Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:18:46.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Welfare assessment in extensive animal production systems: challenges and opportunities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

SP Turner*
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, EH26 0PH, UK
CM Dwyer
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, EH26 0PH, 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.

The welfare of animals in extensive systems has received little attention despite significant welfare challenges in these environments. Additionally, recent reform of Common Agricultural Policy payments in the EU have put increasing financial emphasis on farmers to attain improved levels of animal welfare, although suitable methodologies for assessing animal welfare are lacking. Assessment of welfare in intensive systems frequently involves assessing compliance with buildings and space requirements, as well as behavioural observations of animals in their home pens and monitoring of health records. In extensive systems, however, many of these measures are inappropriate or impossible. Environments are often heterogeneous, animals may be difficult to observe, individuals may not be identifiable and health records may be limited or completely lacking. The expression of fear by extensive animals, which rarely come into close contact with humans, often limits the value and practicality of behavioural observations as welfare indicators. Currently, welfare audits of extensive farms rely greatly on mortality and morbidity records to determine welfare status. Whilst these measures are important, the strong health monitoring bias does not adequately allow an interpretation of the emotional experiences of extensive animals. We suggest that developing methodologies based on assessing key features of the environment, such as handling facilities, assessment of the skills, knowledge and planning of the stockperson, and assessing the animal at key points in the production cycle when they are gathered may allow a workable methodology for assessing animal welfare to be developed for extensive systems.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Appleby, MC 1996 Can we extrapolate from intensive to extensive conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 2327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, CJ and Hurst, HL 1996 Welfare by design: The natural selection of welfare criteria. Animal Welfare 5: 405433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskin, LM 1993 Behavioural relations of man and domestic ungulates on pasture. In: Nichelmann M, Wierenga HK and Braun S (eds) Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology pp 174-178. Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X, Garel, JP, Mante, A and Le Neindre, P 1998 Beef calves react differently to different handlers according to the test situation and their previous interactions with their caretakers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 245257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 2003 The effect of positive or negative handling on the behavioural and physiological responses of nonlactating heifers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, CM 2004 How has the risk of predation shaped the behavioural responses of sheep to fear and distress? Animal Welfare 13: 269281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, CM and Bornett, HLI 2004 Chronic stress in sheep: assessment tools and their use in different management conditions. Animal Welfare 13: 293304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2003 Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; Medium-term prospects for agricultural markets and income in the European Union 2003-2010. www.europa.eu.intGoogle Scholar
Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute 2005 Agricultural Outlook pp 312344. Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute, Iowa State University and University of Missouri-Columbia: USA www.fapri.orgGoogle Scholar
Hutson, GD 1985 The influence of barley food rewards on sheep movement through a handling system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 263273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, LR 1996 Animal welfare and sustainability of production under extensive conditions: a non-EU perspective. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 4146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romeyer, A and Bouissou, MF 1992 Assessment of fear reactions in domestic sheep, and influence of breed and rearing condition. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34: 93119Google Scholar
Uetake, K, Yamaguchi, S and Tanaka, T 2000 Psychological effects of early gentling on the subsequent ease of handling in lambs. Animal Science Journal 71: 515519Google Scholar
Waterhouse, A 1996 Animal welfare and sustainability of production under extensive systems – A European perspective. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 2940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF, Main, DCJ and Whay, HR 2004 Welfare assessment: indices from clinical observation. Animal Welfare 13: S9398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, M, Fry, C and Carruthers, SP 1998 European agricultural policy and farm animal welfare. Food Policy 23: 305323CrossRefGoogle Scholar