Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:22:37.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of Conjoint Analysis to Weight Welfare Assessment Measures for Broiler Chickens in UK Husbandry Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

S M Haslam  and
S C Kestin
S M Haslam*
Affiliation:
Division of Farm Animal Science, School of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
S C Kestin
Affiliation:
Division of Farm Animal Science, School of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, 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.

For the purposes of farm animal welfare assessment, Farm Assurance Schemes and enforcement of animal welfare legislation, a requirement arises for a unitary welfare score which may be the amalgamation of several animal welfare measures. In amalgamating measures, weighting to reflect the importance of the individual measures for animal welfare is desirable. A study is described in which conjoint analysis was used to collect and evaluate expert opinion to weight a number of welfare assessment measures for the importance of each to broiler welfare in UK husbandry systems. The statistically combined opinion of the experts consulted revealed the weighting factors of the welfare assessment measures selected, with respect to the importance for bird welfare, to be: 0.26 for mortality levels on the growing unit; 0.24 for the level of leg weakness; 0.16 for the level of hock burn; 0.14 for stocking density; 0.10 for enrichment provision; and, 0.10 for the level of emergency provision. Criteria for selection of welfare assessment measures for use in the field, and level of agreement between experts consulted for the study, are discussed. It is concluded that weightings of welfare assessment measures by expert opinion, using conjoint analysis, might be used in the construction of a welfare index for assessment of broiler welfare on-farm. Such an index should not be considered as a ‘gold standard’ for welfare measurement but as an evolving standard for welfare assessment, based on current knowledge.

Keywords

animal welfarebroiler chickenconjoint analysiswelfare assessment measureswelfare index
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2003 , pp. 669 - 675
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Alban, L, Ersboll, A K, Bennedsgaard, T W and Johnsen, P F 2001 Validation of welfare assessment methods at herd level: an example. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 99–102 (Suppl)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartussek, H 2001 An historical account of the development of the animal needs index ANI 35L as part of the attempt to promote and regulate farm animal welfare in Austria: an example of the interaction between animal welfare science and society. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 34–41 (Suppl)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, M B M, Metz, J H M and Spruijt, B M 2001 Development of a decision support system to assess farm animal welfare. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 17–20 (Suppl)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, N 1990 Dietary factors influence ascites syndrome in broilers. Feedstuffs December 24: 14–15Google Scholar
Den Ouden, M, Nijsing, J T, Dijkhuizen, A A and Huirne, R B M 1997 Economic optimization of pork-marketing chains: I. Model input on animal welfare and costs. Livestock Production Science 48: 23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1998 Report on the welfare of broiler breeders. FAWC: Surbiton, UKGoogle Scholar
Hörning, B 2001 The assessment of housing conditions of dairy cows in littered loose housing systems using three scoring methods. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 42–47 (Suppl)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, P F, Johanesson, T and Sandøe, P 2001 Assessment of animal welfare at group level: many goals, many methods. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 26–33 (Suppl)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kestin, S C, Adams, J M and Gregory, N G 1994 Leg weakness in broilers, a review of studies using gait scoring. In: Proceedings of the 9th European Poultry Conference pp 203–206. World's Poultry Science Association: Glasgow, UKGoogle Scholar
Kirkden, R, Broom, D M, Bradshaw, H, Manser, C and Wise, D R 1996 Broiler chicken production and welfare. Cambridge University Animal Welfare Information Centre, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Mattison, D R 1992 Protecting reproductive and developmental health under proposition 65 — public health approaches to knowledge, imperfect knowledge, and the absence of knowledge. Reproductive Toxicology 6: 1–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maurice, M, Horst, H S, van Horne, P L M and Dijkhuizen, A A 1999 Economic analysis of animal welfare aspects in the broiler production chain. In: Goodall E A and Thrusfield M V (eds) The Proceedings of the Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine pp 183–196Google Scholar
McGovern, R H, Feddes, J J R, Robinson, F E and Hanson, J A 1999 Growth performance, carcass characteristics, and the incidence of ascites in broilers in response to feed restriction and litter oiling. Poultry Science 78: 522–528CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, L L, Seigel, P B and Dunnington, E A 1992 Inheritance of antibody response to sheep erythrocytes in lines of chickens divergently selected for 56-day body weight and their crosses. Poultry Science 71: 47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrie, A and Watson, P 1999 Sampling and sampling distributions. In: Statistics for Veterinary and Animal Science, Chapter 11, pp 148. Blackwell Science Ltd: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Quereshi, M A and Havenstein, G B 1994 A comparison of the immune performance of a 1991 commercial broiler with a 1991 randombred strain when fed ‘typical’ 1957 broiler rations. Poultry Science 73: 1805–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauw, W M, Kanis, E, Noordhuizen, E N and Gromers, F J 1998 Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency of farm animals. Livestock Production Science 56: 15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousing, T, Bonde, M and Sorensen, J T 2001 Aggregating welfare indicators into an operational welfare assessment system: a bottom up approach. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 53–57 (Suppl)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, M and Farrer, S 2000 Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. British Medical Journal 320: 1530–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanotra, G S, Lund, J D, Ersboll, A K, Peterson, J S and Vestergaard, K S 2001 Monitoring leg problems in broilers: a survey of commercial broiler production in Denmark. World's Poultry Science Journal 57(1): 55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlosberg, A, Berman, E, Benheim, U and Plavnik, I 1991 Controlled early feed restriction as a potential means of restricting the incidence of ascites in broilers. Avian Diseases 35: 681–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, E M, Nolan, A M and Fitzpatrick, J L 2001 Conceptual and methodological issues related to welfare assessment: a framework for measurement. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 5–10 (Suppl)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SPSS 1990 SPSS Reference Guide. SPSS Inc: Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
SPSS 1997 Conjoint Analysis Manual, Version 8.0. SPSS Inc: Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Sundrum, A, Anderson, R and Postler, G 1994 Tiergerechtheitsindex-200. Institut fur Organischen Landbau: Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Sutmoller, P and Wrathall, A E 1996 A quantitative assessment of the risk of transmission of foot-and-mouth disease, blue tongue and vesicular stomatitis by embryo transfer in cattle. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 32: 111–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, J 1995 Animal Welfare: A Cool Eye Towards Eden p 11. Blackwell Science: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Winckler, C and Willen, S 2001 The reliability and repeatability of a Lameness Scoring System as indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 103–107 (Suppl)CrossRefGoogle Scholar