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
  • [21] Animal welfare index: an animal welfare evaluation of beef production farms in Ireland
    Lawrence, Peter
    McGee, Mark
    Earley, Bernadette
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL RESEARCH, 2022, 50 (01) : 643 - 655
  • [22] A simple method for on-farm evaluation of sheep welfare using animal-based indicators
    Marcone, Giovanni
    Carnovale, Francesca
    Arney, David
    De Rosa, Giuseppe
    Napolitano, Fabio
    SMALL RUMINANT RESEARCH, 2022, 208
  • [23] On-farm mortality, causes and risk factors in Estonian beef cow-calf herds
    Motus, Kerli
    Reimus, Kaari
    Orro, Toomas
    Viltrop, Arvo
    Emanuelson, Ulf
    PREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE, 2017, 139 : 10 - 19
  • [24] Using on-farm records to evaluate the reproductive performance in dairy herds
    Iwersen, M.
    Klein, D.
    Drillich, M.
    TIERAERZTLICHE PRAXIS AUSGABE GROSSTIERE NUTZTIERE, 2012, 40 (04): : 264 - 274
  • [25] Animal welfare assessment of on-farm euthanasia methods for individual, heavy turkeys
    Jacobs, Leonie
    Bourassa, Dianna, V
    Boyal, Ranjit S.
    Harris, Caitlin E.
    Josselson, L. Nicole Bartenfeld
    Campbell, Andrew
    Anderson, Gracie
    Buhr, R. Jeff
    POULTRY SCIENCE, 2021, 100 (03)
  • [26] Qualitative assessment of animal behaviour as an on-farm welfare-monitoring tool
    Wemelsfelder, F
    Lawrence, AB
    ACTA AGRICULTURAE SCANDINAVICA SECTION A-ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2001, 51 : 21 - 25
  • [27] Equine on-farm welfare assessment: a review of animal-based indicators
    Costa, E. Dalla
    Murray, L.
    Dai, F.
    Canali, E.
    Minero, M.
    ANIMAL WELFARE, 2014, 23 (03) : 323 - 341
  • [28] Where Is On-farm Animal Welfare in the United States Headed? A Canadian Perspective
    Brown, Jennifer
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2021, 99 : 9 - 9
  • [29] On-farm conditions that compromise animal welfare that can be monitored at the slaughter plant
    Grandin, Temple
    MEAT SCIENCE, 2017, 132 : 52 - 58
  • [30] To inspect, to motivate - or to do both? A dilemma for on-farm inspection of animal welfare
    Anneberg, I.
    Vaarst, M.
    Sandoe, P.
    ANIMAL WELFARE, 2013, 22 (02) : 185 - 194