Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T18:38:43.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of sheep welfare using on-farm registrations and performance data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

SM Stubsjøen ,
L Hektoen ,
PS Valle ,
AM Janczak  and
AJ Zanella
SM Stubsjøen*
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, PO Box 8146 Dep, NO-0033 Oslo, Norway Animalia, Norwegian Meat and Poultry Research Centre, PO Box 396, Økern, NO-0513 Oslo, Norway
L Hektoen
Affiliation:
Animalia, Norwegian Meat and Poultry Research Centre, PO Box 396, Økern, NO-0513 Oslo, Norway
PS Valle
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, PO Box 8146 Dep, NO-0033 Oslo, Norway Molde University College, PO Box 2110, NO-6402 Molde, Norway
AM Janczak
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, PO Box 8146 Dep, NO-0033 Oslo, Norway
AJ Zanella
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, PO Box 8146 Dep, NO-0033 Oslo, Norway The Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, PO Box 5003, NO-1432 Aas, Norway Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College (SAC), SAC Roslin Building, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9P6, UK
*
* 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.

Farm animal welfare is a societal concern, and the need exists for scientific protocols to assess welfare. This paper describes the development of a protocol to assess the welfare of sheep (Ovis aries) and its application in 36 farms in Norway. There were two parts to the protocol; the animal- and resource-based measurements obtained during farm visits, and the analysis of production data. Data collection took place during visits to 36 farms in the lambing season (April-May) in 2007 (n = 11) and 2008 (n = 25). A fear test was conducted, and ewes were scored on a scale from 0 to 3. Forty-one percent of the ewes tested had a fear score of 3, indicating the lowest level of fear. Mean (± SD) fear score across farms were 1.9 (± 0.5). Higher fearfulness was found to be associated with lower ewe body condition scores (BCS). Mean (± SD) BCS across farms was 2.6 (± 0.6). A relatively large proportion of the ewes had a BCS of 2 (41%), which may be associated with an increased risk of nutritional stress, disease and low productivity. Eight farms had more than 5% (range 5.4-24.4%) of lamb carcases categorised in the lowest conformation class, which may be an indication of a welfare problem. This study is the first step in the development and validation of a welfare assessment protocol for sheep, and further research is needed to assess the overall reliability of the protocol.

Keywords

animal-based measuresanimal welfareproductionresource-based measuressheepwelfare assessment protocol
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , May 2011 , pp. 239 - 251
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anonymous 2008 Annual Report for the Norwegian Sheep Recording System pp 31. Animalia, Norwegian Meat and Poultry Research Centre: NorwayGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ 2008 International cooperation in animal welfare: the Welfare Quality® Project. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50: S10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Geers, R, Miele, M and Veissier, I 2003 Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12: 445–455Google Scholar
Boissy, A, Manteuffel, G, Jensen, MB, Moe, RO, Spruijt, B, Keeling, LJ, Winckler, C, Forkman, B, Dimitrov, I, Langbein, J, Bakken, M, Veissier, I and Aubert, A 2007 Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare: stress and welfare in farm animals. Physiology and Behaviour 92: 375–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bøe, KE and Simensen, E 2003 Simple buildings for sheep: with emphasis on health and welfare. In: Proceedings of the seminar ‘Low-cost housing for ruminants’. 13-14 October 2003, Sørmarka, NorwayGoogle Scholar
Bristol Welfare Assurance Programme (BWAP) 2009 http://www.vetschool.bris.ac.uk/animalwelfare (Accessed 09.12.09)Google Scholar
Broom, DM 1991 Animal welfare concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4176CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, L, Yakubu, DP and Symonds, ME 1997 Influence of maternal bodyweight on size, conformation and survival of newborn lambs. Reproduction Fertility and Development 9: 509–514CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Commission Regulation (EEC) 1993 Laying down detailed rules for the Community scale for the classification of carcasses of ovine animals No 461/93. EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Council Regulation (EEC) 1992 Concerning the Community scale for the classification of carcasses of ovine animals and determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses and extending No 2137/92. Regulation (EEC) EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
de Passillé, AM and Rushen, J 2005 Can we measure human-animal interactions in on-farm animal welfare assessment? Some unresolved issues. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92: 193–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dohoo, I, Martin, W and Stryhn, H 2003 Veterinary Epidemiologic Research. Screening and Diagnostic Tests pp 91–92. AVC Inc: PEI, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH and Fraser, D 1997 Animal Welfare. Understanding Animal Welfare pp 19–31. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
English, PR 1991 Stockmanship, empathy and pig behaviour. Pig Veterinary Journal 26: 56–66Google Scholar
Erhard, HW, Fàbrega, E, Stanworth, G and Elston, DA 2004 Assessing dominance in sheep in a competitive situation: level of motivation and test duration. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85: 277–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1993 Report on Priorities for Animal Welfare, Research and Development. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Fisher, A and Heal, J 2001 Carcass classification. Livestock Knowledge Transfer, a DEFRA initiative. Beef and Sheep p 314. ADAS/IGER/University of Bristol: Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Gray, JA 1987 The Psychology of Fear and Stress. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Breuer, K, Barnett, JL, Coleman, GJ and Matthews, LR 1995 Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology pp 175–176. 3-5 August 1995, Exeter, UKGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB 1997 Fear and Distress. Animal Welfare pp 75–87. CABI International: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Keeling, L and Veissier, I 2005 Developing a monitoring system to assess welfare quality in cattle, pigs and chickens. In: Science and Society Improving Animal Welfare. Welfare Quality Conference Proceedings pp 46–50. 17-18 November 2005, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Kjaernes, U and Lavik, R 2007 Farm animal welfare and food consumption practices: Results from surveys in seven countries. In: Kjaernes, U, Miele, M and Roex, J (eds) Attitudes of Consumers, Retailers and Producers to Farm Animal Welfare. Welfare Quality Report No 2. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UK.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: 451–458Google Scholar
Lankin, V 1997 Factors of diversity of domestic behaviour in sheep. Genetics Selection Evolution 29: 73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensink, BJ, Boissy, A and Veissier, I 2000 The relationship between farmers’ attitude and behaviour towards calves, and productivity of veal units. Annales de Zootechnie 49: 313–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molony, V and Kent, JE 1997 Assessment of acute pain in farm animals using behavioural and physiological measurements. Journal of Animal Science 75: 266–272CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radostits, OM, Blood, DC and Gay, CC 1994 Veterinary Medicine: A Textbook of the Diseases of Cattle, Sheep, Pigs, Goats & Horses. Baillière Tindall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Rousing, T 2003 Welfare assessment in dairy cattle herds with loose-housing cubicle systems; development and evaluation of welfare indicators. PhD Thesis, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Aarhus, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Taylor, AA and de Passilé, AM 1999 Domestic animals’ fear of humans and its effect on their welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 285–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, A 1984 Body condition scoring of sheep. In Practice 6: 91–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sevi, A, Casamassima, A, Pulina, G and Pazzona, A 2007 Factors of welfare reduction in dairy sheep and goats. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8: 81–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubbings, LA 2007 Diseases of Sheep. Ewe Management for Reproduction p 60. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Vatn, S, Røe, M and Nafstad, O 2003 Underfôring av lam, fortsatt et dyrevelferdsproblem? pp 38–41. Kjøttets tilstand, Fagsenteret for kjøtt. [Title translation: Underfeeding of lambs, still an animal welfare problem?]Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Boivin, X, Pedersen, V, Tosi, M-V, Janczak, AM, Visser, EK and Jones, RB 2006 Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 185–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR 2007 The journey to animal welfare improvement. Animal Welfare 16: 117–122Google Scholar