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
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Reasons and risk factors for beef calf and youngstock on-farm mortality in extensive cow-calf herds
    Motus, K.
    Viltrop, A.
    Emanuelson, U.
    ANIMAL, 2018, 12 (09) : 1958 - 1966
  • [42] Ecologically Unequal Exchange and Farm Animal Welfare: An Empirical Analysis Using the Voiceless Animal Cruelty Index
    Briscoe, Michael D.
    Givens, Jennifer E.
    SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY, 2023, 64 (04): : 651 - 675
  • [43] Assessment of sheep welfare using on-farm registrations and performance data
    Stubsjoen, S. M.
    Hektoen, L.
    Valle, P. S.
    Janczak, A. M.
    Zanella, A. J.
    ANIMAL WELFARE, 2011, 20 (02) : 239 - 251
  • [44] On-farm evaluations of animal welfare indicators in laying hens housed with and without environmental enrichment
    Finke, Sandra
    Kemper, Nicole
    Spindler, Birgit
    ANNALS OF APPLIED BIOLOGY, 2024, 185 (01) : 49 - 57
  • [45] Comparison of Methods for Individual Killing of Broiler Chickens: A Matter of Animal Welfare and On-Farm Feasibility
    Watteyn, Anneleen
    Garmyn, An
    Ampe, Bart
    Jacobs, Leonie
    Moons, Christel P. H.
    Tuyttens, Frank A. M.
    FRONTIERS IN ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2022, 3
  • [46] Invited review: Animal-based indicators for on-farm welfare assessment for dairy goats
    Battini, M.
    Vieira, A.
    Barbieri, S.
    Ajuda, I.
    Stilwell, G.
    Mattiello, S.
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2014, 97 (11) : 6625 - 6648
  • [47] Can we measure human-animal interactions in on-farm animal welfare assessment?: Some unresolved issues
    de Passillé, AM
    Rushen, J
    APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR SCIENCE, 2005, 92 (03) : 193 - 209
  • [48] On-farm evaluation of the Salmon Welfare Index Model (SWIM 1.0): theoretical and practical considerations
    Folkedal, O.
    Pettersen, J. M.
    Bracke, M. B. M.
    Stien, L. H.
    Nilsson, J.
    Martins, C.
    Breck, O.
    Midtlyng, P. J.
    Kristiansen, T.
    ANIMAL WELFARE, 2016, 25 (01) : 135 - 149
  • [49] Conducting sensitive social science research about on-farm animal welfare incidents: challenges and approaches
    Devitt, C.
    Kelly, P.
    Blake, M.
    Hanlon, A.
    More, S. J.
    ANIMAL WELFARE, 2016, 25 (03) : 319 - 323
  • [50] Efficacy of targeted therapy of environmental mastitis using on-farm culturing in small dairy herds
    Prasek, Josef
    Reznickova, Bohdana
    Mala, Gabriela
    Novak, Pavel
    Smola, Jiri
    ACTA VETERINARIA BRNO, 2024, 93 (01) : 3 - 10