A01 Welfareassessment 19

A01
Organic livestock farming under temperate conditions

Animal welfare
Ute Knierim
Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry
What is animal welfare?
Ute Knierim
2 Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry
What is Animal Welfare?
 Quality of an animal‘s life as it is experienced and

valued by the animal
(Bracke et al. 1999).
 The state of the animal as regards its attempts to

cope with the environment (Broom 1986).
Ute Knierim
Animal Welfare is multidimensional
 There are many possibilities to categorize the different
dimensions; e.g.:
 physical condition, feelings, naturalness
 health, behaviour
 item lists (e.g. Five Freedoms, Welfare Quality)
Ute Knierim
Physical condition Feelings
Animal Welfare
Fraser et al. 1997 Naturalness
Ute Knierim
Five Freedoms (FAWC 2012)
 Freedom from hunger and thirst,

 Freedom from discomfort,
 Freedom from pain, injury and disease,
 Freedom to express normal behaviour,
 Freedom from fear and distress.
 No yes/no decision – the degree of good or poor animal

welfare relates to the degree of freedom(s)
Ute Knierim
Principle Welfare criteria
Good feeding 1. Absence of prolonged hunger 2009
2. Absence of prolonged thirst
Good housing 3. Comfort around resting
4. Thermal comfort
5. Ease of Movement
Good health 6. Absence of injuries
7. Absence of disease
8. Absence of pain induced by

management procedures
Appropriate 9. Expression of social behaviours

behaviour
10. Expression of other behaviours
11. Good human-animal relationship

Ute Knierim
12. Positive emotional state Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry
How can we assess
animal welfare?
Ute Knierim
Animal Welfare is multidimensional
 There cannot only be a single measure of welfare.
 Instead, a wide array of measures should be used.
 The relative importance of the single measures is subject

to interpretation  transparency important
Ute Knierim
Physical condition Feelings
 Physiology  Behaviour
 Health  Physiology
 Performance  Health
Animal Welfare
Health Behaviour
Naturalness
 Behaviour
Ute Knierim
10  EnvironmentalFarmresources
Animal Behaviour and Husbandry
How to measure/assess animal welfare?
housing management
 Resource/management based measures input
 Animal based measures output
behaviour + health
Ute Knierim
Validity of resource based measures
- +
versus
Validity concerning behavioural aspects:

If - : : no or restricted expression:
rooting, exploration, nest building, foraging
If + : depends on condition, accessibility
Ute Knierim
Validity of resource based measures
- +
versus
Validity concerning health aspects:

If - : risk for lesions ↑
If + : risk for parasitosis ↑
but: largely depending on management, e.g. risk for respiratory

diseases not predictable
Ute Knierim
Problems of resource based measures
 Only valid if close associations with welfare can be proven;
 Interpretation is often difficult due to:
 Complex interactions between different housing and

management factors,
 individal differences in animal responses (e.g. due to

different rearing conditions).
 single housing or management measures do not sufficiently

allow conclusions on the animal welfare state.
Ute Knierim
Advantages of resource based measures
 Often easy to record (require no extended training);
 often less time-consuming to record;
 often good inter-assessor reliabilty (except management based

measures);
 many housing related, less management related measures

rather stable over time.
 High feasibility compared to animal based measure; especially

important for control purposes.
Ute Knierim
How to choose suitable animal welfare measures?
 Validity: Is the measure actually measuring what it

is supposed to measure?
 Reliability: Is the measure reproducible?
 Feasibility: Is it practicable to implement the

measure within given time or economic
constraints?
Ute Knierim
Validity
Many animal based measures have convincing face validity.
Example: lameness
 Pain very likely cause,

 impairment of mobility.
Construct validity:
expected relationship
experimentally confirmed
Criterion validity:
relationship to other relevant measures
Ute Knierim
Reliability
 Do different observers/assessors
obtain similar results?
 Are the results stable
over time if nothing
serious changes?
 Are the results representative
for the situation in question?
Ute Knierim
Feasibility
constraints:
 available time
 equipment
 knowledge/training
 farm situation
 etc.
Ute Knierim
Animal welfare measures
(very simplified)
Measure based Validity Reliability Feasibility

on
Housing
  
Management
  
Animal
  
Ute Knierim
Animal welfare measures
 Valid, reliable and feasible animal welfare measures

should be selected according to the specific
question and circumstances.
 Mostly a mixture of animal, housing and

management based measures will provide the most
valid and reliable information.
Ute Knierim
How to interpret the animal
welfare measurements?
Ute Knierim
Performance
e.g. daily growth, food conversion, number of offspring, laying or milk
performance
Hypothesis: only animals in a good welfare state do perform well
True?
 On indidual level very important

indicator, but:
 genetic potential and feeding

most important influencing factors;
 low indiviual performances are possible

in a herd with high average performance.
Ute Knierim
Performance
 no linear relationship between performance and welfare
high
Performance
low
poor good
Ute Knierim
24 Animal Welfare Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry
Performance
 High genetic potential may impair animal welfare
Growth in fast-growing broilers

Example:
Ute Knierim
25
days of life
Is it necessary to express every behaviour?
Behavioural control model (modified after Hughes 1988)

External factors
relative
contri-
bution to
motivation
Internal factors
examples
escape dust-bathing nesting
agonistic sexual crouch sleep
Ute Knierim
Nevertheless:
The higher the freedom to express normal behaviour,
 the lower the risk for motivational conflicts (frustration),
 the more likely self-rewarding effects ⇒ positive emotions.
Ute Knierim
How severely impaired is animal welfare?
Ute Knierim
Evaluation of results on herd level
Ute Knierim
Evaluation of results
On the basis of expert judgements

and mathematical modelling that reflects the expert
judgements best
Ute Knierim
Animal Welfare - summary
 Multidimensional (e.g. Feelings + Biological Functioning + Naturalness;
lists of welfare criteria)
– no objective way of weighting different dimensions;
 transparent expert judgements
 Main categories of criteria:
Animal Behaviour + Animal Health;
 Mixture of measures (resource, animal based) can be used, but
preferably animal based;
 No yes or no decision.
Welfare
Ute Knierim
very poor very good
References
 Bracke MBM, Spruijt BM, Metz JHM (1999) Overall Welfare Assessment
Reviewed. Part 1: Is it Possible? Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47:
279–291
 Broom DM (1986) Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal 142: 524-
526
 FAWC (2012) Farm Animal Welfare Council: The five freedoms.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121010012427/http://www.fawc.o
rg.uk/freedoms.htm (accessed 9 April 2018)
 Fraser D, Weary DM, Pajor EA, Milligan BN (1997) A scientific conception of
animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187-205
 Welfare Quality® (2009) Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle (pigs or
poultry). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands,
http://www.welfarequality.net/en-us/reports/assessment-protocols/ (accessed 9
April 2018)
Ute Knierim

A01 Welfareassessment 19

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A01 Welfareassessment 19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A01

Organic livestock farming under temperate conditions

 Quality of an animal‘s life as it is experienced and

 The state of the animal as regards its attempts to

 physical condition, feelings, naturalness

 item lists (e.g. Five Freedoms, Welfare Quality)

Fraser et al. 1997 Naturalness

 Freedom from hunger and thirst,

 No yes/no decision – the degree of good or poor animal

Good feeding 1. Absence of prolonged hunger 2009

2. Absence of prolonged thirst

Good housing 3. Comfort around resting

Good health 6. Absence of injuries

8. Absence of pain induced by

Appropriate 9. Expression of social behaviours

11. Good human-animal relationship

 There cannot only be a single measure of welfare.

 Instead, a wide array of measures should be used.

 The relative importance of the single measures is subject

 Resource/management based measures input

 Animal based measures output

Validity concerning behavioural aspects:

If + : depends on condition, accessibility

Validity concerning health aspects:

but: largely depending on management, e.g. risk for respiratory

 Only valid if close associations with welfare can be proven;

 Interpretation is often difficult due to:

 Complex interactions between different housing and

 individal differences in animal responses (e.g. due to

 single housing or management measures do not sufficiently

 Often easy to record (require no extended training);

 often less time-consuming to record;

 often good inter-assessor reliabilty (except management based

 many housing related, less management related measures

 High feasibility compared to animal based measure; especially

 Validity: Is the measure actually measuring what it

 Reliability: Is the measure reproducible?

 Feasibility: Is it practicable to implement the

 Pain very likely cause,

Measure based Validity Reliability Feasibility

 Valid, reliable and feasible animal welfare measures

 Mostly a mixture of animal, housing and

 On indidual level very important

 genetic potential and feeding

 low indiviual performances are possible

Growth in fast-growing broilers

Behavioural control model (modified after Hughes 1988)

The higher the freedom to express normal behaviour,

 the lower the risk for motivational conflicts (frustration),

 the more likely self-rewarding effects ⇒ positive emotions.

On the basis of expert judgements

You might also like