Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:46:59.503Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Applications for Methods of On-Farm Welfare Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

D C J Main ,
J P Kent ,
F Wemelsfelder ,
E Ofner  and
F A M Tuyttens
D C J Main*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
J P Kent
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
F Wemelsfelder
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems, Scottish Agricultural College, Bush Estate, Penicuik EH26 0PH, UK
E Ofner
Affiliation:
BAL Gumpenstein, Federal Research Institute for Agriculture in Alpine Regions, Unit for Agricultural Buildings and Husbandry, Altirdning 11, A-8952 Irdning, Austria
F A M Tuyttens
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanisation-Labour-Buildings-Animal Welfare and Environmental Protection (DVL), Agricultural Research Centre (CLO), Burg Van Gansberghelaan 115, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
*
* 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.

Animal welfare assessment at group level is a scientific discipline that is rapidly developing. The interest in welfare assessment systems is based on an ethical concern for the welfare of farm animals. The scientific community plays an important role in delivering an appropriate repeatable, valid and feasible framework for these assessments. Consideration of the potential applications of these techniques is important for deciding upon the requirements of specific assessment systems. This paper provides a brief overview of the different types of applications, which can be categorised broadly into research, legislative requirements (non-voluntary), certification systems (voluntary) and advisory/management tools. These applications may have various goals: quantification of welfare, provision of welfare assurance or welfare management. Assessment systems vary in many characteristics, such as whether they are animal- or resource-based, and whether they are based on single or integrated scores. Different applications will require different elements of these features.

Keywords

advisoryanimal welfareapplicationscertificationlegislationwelfare assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2003 , pp. 523 - 528
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Amon, T, Amon, B, Ofner, E and Boxberger, J 2001 Precision of assessment of animal welfare by the “TGI 35 L” Austrian Animal Needs Index. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 114–117 (Suppl)Google 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
Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2001 A method of assessing welfare in loose housed dairy cows at farm level, focusing on animal observations. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 62–68 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Ekstrand, C, Algers, B and Svedberg, J 1997 Rearing conditions and foot-pad dermatitis in Swedish broiler chickens. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 31: 167–174CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D, Weary, D M, Pajor, E A and Milligan, B N 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205Google Scholar
Johnsen, P F, Johannesson, T and Sandøe, P 2001 Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: many goals, many methods. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 26–33 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Main, D C J and Cartledge, V 2000 The veterinarian's role in farm assurance schemes. In Practice 22: 335–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, D C J, Webster, A J F and Green, L E 2001 Animal welfare assessment in farm assurance schemes. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 108–113 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Main, D C J, Whay, H R, Green, L E and Webster, A J F 2003 Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme on dairy cattle welfare. Veterinary Record 153: 227–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oester, H and Troxler, J 1998 Die “Praktische Prüfung” auf Tiergerechtheit im Rahmen des Genehmigungsverfahrens in der Schweiz. In: Van den Waghe, S (eds) Beurteilung der Tiergerechtheit von Haltungssytemen. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft (KTBL-Schrift 377): Darmstadt, Germany [Title translation: The ‘practical examination’ of animal fairness in the context of licensing procedures in Switzerland]: The ‘practical examination’ of animal fairness in the context of licensing procedures in Switzerland]Google Scholar
Ofner, E, Amon, T, Lins, M and Amon, B 2003 Correlations between the results of animal welfare assessments by the TGI 35 L Austrian Animal Needs Index and health and behavioural parameters of cattle. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. Animal Welfare 12: 571–578Google Scholar
Spoolder, H, De Rosa, G, Hörning, B, Waiblinger, S and Wemelsfelder, F 2003 Integrating parameters to assess on-farm welfare. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. Animal Welfare 12: 529–534Google Scholar
Whay, H R, Main, D C J, Green, L E and Webster, A J F 2003 Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare 12: 205–217Google Scholar
Wood, J D, Holder, J S and Main, D C J 1998 Quality assurance schemes. Meat Science 49: 191–203 (Suppl)CrossRefGoogle Scholar