An on-farm investigation of beef suckler herds using an animal welfare index (AWI)

被引:12
|
作者
Mazurek, Mickael [1 ,2 ]
Prendiville, Daniel J.
Crowe, Mark A. [2 ]
Veissier, Isabelle [3 ]
Earley, Bernadette [1 ]
机构
[1] Anim & Grassland Res & Innovat Ctr, Anim & Biosci Res Dept, Dunsany, Meath, Ireland
[2] Univ Coll Dublin, Sch Agr, Food Sci & Vet Med & Conway Inst, Dublin 4, Ireland
[3] INRA, URH ACS, F-63122 St Genes Champanelle, France
关键词
PERFORMANCE; PROGENY; COWS;
D O I
10.1186/1746-6148-6-55
中图分类号
S85 [动物医学(兽医学)];
学科分类号
0906 ;
摘要
Background: Beef suckler farms (194 farms throughout 13 counties) were assessed once with housed cattle and once with cattle at grass using an animal welfare index (AWI). Twenty-three of the 194 farms were revisited a year later and re-evaluated using the AWI and the Tier-Gerechtheits-Index 35L/2000 (TGI35L/2000). Thirty-three indicators were collected in five categories: locomotion (5 indicators); social interactions (between animals) (7), flooring (5), environment (7) and Stockpersonship (9). Three indicators relating to the size of the farm were also collected. Improving animal welfare is an increasingly important aspect of livestock production systems predominantly due to increased consumer concern about the source of animal products. The objectives were (i) to evaluate animal welfare of Irish beef suckler herds using an animal welfare index (AWI), (ii) to examine correlations between parameters, how they influence the AWI and investigate the applicability of the parameters used, (iii) to investigate the impact of the activity of the farmer (full-time or part-time), the interest of the farmer and the number of animals on the AWI. Results: The mean AWI was 65% and ranged from 54% to 83%. The grazing period represented 16.5% of the total points of the AWI. Seventy percent of the farms were rated as "Very Good" or "Excellent". There was no difference (P > 0.05) in AWI between full-time and part-time farmers. Part-time farmers had greater (P = 0.01) "social interactions": calving (P = 0.03) and weaning (P < 0.001) scores. Full-time farmers had cleaner animals (P = 0.03) and their animals had less lameness (P = 0.01). The number of animals on-farm and the interest of the Stockperson were negatively and positively correlated (P = 0.001), respectively, with the AWI. A hierarchical classification was performed to examine how the indicators influenced the AWI. Conclusion: The AWI was easily applicable for an on-farm evaluation of welfare. The Stockpersonship was an important factor in determining the AWI (11% of the total variation) more specifically, the interest of the farmer. Part and full-time farming did not differ (P > 0.05) in AWI scores. This method could, with further development, be used in countries with both intensive and/or extensive production systems and would require substantially less resources than animal-based methods.
引用
下载
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] An on-farm investigation of beef suckler herds using an animal welfare index (AWI)
    Mickael Mazurek
    Daniel J Prendiville
    Mark A Crowe
    Isabelle Veissier
    Bernadette Earley
    BMC Veterinary Research, 6
  • [2] Instruments for on-farm animal welfare assessments in beef production
    Oehen, Bernadette
    Neff, Anet Spengler
    Leiber, Florian
    Schmid, Otto
    Hoffmann, Friederike
    Frueh, Barbara
    AGRARFORSCHUNG SCHWEIZ, 2015, 6 (03): : 102 - 109
  • [3] Development of a simplified on-farm animal health and welfare benchmarking tool for pig herds
    Wadepohl, K.
    Blaha, T.
    Van Gompel, L.
    Duarte, A. S. R.
    Nielsen, C. L.
    Saatkamp, H.
    Wagenaar, J. A.
    Meemken, D.
    Graveland, H.
    Schmitt, H.
    Heederik, D.
    Luiken, R. E. C.
    Mevius, D.
    van Essen, A.
    Gonzalez-Zorn, B.
    Moyano, G.
    Saunders, P.
    Chauvin, C.
    David, J.
    Battisti, A.
    Caprioli, A.
    Dewulf, J.
    Brandt, M.
    Aarestrup, F.
    Hald, T.
    Wasyl, D.
    Skarzynska, M.
    Zajac, M.
    Daskalov, H.
    Staerk, K.
    BERLINER UND MUNCHENER TIERARZTLICHE WOCHENSCHRIFT, 2019, 132 (11-12): : 504 - 512
  • [4] An Investigation into the Human Element of On-farm Animal Welfare Incidents in Ireland
    Devitt, Catherine
    Kelly, Patricia
    Blake, Martin
    Hanlon, Alison
    More, Simon J.
    SOCIOLOGIA RURALIS, 2015, 55 (04) : 400 - 416
  • [5] Can on-farm animal welfare explain relative production differences between dairy herds?
    Frondelius, L.
    Jauhiainen, L.
    Niskanen, O.
    Mughal, M.
    Sairanen, A.
    ANIMAL WELFARE, 2020, 29 (04) : 449 - 461
  • [6] ON-FARM ANIMAL-WELFARE LAW IN EUROPE - USING THE LAW
    JACKSON, WT
    APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR SCIENCE, 1988, 20 (1-2) : 165 - 173
  • [7] On-farm Animal Welfare Assessments and Audits in the UK
    Whay, Helen R.
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 41ST ANNUAL CONFERENCE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF BOVINE PRACTITIONERS, 2008, : 73 - 77
  • [8] INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT OF COPPER STATUS AND THERAPY ON FERTILITY IN BEEF SUCKLER HERDS
    PHILLIPPO, M
    HUMPHRIES, WR
    LAWRENCE, CB
    PRICE, J
    JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE, 1982, 99 (OCT): : 359 - 364
  • [9] ON-FARM ANIMAL WELFARE ASSESSMENT AND WELFARE IMPROVEMENT IN DAIRY CATTLE
    Winckler, Christoph
    AGROLIFE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, 2014, 3 (01): : 163 - 168
  • [10] Animal health and economic aspects of organically farmed beef suckler herds in Brandenburg
    Tenhagen, BA
    Hoffmann, A
    Heuwieser, W
    TIERARZTLICHE UMSCHAU, 1998, 53 (11): : 678 - +