutscher Tierschutzbund 2013. Kriterienkatalog für eine tiergerechte Haltung und Behandlung von Mastschweinen im Rahmen des Tierschutzlabels ‘Für mehr Tierschutz’. Deutscher Tierschutzbund e.v., Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
de Vries, M, Bokkers, EAM, van Schaik, G, Botreau, R, Engel, B, Dijkstra, T and de Boer, IJM 2012. Evaluating results of the Welfare Quality multi-criteria evaluation model for classification of dairy cattle welfare at the herd level. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 6264–6273.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2007. Scientific report on the risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems. EFSA Journal 611, 1–13.Google Scholar
EFSA 2012. Statement on the use of animal based measures to assess the welfare of animals. EFSA Journal 10, 2767. 29.Google Scholar
Evans, GW 1984. Environmental stress. CUP Archive, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1992. FAWC updates the five freedoms. The Veterinary Record 17, 357.Google Scholar
Farrés, M, Platikanov, S, Tsakovski, S and Tauler, R 2015. Comparison of the variable importance in projection (VIP) and of the selectivity ratio (SR) methods for variable selection and interpretation. Journal of Chemometrics 29, 528–536.Google Scholar
Hobbs, AL, Hobbs, JE, Isaac, GE and Kerr, WA 2002. Ethics, domestic food policy and trade law: assessing the EU animal welfare proposal to the WTO. Food Policy 27, 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, MB, Vestergaard, KS and Krohn, CC 1998. Play behaviour in dairy calves kept in pens: the effect of social contact and space allowance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56, 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannesson, M 1997. Avoiding double-counting in pharmacoeconomic studies. Pharmacoeconomics 11, 385–388.Google Scholar
Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2009. On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future perspectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach. Animal Welfare 18, 451–458.Google Scholar
Martín, P, Traulsen, I, Buxadé, C and Krieter, J 2017a. Development of a multi-criteria evaluation system to assess growing pig welfare. Animal 11, 466–477.Google Scholar
Martín, P, Czycholl, I, Buxadé, C and Krieter, J 2017b. Validation of a multi-criteria evaluation model for animal welfare. Animal 11, 650–660.Google Scholar
Meyer-Hamme, SEK, Lambertz, C and Gauly, M 2016. Does group size have an impact on welfare indicators in fattening pigs? Animal 10, 142–149.Google Scholar
Nitzl, C 2010. Eine anwenderorientierte Einführung in die Partial Least Square (PLS)-Methode. In Universität Hamburg, Institut für Industrielles Management, Hamburg, Germany. pp. 1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute 2008. SAS/STAT 9.2. User’s Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Schankerman, M 1981. The effects of double-counting and expensing on the measured returns to R&D. The Review of Economics and Statistics 63, 454–458.Google Scholar
Scollo, A, Contiero, B and Gottardo, F 2016. Frequency of tail lesions and risk factors for tail biting in heavy pig production from weaning to 170 kg live weight. The Veterinary Journal 207, 92–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Temple, D, Manteca, X, Dalmau, A and Velarde, A 2013. Assessment of test-retest reliability of animal-based measures on growing pig farms. Livestock Science 151, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temple, D, Dalmau, A, Ruiz de la Torre, J, Manteca, X and Velarde, A 2011. Application of the Welfare Quality protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 6, 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Pigs. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, Gelderland, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® Network 2009. Online Calculator. Retrieved on 19 September 2014 from http://www1.clermont.inra.fr/wq/index.php?id=simul&new=1&situation=FPF.Google Scholar
Wold, S 1995. PLS for multivariate linear modeling. Chemometric methods in molecular design and methods and principles in medicinal chemistry (ed. H van de Waterbeemd), pp. 113–308. Verlag Chemie, Weinheim, Germany.Google Scholar