Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:30:25.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Overall assessment of animal welfare: strategy adopted in Welfare Quality®

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

R Botreau*
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
I Veissier
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
P Perny
Affiliation:
LIP6, University of Paris 6, 104 Avenue du Président Kennedy, F-75016, Paris, France
*
* 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 is multidimensional; its assessment relies on complementary measures covering all dimensions. Welfare Quality® constructed a multicriteria evaluation model for its assessment at unit level (farms, slaughterhouses). Four welfare principles are distinguished (‘Good feeding’, ‘Good housing’, ‘Good health’, and ‘Appropriate behaviour’). An animal unit receives four principle scores (expressed on a 0-100 value scale). These scores are aggregated together to form the overall assessment by sorting animal units into predefined welfare categories boundaried by reference profiles. A unit is assigned to the welfare category above the profile it is considered at least as good as. Several assignment procedures were tested on a set of 69 dairy farms and compared with observers’ general impressions. The welfare categories, reference profiles and assignment procedure were defined in consultation with social scientists, animal scientists and stakeholders. Four welfare categories were defined: ‘Excellent’, ‘Enhanced’, ‘Acceptable’, and ‘Not classified’. The reference profiles were set at 80, 55 and 20, corresponding to aspiration values for Excellent, Enhanced and Acceptable. The assignment procedure resulted from a compromise between theoretical opinion on what should be considered excellent, enhanced or acceptable, and what can realistically be achieved in practice: to be assigned to a given category, a unit must reach its aspiration value on 2 or 3 of the 4 principles, and not score below the aspiration value for the next lowest category on the other principle(s). The model can be used for several purposes, including identifying welfare problems on a farm to advise farmers, or checking compliance with certification schemes.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Botreau, R, Bonde, M, Butterworth, A, Perny, P, Bracke, MBM, Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2007a Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare: Part 1, A review of existing methods. Animal 1: 11791187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Bracke, MBM, Perny, P, Butterworth, A, Capdeville, J, van Reenen, CG and Veissier, I 2007b Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare: Part 2, Analysis of constraints. Animal 1: 11881197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007c Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225228Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Capdeville, J, Perny, P and Veissier, I 2008 Multicriteria evaluation of animal welfare at farm level: an application of MCDA methodologies. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 33: 118Google Scholar
Fraser, D 2003 Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12: 433443Google Scholar
Mason, G and Mendl, M 1993 Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare 2: 301319Google Scholar
Moscarola, J and Roy, B 1977 Procédure automatique d'examen de dossiers fondée sur une segmentation trichotomique en présence de critères multiples. RAIRO Recherche Opérationnelle 11: 145173. [Title translation: Automatic file examination based on trichotomic segmentation in presence of multiple criteria]Google Scholar
Mousseau, V and Slowinski, R 1998 Inferring an ELECTRE TRI model from assignment examples. Journal of Global Optimization 12: 157174Google Scholar
Roy, B 1996 Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding p 57. Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I and Evans, A 2007 Rationale behind the Welfare Quality® assessment of animal welfare. Proceedings of the 2nd Welfare Quality® Stakeholder Conference pp 1922. 3-4 May 2007, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Forkman, B and Jones, B 2007 Proceedings of the Second Welfare Quality® Stakeholder Conference on Assuring Animal Welfare: From Societal Concerns to Implementation pp 7084. 3-4 May 2007, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar