Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T03:28:55.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Experimental welfare assessment and on-farm application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

SA Edwards*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, University of Newcastle, King George VI Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
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.

The assessment of animal welfare is a complex subject which gives rise to divergent views and debate. It is generally accepted that scientific welfare assessment must involve multidisciplinary approaches, and that to interpret results unambiguously, a high level of control over the experimental conditions is required. Such considerations would appear to militate against attempts to measure welfare in a practical farm situation, where systems are relatively uncontrolled and contain many confounding factors to complicate interpretation. In consequence, fundamental welfare scientists sometimes consider that on-farm welfare assessment is of limited value. However, adherents emphasise that on-farm application is the final objective of all livestock welfare science endeavours, and also gives unique options for large-scale population studies and access to a diversity of environmental circumstances. On-farm welfare assessment not only provides an opportunity for extending knowledge on animal requirements, but is also a necessary tool in the growing requirement to assess and certify animal welfare status for legislators and consumers. However, the economic and time limitations, combined with difficulty of close access to individual animals, restrict the range and detail of possible measures. It is also essential that a consensus exists that the measurements taken are objective and meaningful to stakeholders. These constraints have tended to drive the techniques used in Farm Assurance schemes towards assessment of resource provision and management records. However, animal-based measures of health and behaviour are now being more widely explored, and the validation and standardisation of simple integrative measures for such approaches is an important future development.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Buckner, LJ, Edwards, SA and Bruce, JM 1998 Behaviour and shelter use by outdoor sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57: 6980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Koning, R 1985 On the well-being of dry sows. Doctoral thesis, Utrecht University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, CM and Lawrence, AB 1999 Ewe-ewe and ewe-lamb behaviour in a hill and a lowland breed of sheep: A study using embryo transfer. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61: 319334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, SA 2000 Alternative housing for dry sows: system studies or component analysis? In: Blokhuis HJ, Ekkel ED and Wechsler B (eds) Improving health and welfare in animal production. EAAP Publication 102. Wageningen Pers: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
English, PR and Edwards, SA 1999 Animal Welfare. In: Straw BE, D'Allaire S, Mengeling WL and Taylor DJ (eds) Diseases of Swine (8th edition). Iowa State University Press: Ames, Iowa, USAGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1993 Second report on priorities for research and development in farm animal welfare. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: Tolworth, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2003 Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12: 433443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Hansen, C 1987 The influence of inconsistent handling by humans on the behaviour, growth and corticosteroids of young pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17: 245252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hessing, MJC, Hagelso, AM, Schouten, WGP, Wiepkema, PR and van Beek, JAM 1994 Individual behavioural and physiological strategies in pigs. Physiology and Behaviour 55: 3946Google ScholarPubMed
Huber-Eicher, B and Audige, L 1999 Analysis of risk factors for the occurrence of feather pecking in laying hen growers. British Poultry Science 40: 599604CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, MB, Pedersen, LJ and Ladewig, J 2004 The use of demand functions to assess behavioural priorities in farm animals. Animal Welfare 13: S27S32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB and Waddington, D 1992 Modification of fear in domestic chicks, Gallus gallus domesticus, via regular handling and early environmental enrichment. Animal Behaviour 43: 10211033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB, Blokhuis, HJ, Beuving, G 1995 Open-field and tonic immobility responses in domestic chicks of two genetic lines differing in their propensity to feather peck. British Poultry Science 36: 525530Google ScholarPubMed
Knol, EF, Ducro, BJ, van Arendonk, JAM and van der Lende, T 2002 Direct, maternal and nurse sow genetic effects on farrowing-, pre-weaning- and total piglet survival. Livestock Production Science 73: 153164Google Scholar
Lawrence, AB, Petherick, JC, McLean, K, Deans, L, Chirnside, J, Vaughan, A, Clutton, E and Terlouw, EMC 1994 The effect of environment on behaviour, plasma cortisol and prolactin in parturient sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 313330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molony, V, Kent, JE and Robertson, IS 1995 Assessment of acute and chronic pain after different methods of castration of calves. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 3348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Möstl, E and Palme, R 2002 Hormones as indicators of stress. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 23: 6774CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J 1996 Using aversion learning techniques to assess mental state, suffering and welfare of farm animals. Journal of Animal Science 74: 19901995CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, K, Chennells, DJ, Campbell, FM, Hunt, B, Armstrong, D, Taylor, L, Gill, BP and Edwards, SA 2006 The welfare of finishing pigs in two contrasting housing systems: fully slatted versus straw bedded accommodation. Livestock Science 103: 104115Google Scholar
Valros, A, Ahlstrom, S, Rintala, H, Hakkinen, T and Saloniemi, H 2004 The prevalence of tail damage in slaughter pigs in Finland and associations to carcass condemnations. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A 54: 213219CrossRefGoogle Scholar