Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-23T20:59:49.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing animal welfare at the farm level: do we care sufficiently about the individual?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

C Winckler
C Winckler*
Affiliation:
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Division of Livestock Sciences/Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Gregor-Mendel-Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria; 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.

Animal welfare is generally referred to as the quality of an animal's life as experienced by the individual animal. On-farm welfare assessment, however, usually relies on both individual and group measures. As regards the latter, individual animals are not identified (eg incidence of stereotypic behaviour in a pen) or features of the whole group (eg score obtained from qualitative behaviour assessment) are used. This raises the question whether our current approaches to on-farm assessment sufficiently consider the individual nature of animal welfare. Measures assessed at the group level bear the disadvantage that distribution across group members may be skewed and the most affected individuals are not necessarily identified. However, the importance of knowing about the welfare state of individual animals depends on the purpose of the assessment. If the primary aim is farm assurance, the individual animal is of lesser importance, but non-compliance with thresholds at herd/farm level or comparison with peer farms may induce change. Using individual measures in a sample of animals means that animals not sampled but requiring intervention, eg for treatment of lameness, would have to be identified subsequently. Measures truly taken at the group level make individual interventions difficult, but interventions implemented at the group level (eg reducing stocking density) do not necessarily require information on the individual animal. Automatic detection of welfare-relevant states has received increased attention and identifying individual animals with impaired welfare seems to be promising. Automated early detection of problems may also reduce the ethical dilemma that traditional assessments at the end of the production cycle, eg in broiler chickens, may identify welfare impairments but not directly benefit the affected animals. Reflection on individual and group measures and their consequences for animal welfare may help in interpreting the outcomes of the assessments and stimulate future developments in the field.

Keywords

animal welfaregroup measuresindividual measureson-farm assessmentpurposewelfare improvement
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 77 - 82
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial reuse or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Borderas, TF, Fournier, A, Rushen, J and de Passillé, AM 2008 Effects of lameness on dairy cows’ visits to automatic milking systems. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 88: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4141/CJAS07014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 2010 Animal welfare: an aspect of care, sustainabili-ty, and food quality required by the public. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 37: 83–88. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.37.1.83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS, Cain, R and Roberts, SJ 2012 Optical flow, flock behavior and chicken welfare. Animal Behaviour 84: 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.04.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutscher Tierschutzbund 2018 https://www.tierschutz label.info/richtlinien/Google Scholar
Fraser, D 2003 Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12: 433–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillmann, E, Mayer, C, Schön, P-C, Puppe, B and Schrader, L 2004 Vocalisation of domestic pigs as an indicator for their adaptation towards ambient temperatures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89: 195–2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2004.06.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hostiou, N, Fagon, J, Chauvat, S, Turlot, A, Kling-Eveillard, F, Boivin, X and Allain, C 2017 Impact of precision livestock farming on work and human-animal interactions on dairy farms. A review. Biotechnology Agronomy Sociology and Environment 21: 268–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, JN 2013 Impact of lameness and claw lesions in cows on health and production. Livestock Science 156: 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, DB, Hogeveen, H and de Vries, A 2016 Bayesian inte-gration of sensor information and a multivariate dynamic linear model for prediction of dairy cow mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 99: 7344–7361. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kashiha, M, Bahr, C, Ott, S, Moons, CPH, Niewold, TA, Ödberg, FO and Berckmans, D 2014 Automatic weight esti-mation of individual pigs using image analysis. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 107: 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.com-pag.2014.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khatun, M, Clark, CEF, Lyons, NA, Thomson, PC, Kerrisk, KL and García, S 2017 Early detection of clinical mastitis from electri-cal conductivity data in an automatic milking system. Animal Production Science 57: 1226–1232. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN16707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchner, MK, Schulze Westerath, H, Knierim, U, Tessitore, E, Cozzi, G, Pfeiffer, C and Winckler, C 2014 Application of the Welfare Quality® assessment system on European beef bull farms. Animal 8: 827–835. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114000366CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2009 On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future per-spectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach. Animal Welfare 18: 451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, TN and Kristensen, AR 2005 A model for monitoring the condition of young pigs by their drinking behaviour. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 48: 138–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2005.02.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Mullan, S, Atkinson, C, Cooper, M, Wrathall, JHM and Blokhuis, HJ 2014 Best practice framework for animal welfare certification schemes. Trends in Food Science & Technology 37: 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.03.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandel, R, Whay, HR, Klement, E and Nicol, CJ 2016 Invited review: Environmental enrichment of dairy cows and calves in indoor housing. Journal of Dairy Science 99: 1695–1715. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9875CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchewka, J, Estevez, I, Vezzoli, G, Ferrante, V and Makagon, MM 2015 The transect method: a novel approach to on-farm welfare assessment of commercial turkeys. Poultry Science 94: 7–16. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/peu026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchewka, J, Watanabe, TTN, Ferrante, V and Estevez, I 2013 Welfare assessment in broiler farms: Transect walks versus individual scoring. Poultry Science 92: 2588–2599. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03229CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthews, SG, Miller, AL, Clapp, J, Plötz, T and Kyriazakis, I 2016 Early detection of health and welfare compromises through automated detection of behavioural changes in pigs. The Veterinary Journal 217: 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2016.09.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mollah, BR, Hasan, A, Salam, A and Ali, A 2010 Digital image analysis to estimate the live weight of broiler. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 72: 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.com-pag.2010.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, S, Browne, WJ, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2009 The effect of sampling strategy on the estimated prevalence of welfare outcome measures on fin-ishing pig farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119: 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, S, Szmaragd, C, Cooper, MD, Wrathall, JHM, Jamieson, J, Bond, A, Atkinson, C and Main, DCJ 2016 Animal welfare initiatives improve feather cover of cage-free laying hens in the UK. Animal Welfare 25: 243–253. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.25.2.243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nasirahmadi, A, Edwards, SA and Sturm, B 2017 Implementation of machine vision for detecting behavior of cattle and pigs. Livestock Science 202: 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livs-ci.2017.05.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Milk Producers Federation 2016 Animal Care Reference Manual. http://www.nationaldairyfarm.com/sites/default/files/Version-3-Manual.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pastell, M, Hänninen, L, de Passillé, AM and Rushen, J 2010 Measures of weight distribution of dairy cows to detect lameness and the presence of hoof lesions. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 954–960. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2385CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patt, A, Gygax, L, Hillmann, E and Keil, N 2017 Auswirkungen unterschiedlicher Absetzverfahren auf das Verhalten von Aufzuchtkälbern. Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemäßen Tierhaltung 2017: 226–235. [Title translation: The effect of milk allowance and weaning method on the behaviour of dairy calves]Google Scholar
Rushen, J, Pombourcq, E and de Passillé, AM 2007 Validation of two measures of lameness in dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 106: 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2006.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutten, CJ, Velthuis, AGJ, Steeneveld, W and Hogeveen, H 2013 Invited review: Sensors to support health management on farms. Journal of Dairy Science 96: 1928–1952. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6107CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, EM, Nolan, AM and Fitzpatrick, JL 2001 Conceptual and methodological issues related to welfare assessment: a frame-work for measurement. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science, Supplement 30: 5–10Google Scholar
Sørensen, JT, Rousing, T, Møller, SH, Bonde, MK and Hegelund, L 2007 On-farm welfare assessment systems: what are the recording costs? Animal Welfare 16: 237–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoliansky, R, Edan, Y, Parmet, Y and Halachmi, I 2016 Development of automatic body condition scoring using a low-cost 3-dimensional Kinect camera. Journal of Dairy Science 99:7714–7725. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10607CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Temple, D, Manteca, X, Velarde, A and Dalmau, A 2011 Assessment of animal welfare through behavioural parameters in Iberian pigs in intensive and extensive conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 131: 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2011.01.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toaff-Rosenstein, RL, Velez, M and Tucker, CB 2017 Technical note: Use of an automated grooming brush by heifers and potential for radiofrequency identification-based measure-ments of this behavior. Journal of Dairy Science 100: 8430–8437. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-12984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremetsberger, L and Winckler, C 2012 Einfluss von Parametern der Haltungsumwelt und der Gruppenzusammensetzung auf agonis-tische Verhaltensweisen bei Milchkühen. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft eV. Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemäßen Tierhaltung 496: 130–136. [Title translation: Influence of parameters concerning housing environment and herd structure on agonistic behaviour in dairy cattle]Google Scholar
Turner, MJB, Gurney, P, Crowther, JSB and Sharp, JR 1984 An automatic weighing system for poultry. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 29: 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8634(84)90056-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van De Gucht, T, Saeys, W, van Meensel, J, van Nuffel, A, Vangeyte, J and Lauwers, L 2018 Farm-specific economic value of automatic lameness detection systems in dairy cattle: From concepts to operational simulations. Journal of Dairy Science 101:637–648. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-12867CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Os, J, Winckler, C, Trieb, J, Matarazzo, S, Lehenbauer, T, Champagne, J and Tucker, CB 2018 Reliability of sampling strategies for measuring dairy cattle welfare on commercial farms. Journal of Dairy Science 101: 1495–1504. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13611CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Viazzi, S, Bahr, C, Schlageter-Tello, A, van Hertem, T, Romanini, CEB, Pluk, A, Halachmi, I, Lokhorst, C and Berckmans, D 2013 Analysis of individual classification of lame-ness using automatic measurement of back posture in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 96: 257–266. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5806CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallenbeck, A and Keeling, LJ 2013 Using data from electron-ic feeders on visit frequency and feed consumption to indicate tail biting outbreaks in commercial pig production. Journal of Animal Science 91: 2879–2884. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Werkheiser, I 2018 Precision livestock farming and farmers’ duties to livestock. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31: 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9720-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuliani, A, Mair, M, Kraševec, M, Lora, I, Brscic, M, Cozzi, G, Leeb, C, Zupan, M, Winckler, C and Bovolenta, S 2018 A sur-vey of selected animal-based measures of dairy cattle welfare in the Eastern Alps: Toward context-based thresholds. Journal of Dairy Science 101: 1428–1436. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13257CrossRefGoogle Scholar