Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T06:26:42.055Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk assessment principles in evaluation of animal welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

MW Paton ,
PAJ Martin  and
AD Fisher
MW Paton*
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, 3 Baron-Hay Court, Perth, WA 6151, Australia
PAJ Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, 3 Baron-Hay Court, Perth, WA 6151, Australia
AD Fisher
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Welfare Science Centre, 250 Princes Highway, Werribee, VIC 3030, Australia CSIRO Livestock Industries, Locked Bag 1, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia
*
* 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.

Science forms a vital part of animal welfare assessment. However, many animal welfare issues are more influenced by public perception and political pressure than they are by science. The discipline of epidemiology has had an important role to play in examining the effects that management, environment and infrastructure have on animal-based measures of welfare. Standard multifactorial analyses have been used to investigate the effects of these various inputs on outcomes such as lameness. Such research has thereby established estimates of the probability of occurrence of these adverse welfare outcomes (AWOs) and given exposure to particular management inputs (welfare challenges). Welfare science has established various measures of the consequences of challenges to welfare. In this paper, a method is proposed for comparing the likely impact of different welfare challenges, incorporating both the probability of AWOs resulting from that welfare challenge, and their impacts or consequences if they do, using risk assessment principles. The rationale of this framework is explained. Its scope lies within a science-based risk assessment framework. This method does not provide objective measures or score of welfare without some context of comparison and does not provide new welfare measures but only provides a framework enabling objective comparison. Possible applications of this method include comparing the effects of specific management inputs, assigning priority to welfare challenges in order to inform allocation of resources for addressing those challenges, and comparisons of the lifetime welfare effects of management inputs or systems. The use of risk assessment methods in the animal welfare field can facilitate objective comparisons of situations that are currently assessed with some level of subjectivity. This methodology will require significant validation to determine its most productive use. The risk assessment approach could have a productive role in advancing quantitative assessment in animal welfare science.

Keywords

animal welfareepidemiologyimpactprobabilityrisk assessmentwelfare challenge
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , May 2013 , pp. 277 - 285
Copyright
© 2013 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

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
Bock, BB 2005 Farmers’ engagement in animal welfare, the case of pig producers. In: Butterworth, A (ed) Proceedings of Science and Society Improving Animal Welfare pp 41. 17-18 November 2005, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare 2007 Scientific opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission on the animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets. The EFSA Journal 572: 1–13Google Scholar
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare 2012 Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare. EFSA Journal 10: 2513. 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, AD, Giraudo, A, Martin, PAJ and Paton, MW 2013 The use of quantitative risk assessment to assess lifetime welfare outcomes for breech strike and mulesing management options in Merino sheep. Animal Welfare 22: 267–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.2.267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2003 Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12: 433–443Google Scholar
OIE 2012a Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Section 7: Animal Welfare. http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=titre_1.7.htmGoogle Scholar
OIE 2012b Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Section 2: Risk Analysis. http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=titre_1.2.htmGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Fitzpatrick, JL, Nolan, AM, Reid, J and Wiseman, ML 2003 Evaluation of welfare state based on interpretation of multiple indices. Animal Welfare 12: 457–468Google Scholar
Vose, D 2008 Risk Analysis: A Quantitative Guide, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 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