Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T00:52:23.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare risk assessment: the benefits and common pitfalls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

LM Collins
LM Collins*
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Medical Biology Centre, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK
*
email: [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.

Risk is defined as a situation involving exposure to danger. Risk assessment by nature characterises the probability of a negative event occurring and quantifies the consequences of such an event. Risk assessment is increasingly being used in the field of animal welfare as a means of drawing comparisons between multiple welfare problems within and between species and identifying those that should be prioritised by policy-makers, either because they affect a large proportion of the population or because they have particularly severe consequences for those affected. The assessment of risk is typically based on three fundamental factors: intensity of consequences, duration affected by consequences and prevalence. However, it has been recognised that these factors alone do not give a complete picture of a hazard and its associated consequences. Rather, to get a complete picture, it is important to also consider information about the hazard itself: probability of exposure to the hazard and duration of exposure to the hazard. The method has been applied to a variety of farmed species (eg poultry, dairy cows, farmed fish), investigating housing, husbandry and slaughter procedures, as well as companion animals, where it has been used to compare inherited defects in pedigree dogs and horses. To what extent can we trust current risk assessment methods to get the priorities straight? How should we interpret the results produced by such assessments? Here, the potential difficulties and pitfalls of the welfare risk assessment method will be discussed: (i) the assumption that welfare hazards are independent; (ii) the problem of quantifying the model parameters; and (iii) assessing and incorporating variability and uncertainty into welfare risk assessments.

Keywords

animal welfareexpert opinionpolicyprevalencerisk assessmentwelfare hazard
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue S1: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Making animal improvements: Economic and other incentives and constraints’ Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UK, 2011 , May 2012 , pp. 73 - 79
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anderson, M, Jaykus, L-A, Beaulieu, S and Dennis, S 2011 Pathogen-produce pair attribution risk ranking tool to prioritise fresh produce commodity and pathogen combinations for further evaluation (P3ARRT). Food Control 22: 1865–1872. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.04.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, L, Diesel, G, Summers, JF, McGreevy, P and Collins, LM 2009 Inherited defects in pedigree dogs I: disorders that are related to breed standards. The Veterinary Journal 182: 402–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.08.033CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aven, T 2011 Quantitative Risk Assessment: The Scientific Platform. Cambridge University Press: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aven, T and Renn, O 2009 On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. Journal of Risk Research 12: 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669870802488883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettley, CD, Asher, L, Cardwell, JM and Collins, LM 2012 Inherited disorders in domestic horse breeds. Animal Welfare 21: 59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM and Johnson, KG 1993 Stress and Animal Welfare. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, LM 2005 Non-intrusive social preference indicators in broiler chickens. DPhil Thesis, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Collins, LM, Asher, L, Summers, JF and McGreevy, PD 2011 Getting priorities straight: Risk assessment and decision-making in the improvement of inherited disorders in pedigree dogs. The Veterinary Journal 189: 147–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.06.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, LM, Asher, L, Summers, JF, Diesel, G and McGreevy, PD 2010 Welfare epidemiology as a tool to assess the welfare impact of inherited defects on the pedigree dog population. Animal Welfare 19: 67–75Google Scholar
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2008 Animal welfare aspects of husbandry for farmed Atlantic salmon. Scientific Opinion of the panel on animal health and welfare. EFSA Journal 736: 1–31Google Scholar
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2009 Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed fish: rainbow trout. EFSA Journal 1013: 1–55Google Scholar
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2010a Scientific Opinion on the influence of genetic parameters on the welfare and the resistance to stress of commercial broilers. EFSA Journal 8: 1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2010b Scientific Opinion on welfare aspects of the management and housing of the grandparent and parent stocks raised and kept for breeding purposes. EFSA Journal 8: 1667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S, Moinard, C, Robson, SK, Baxter, E, Ormandy, E, Douglas, AJ, Seckl, JR, Russell, J and Lawrence, AB 2006 Programming the offspring of the pig by prenatal social stress: neuroendocrine activity and behaviour. Hormones and Behaviour 49: 68–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2005.05.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, MA, Mason, G and Pillay, N 2010 Early social experience influences the development of stereotypic behaviour in captive-born striped mice Rhabdomys. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123: 70–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.12.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G and Mendl, M 1993 Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare 2: 310–319Google Scholar
Mendl, M, Burman, OHP, Parker, R and Paul, E 2009 Cognitive bias as an indicator of animal emotion and welfare: emerging evidence and underlying mechanisms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118: 161–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menegazzi, J 1996 Measuring pain at baseline and over time. Annals of Emergency Medicine 27: 433–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(96)70224-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, CJ, Caplen, G, Edgar, J, Richards, G and Browne, WJ 2011 Relationships between multiple welfare indicators measured in individual chickens across different time-periods and environments. Animal Welfare 20: 133–143Google Scholar
OED (Oxford English Dictionary) 2010 Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition. Online Version June 2011. http://www.oed.com.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/view/Entry/166306. (Accessed 29 June 2011)Google Scholar
Palisade Corporation 2011 @RISK Software. Palisade Corporation: Middlesex, UK. www.palisade.comGoogle Scholar
Qu, X, Meng, Q and Li, S 2011 Ship collision risk assessment for the Singapore Strait. Accident Analysis and Prevention 43: 20302036. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.05.022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J 1991 Problems associated with the interpretation of physiological data in the assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 381–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(91)90170-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, KMD, Robson, SK, Donald, RD, Jarvis, S, Sandercock, DA, Scott, EM, Nolan, AM and Lawrence, AB 2009 Pre-natal stress amplifies the immediate behavioural responses to acute pain in piglets. Biology Letters 5: 452–454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0175CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, P 1999 Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis 19: 689–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00439.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Summers, JF, Diesel, G, Asher, L, McGreevy, PD and Collins, LM 2010 Inherited diseases in pedigree dogs II: Diseases not related to breed standards. The Veterinary Journal 183: 39–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vose, D 2008 Risk Analysis: A Quantitative Guide, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
Willner, P 2005 Chronic Mild Stress (CMS) revisited: consistency and behavioural-neurobiological concordance in the effects of CMS. Neuropsychobiology 52: 90–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000087097CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willner, P, Muscat, R and Papp, M 1992 Chronic mild stress-induced anhedonia: a realistic animal model of depression. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 16: 525–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(05)80194-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zabeo, A, Pizzol, L, Agostini, P, Critto, A, Giove, S and Marcomini, A 2011 Regional risk assessment for contaminated sites Part 1: Vulnerability assessment by multicriteria decision analysis. Environment International 37: 1295–1306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.05.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed