1
|
Michelsen AM, Hakansson F, Pedersen Lund V, Kirchner MK, Otten ND, Denwood M, Rousing T, Houe H, Forkman B. Identifying areas of animal welfare concern in different production stages in Danish pig herds using the Danish Animal Welfare Index (DAWIN). Anim Welf 2023; 32:e47. [PMID: 38487445 PMCID: PMC10936401 DOI: 10.1017/awf.2023.37] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2023] [Revised: 04/24/2023] [Accepted: 04/25/2023] [Indexed: 03/17/2024]
Abstract
Animal welfare is of increasing public interest, and the pig industry in particular is subject to much attention. The aim of this study was to identify and compare areas of animal welfare concern for commercial pigs in four different production stages: (1) gestating sows and gilts; (2) lactating sows; (3) piglets; and (4) weaner-to-finisher pigs. One welfare assessment protocol was developed for each stage, comprising of between 20 and 29 animal welfare measures including resource-, management- and animal-based ones. Twenty-one Danish farms were visited once between January 2015 and February 2016 in a cross-sectional design. Experts (n = 26; advisors, scientists and animal welfare controllers) assessed the severity of the outcome measures. This was combined with the on-farm prevalence of each measure and the outcome was used to calculate areas of concern, defined as measures where the median of all farms fell below the value defined as 'acceptable welfare.' Between five and seven areas of concern were identified for each production stage. With the exception of carpal lesions in piglets, all areas of concern were resource- and management-based and mainly related to housing, with inadequate available space and the floor type in the resting area being overall concerns across all production stages. This means that animal-based measures were largely unaffected by perceived deficits in resource-based measures. Great variation existed for the majority of measures identified as areas of concern, demonstrating that achieving a high welfare score is possible in the Danish system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne Marie Michelsen
- Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark
| | - Franziska Hakansson
- Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark
| | - Vibe Pedersen Lund
- Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark
| | | | - Nina Dam Otten
- Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark
| | - Matthew Denwood
- Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark
| | - Tine Rousing
- Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark
| | - Hans Houe
- Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark
| | - Björn Forkman
- Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bartlett H, Balmford A, Holmes MA, Wood JLN. Advancing the quantitative characterization of farm animal welfare. Proc Biol Sci 2023; 290:20230120. [PMID: 36946112 PMCID: PMC10031399 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2023.0120] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2023] [Accepted: 02/22/2023] [Indexed: 03/23/2023] Open
Abstract
Animal welfare is usually excluded from life cycle assessments (LCAs) of farming systems because of limited consensus on how to measure it. Here, we constructed several LCA-compatible animal-welfare metrics and applied them to data we collected from 74 diverse breed-to-finish systems responsible for 5% of UK pig production. Some aspects of metric construction will always be subjective, such as how different aspects of welfare are aggregated, and what determines poor versus good welfare. We tested the sensitivity of individual farm rankings, and rankings of those same farms grouped by label type (memberships of quality-assurance schemes or product labelling), to a broad range of approaches to metric construction. We found farms with the same label types clustered together in rankings regardless of metric choice, and there was broad agreement across metrics on the rankings of individual farms. We found woodland and Organic systems typically perform better than those with no labelling and Red tractor labelling, and that outdoor-bred and outdoor-finished systems perform better than indoor-bred and slatted-finished systems, respectively. We conclude that if our goal is to identify relatively better and worse farming systems for animal welfare, exactly how LCA welfare metrics are constructed may be less important than commonly perceived.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harriet Bartlett
- Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK
- Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK
| | - Andrew Balmford
- Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK
| | - Mark A. Holmes
- Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK
| | - James L. N. Wood
- Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Vigors B, Sandøe P, Lawrence AB. Positive Welfare in Science and Society: Differences, Similarities and Synergies. FRONTIERS IN ANIMAL SCIENCE 2021. [DOI: 10.3389/fanim.2021.738193] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Societal and scientific perspectives of animal welfare have an interconnected history. However, they have also, somewhat, evolved separately with scientific perspectives often focusing on specific aspects or indicators of animal welfare and societal perspectives typically taking a broader and more ethically oriented view of welfare. In this conceptual paper, we examine the similarities and differences between scientific and societal perspectives of positive welfare and examine what they may mean for future discussions of animal welfare considered as a whole. Reviewing published studies in the field we find that (UK and Republic of Ireland) farmers and (UK) members of the public (i.e., society) typically consider both negatives (i.e., minimising harms) and positives (i.e., promoting positive experiences) within the envelope of positive welfare and prioritise welfare needs according to the specific context or situation an animal is in. However, little consideration of a whole life perspective (e.g., the balance of positive and negative experiences across an animal's lifetime) is evident in these societal perspectives. We highlight how addressing these disparities, by simultaneously considering scientific and societal perspectives of positive welfare, provides an opportunity to more fully incorporate positive welfare within a comprehensive understanding of animal welfare. We suggest that a consideration of both scientific and societal perspectives points to an approach to welfare which accounts for both positive and negative experiences, prioritises them (e.g., by seeing positive experiences as dependent on basic animal needs being fulfilled), and considers the balance of positives and negatives over the lifetime of the animals. We expand on this view and conclude with its potential implications for future development of how to understand and assess animal welfare.
Collapse
|
4
|
Kang X, Zhang XD, Liu G. A Review: Development of Computer Vision-Based Lameness Detection for Dairy Cows and Discussion of the Practical Applications. SENSORS 2021; 21:s21030753. [PMID: 33499381 PMCID: PMC7866151 DOI: 10.3390/s21030753] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2020] [Revised: 01/18/2021] [Accepted: 01/20/2021] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
The computer vision technique has been rapidly adopted in cow lameness detection research due to its noncontact characteristic and moderate price. This paper attempted to summarize the research progress of computer vision in the detection of lameness. Computer vision lameness detection systems are not popular on farms, and the accuracy and applicability still need to be improved. This paper discusses the problems and development prospects of this technique from three aspects: detection methods, verification methods and application implementation. The paper aims to provide the reader with a summary of the literature and the latest advances in the field of computer vision detection of lameness in dairy cows.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xi Kang
- Key Lab of Modern Precision Agriculture System Integration Research, Ministry of Education of China, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China; (X.K.); (X.D.Z.)
- Key Lab of Agricultural Information Acquisition Technology, Ministry of Agricultural of China, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
| | - Xu Dong Zhang
- Key Lab of Modern Precision Agriculture System Integration Research, Ministry of Education of China, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China; (X.K.); (X.D.Z.)
- Key Lab of Agricultural Information Acquisition Technology, Ministry of Agricultural of China, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
| | - Gang Liu
- Key Lab of Modern Precision Agriculture System Integration Research, Ministry of Education of China, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China; (X.K.); (X.D.Z.)
- Key Lab of Agricultural Information Acquisition Technology, Ministry of Agricultural of China, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +86-010-62736741
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Kaurivi YB, Hickson R, Laven R, Parkinson T, Stafford K. Developing an Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Cows in Extensive Beef Cow-Calf Systems in New Zealand. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures. Animals (Basel) 2020; 10:ani10091592. [PMID: 32906782 PMCID: PMC7552219 DOI: 10.3390/ani10091592] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2020] [Revised: 09/04/2020] [Accepted: 09/05/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Animal welfare assessment protocols use different methods to categorise and score animal welfare. This study has demonstrated the feasibility of developing standards for a welfare assessment protocol of cow-calf farms in New Zealand by validating potential categorisation thresholds for measures of assessment on 25 beef farms. Imposed thresholds of categorisation and derived thresholds based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of farms for each measure were compared to see which was the most appropriate to the range of observations and the significance of the welfare implications of the measure. For measures with significant welfare implications, the stricter threshold was retained, while derived thresholds appeared more appropriate for commonly occurring traits but of less welfare importance for the production system at hand. Abstract The intention of this study was to develop standards for a welfare assessment protocol by validating potential categorisation thresholds for the assessment of beef farms in New Zealand. Thirty-two measures, based on the Welfare Quality and the University of California (UC) Davis Cow-Calf protocols, plus some indicators specific to New Zealand, that were assessed during routine yardings of 3366 cattle on 25 cow-calf beef farms in the Waikato region were categorised on a three-point welfare score, where 0 denotes good welfare, 1 marginal welfare, and 2 poor/unacceptable welfare. Initial categorisation of welfare thresholds was based upon the authors’ perception of acceptable welfare standards and the consensus of the literature, with subsequent derived thresholds being based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of farms for each measure. Imposed thresholds for lameness, dystocia, and mortality rate were retained in view of the significance of these conditions for the welfare of affected cattle, while higher derived thresholds appeared more appropriate for dirtiness and faecal staining which were thought to have less significant welfare implications for cattle on pasture. Fearful/agitated and running behaviours were above expectations, probably due to the infrequent yarding of cows, and thus the derived thresholds were thought to be more appropriate. These thresholds provide indicators to farmers and farm advisors regarding the levels at which intervention and remediation is required for a range of welfare measures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Y. Baby Kaurivi
- School of Veterinary Medicine, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand; (R.L.); (T.P.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +64-63505328
| | - Rebecca Hickson
- School of Agriculture and Environmental Management, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand; (R.H.); (K.S.)
| | - Richard Laven
- School of Veterinary Medicine, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand; (R.L.); (T.P.)
| | - Tim Parkinson
- School of Veterinary Medicine, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand; (R.L.); (T.P.)
| | - Kevin Stafford
- School of Agriculture and Environmental Management, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand; (R.H.); (K.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Otten ND, Toft N, Thomsen PT, Houe H. Evaluation of the performance of register data as indicators for dairy herds with high lameness prevalence. Acta Vet Scand 2019; 61:49. [PMID: 31639021 PMCID: PMC6805377 DOI: 10.1186/s13028-019-0484-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2019] [Accepted: 10/13/2019] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The modern dairy industry routinely generates data on production and disease. Therefore, the use of these cheap and at times even "free" data to predict a given state of welfare in a cost-effective manner is evaluated in the present study. Such register data could potentially be used in the identification of herds at risk of having animal welfare problems. The present study evaluated the diagnostic performance of four routinely registered indicators for identifying herds with high lameness prevalence among 40 Danish dairy herds. Indicators were extracted as within-herd annual means for a one-year period for cow mortality, bulk milk somatic cell count, proportion of lean cows at slaughter and the standard deviation (SD) of age at first calving. The target condition "high lameness prevalence" was defined as a within-herd prevalence of lame cows of ≥ 16% (third quartile). Diagnostic performance was evaluated by constructing and analysing Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and their area under the curve (AUC) for single indicators and indicator combinations. Sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of the indicators were assessed at the optimal cut-off based on data and compared to a set of predefined cut-off levels (national annual means or 90-percentile). RESULTS Cow mortality had the highest AUC (0.76), while adding the three other indicators to the model did not yield significant increase in AUC. Cow mortality and SD of age at first calving had highest Se (100%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 72-100%), while highest Sp was found for the proportion of lean cows at slaughter (83%, 95% CI: 66-93%). The highest differential positive rate (DPR = 0.53) optimizing both Se and Sp was found for cow mortality. Optimal cut-off points were lower than the presently used pre-defined cut-offs. CONCLUSIONS The selected register-based indicators proved to be able to identify herds with high lameness prevalences. Optimized cut-offs improved the predictive ability and should therefore be preferred in official control schemes.
Collapse
|
7
|
Lawrence AB, Vigors B, Sandøe P. What Is so Positive about Positive Animal Welfare?-A Critical Review of the Literature. Animals (Basel) 2019; 9:ani9100783. [PMID: 31614498 PMCID: PMC6826906 DOI: 10.3390/ani9100783] [Citation(s) in RCA: 75] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2019] [Revised: 10/03/2019] [Accepted: 10/07/2019] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Positive animal welfare (PAW) is thought to have come about as a response to there being too much of a focus on avoiding negatives in animal welfare science. However, despite its development over the last 10 years, it is not clear what it adds to the study of animal welfare. To clarify this, we conduct a review of the literature on PAW. We aim to identify the characteristic features of PAW and to show how PAW connects to the wider literature on animal welfare. We find that the PAW literature is characterised by four features: (1) positive emotions which highlights the capacity of animals to experience positive emotions; (2) positive affective engagement which seeks to create a link between positive emotions and behaviours animals are motivated to engage in; (3) quality of life which acts to give PAW a role in defining an appropriate balance of positives over negatives and; (4) happiness which brings a full life perspective to PAW. While the first two are already well situated in animal welfare studies the two last points open research agendas about aggregation of different aspects of PAW and how earlier experiences affect animals’ ability to have well-rounded lives. Abstract It is claimed that positive animal welfare (PAW) developed over the last decade in reaction to animal welfare focusing too much on avoiding negatives. However, it remains unclear what PAW adds to the animal welfare literature and to what extent its ideas are new. Through a critical review of the PAW literature, we aim to separate different aspects of PAW and situate it in relation to the traditional animal welfare literature. We find that the core PAW literature is small (n = 10 papers) but links to wider areas of current research interest. The PAW literature is defined by four features: (1) positive emotions which is arguably the most widely acknowledged; (2) positive affective engagement which serves to functionally link positive emotions to goal-directed behavior; (3) quality of life which serves to situate PAW within the context of finding the right balance of positives over negatives; (4) happiness which brings a full life perspective to PAW. While the two first points are already part of welfare research going back decades, the two latter points could be linked to more recent research agendas concerning aggregation and how specific events may affect the ability of animals to make the best of their lives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alistair B Lawrence
- Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3RG, UK.
- Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Penicuik EH25 9RG, UK.
| | - Belinda Vigors
- Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3RG, UK.
| | - Peter Sandøe
- Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
- Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Gieseke D, Lambertz C, Gauly M. Relationship between herd size and measures of animal welfare on dairy cattle farms with freestall housing in Germany. J Dairy Sci 2018; 101:7397-7411. [DOI: 10.3168/jds.2017-14232] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2017] [Accepted: 04/04/2018] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
|