On-farm welfare monitoring of small ruminants

Review: Towards an integrated concept of animal welfare

Animal welfare is an important field of study due to animal sentience, yet there is to date no consensus on the definition of animal welfare. There have been four key developments in the field of animal welfare science since its birth: the theoretical and empirical study of affective states, and hence our understanding thereof, has increased; there has been a shift from a primary focus on unpleasant experiences towards an inclusion of pleasant experiences; there has been an increasing mention and investigation of the notion of cumulation of experiences in time, and with this, the importance of the time component of both affective states and animal welfare has come forward. Following others, we define welfare as a balance or cumulation of pleasant and unpleasant experiences over time. The time period of welfare depends on when welfare considerations are necessary, and may range from the duration of single and relatively short-term experiences to the entire life of an animal. We further propose that animal welfare conceptualised in this way can be assessed at three levels: level 1 represents the assessment of the environment and 'internal factors' such as health and personality, which interact in their impact on the affective experiences of animals; level 2 represents the assessment of affective states; and level 3 represents the assessment of the balance or cumulation of these affective states in time. The advancement of research necessitates studies to be more or less comparable, and this would be facilitated by researchers mentioning which concept of animal welfare they are basing their work on, at which level of assessment they are working, which assumptions they might be drawing from to infer welfare and which time period of interest they are focusing on, even if this is not mirrored by the timing of the assessment in practice. Assessment at levels 2 and 3 still needs much study, at both the theoretical and empirical levels, including agreements on validation tools.

Use of Antibiotics Against Bacterial Infections on Dairy Sheep and Goat Farms: Patterns of Usage and Associations with Health Management and Human Resources

The objectives of the study were (a) to describe the patterns of antibiotic usage against four major clinical problems and (b) to evaluate factors that were associated with their use on small ruminant farms. Sheep and goat farmers mostly administered the antibiotics to animals at the dose prescribed (80.4%) and observed the necessary withdrawal period (98.7%), but fewer farmers (22.3%) weighed the animals to calculate their bodyweight before antibiotic administration. For the treatment of clinical mastitis, oxytetracycline, penicillin and streptomycin were the antibiotics used more frequently; 2.03 different antibiotics were used per sheep flock and 2.06 per goat herd, most frequently administered in injectable forms (88.8% of farms). In cases of abortion, oxytetracycline was administered more frequently; 1.12 different antibiotics were used per sheep flock and 1.03 per goat herd. In 94 farms (21.2%), routine administration of antibiotics was performed to newborns; oxytetracycline and ampicillin were administered more often. For the treatment of pneumonia in newborns, oxytetracycline, penicillin and tulathromycin were used more frequently; 1.33 antibiotics were used per sheep flock and 1.29 per goat herd. For the treatment of diarrhoea in lambs and kids, oxytetracycline, amoxicillin and penicillin were the antibiotics used more frequently; 1.34 antibiotics were used per sheep flock and 1.59 per goat herd. Results of multivariable analyses indicated 16 variables associated with the various outcomes for usage of antibiotics for the treatment of the above clinical problems. Of these, 11 variables were associated with the farmers: education of farmers was significant for three outcomes; the age, the experience, the professional involvement and farming family tradition of farmers and the daily period spent at the farm were each significant for one outcome.

Animal-Based Indicators for On-Farm Welfare Assessment in Sheep

Simple Summary

As we keep and use sheep, we need to be able to assess their welfare and deal with welfare problems as they arise. To assess welfare, a comprehensive protocol based on valid and feasible indicators is needed. The aim of this study was to review the scientific literature and identify protocols and indicators for assessing the welfare of sheep. We identified promising protocols, well-known and established indicators, such as lameness or body condition score, as well as novel indicators that still need to be evaluated to prove their validity, such as pruritic behaviour or resting time. This review provides a starting point for the development of valid and feasible on-farm protocols using animal-based indicators to assess sheep welfare.

Abstract

The value society assigns to animal welfare in agricultural productions is increasing, resulting in ever-enhancing methods to assess the well-being of farm animals. The aim of this study was to review the scientific literature to obtain an overview of the current knowledge on welfare assessments for sheep and to extract animal-based welfare indicators as well as welfare protocols with animal-based indicators. By title and abstract screening, we identified five protocols and 53 potential indicators from 55 references. Three out of the five protocols include animal-based as well as resource-based indicators. All of them were assessed as being practicable on-farm but lacking reliability. Some of the single indicators are endorsed by the literature and widely used in the field like assessment of behaviour, lameness or body condition score. Others (e.g., Faffa Malan Chart FAMACHA©, dag score or pain assessment) are regularly mentioned in the literature, but their reliability and usefulness are still subject of discussion. Several indicators, such as pruritic behaviour, eye condition, lying time or tooth loss are relatively new in the literature and still lack evidence for their validity and usefulness. This literature review serves as a starting point for the development of valid and practicable welfare protocols for sheep.

The welfare of ewes on stud and meat farms in southern Brazil

Context Brazilian sheep production chain includes farms that raise sheep to produce breeding rams and ewes, i.e. stud farms, and farms that raise sheep to breed lambs for meat. However, there are few studies on sheep welfare in Brazil. Aims To assess the welfare of sheep in Brazil, comparing ewes on stud and meat farms. Methods Seven stud (S) and 10 meat (M) farms were assessed in the metropolitan regions of Curitiba and Castro, State of Parana, using the Animal Welfare Indicators protocol for sheep. Results of both groups were compared using Fisher’s exact test for yes or no questions, Mann–Whitney test for non-normal data and linear mixed models to check each indicator, with significance level at 0.05. Key results Main characteristics that reduce sheep welfare were low body condition scores (40.6% on both groups), lesions to the legs (S = 45.9%, M = 56.0%), and pain induced by tail docking, with most ewes having a short tail length (S = 79.1%, M = 85.6%). Comparing both groups, ewes from stud farms presented less light faecal soiling (S = 1.3%, M = 27.0%), less faecal soiling and dags (S = 0%, M = 15.7%), better fleece cleanliness (S = 64.8%, M = 19.8%), fewer lesions to the head and neck (S = 3.2%, M = 12.3%), and higher frequency of panting (S = 28.0%, M = 1.5%). Conclusions We were able to identify the main welfare restrictions in both stud and meat farms, and the hypothesis that welfare is higher on stud farms was not confirmed. Implications The identification of on-farm welfare concerns as well as the differences between stud and meat farms allows for readily applicable recommendations, tailored to improve welfare within the prevalent sheep-rearing systems in southern Brazil. This experience with the Animal Welfare Indicators protocol for sheep in the Brazilian context may facilitate further studies and implementation of permanent welfare monitoring and action plans.

Iceberg Indicators for Animal Welfare in Rural Sheep Farms Using the Five Domains Model Approach

Simple Summary

Animal welfare is difficult to quantify, especially among farmers, in extensive rural sheep farms where there is a low level of animal interaction and a lack of technology. In this study, we searched for iceberg indicators of animal welfare using the Five Domains Model approach, and studied the relationship among sheep flight distance, sheep handling training and job satisfaction in extensive rural sheep systems. A structured survey was used to obtain socio-demographical, job satisfaction and sheep handling training data. A full animal welfare evaluation was performed on all farms; furthermore, a health status examination was also made in which blood and stool samples were taken. Four iceberg indicators were found with the potential to predict overall animal welfare scores on farms, and one to study state of mind in extensive rural sheep systems, as well as interactions among job satisfaction, training in sheep handling and sheep mind state.

Abstract

Animal welfare for sheep in extensive rural farms is difficult to quantify among rural farmers due to several factors, including the lack of technology and the low level of interaction they have with the animals. The purpose of this study was to search for animal-based iceberg indicators using the Five Domains Model approach and study the relationship between sheep reactive behavior (flight distance), sheep handling training and farmers job satisfaction. Thirteen extensive commercial dual-purpose sheep farms (n = 520 animals) were evaluated in Marulanda, Caldas (Colombia, South America). On-farm Animal Welfare Indicators (AWIN) were assessed using an adapted version of this protocol. Socio-demographic characteristics, sheep handling training and job satisfaction were evaluated using a structured interview. Blood and stool samples were taken to determine Fecal Egg Count and Packed Cell Volume. Bivariate regression models were used to find animal-based indicators that predicted Nutrition, Ambience, Health and Behavior welfare domains, and a Qualitative Behavior Analysis was used for mind state domain analysis. Body condition score (BCS) (p = 0.001), fleece cleanliness (p = 0.03), FAMACHA© Score (p = 0.05), and flight distance in meters (p = 0.19) were found to be indicators, and were useful for predicting overall welfare assessment (R2 = 0.85) on theses farms. Regarding mind welfare domain, Qualitative Behavioral Assessment found two principal components (PC) that explained 82% and 67% of the variance, and described emotional valence and energy levels of sheep, respectively. Sheep handling training (β = −8.75, p = 0.004) and job satisfaction (β = −7.5, p = 0.013) had a negative association with the average flock flight distance. Spearman’s rank correlations were significant (p < 0.001) between Fecal Egg Count, Packed Cell Volume, FAMACHA© Score (FS), Body Weight (BW) and, BCS. The strongest association was observed between Packed Cell Volume (PCV) and Fecal Egg Count (FEC) (r = −0.43), also FS was correlated with PCV (r = −0.28) and FEC (r = 0.21), and BCS was correlated with weight (r = 0.32). We suggest that these animal-based indicators could be useful as iceberg indicators for extensive sheep production systems and may set the ground for more research in small extensive sheep farms to develop strategies to find welfare problems and solutions.

How Can We Assess Positive Welfare in Ruminants?

Until now, most research has focused on the development of indicators of negative welfare, and relatively few studies provide information on valid, reliable, and feasible indicators addressing positive aspects of animal welfare. However, a lack of suffering does not guarantee that animals are experiencing a positive welfare state. The aim of the present review is to identify promising valid and reliable animal-based indicators for the assessment of positive welfare that might be included in welfare assessment protocols for ruminants, and to discuss them in the light of the five domains model, highlighting possible gaps to be filled by future research. Based on the existing literature in the main databases, each indicator was evaluated in terms of its validity, reliability, and on-farm feasibility. Some valid indicators were identified, but a lot of the validity evidence is based on their absence when a negative situation is present; furthermore, only a few indicators are available in the domains of Nutrition and Health. Reliability has been seldom addressed. On-farm feasibility could be increased by developing specific sampling strategies and/or relying on the use of video- or automatic-recording devices. In conclusion, several indicators are potentially available (e.g., synchronisation of lying and feeding, coat or fleece condition, qualitative behaviour assessment), but further research is required.