Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-22T03:21:54.857Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Results of the Animal Needs Index (ANI-35L) compared to animal-based parameters in free-range and organic laying hen flocks in Austria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

K Zaludik ,
A Lugmair ,
R Baumung ,
J Troxler  and
K Niebuhr
K Zaludik*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, Department of Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria
A Lugmair
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, Department of Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria
R Baumung
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences; Gregor-Mendel-Str 33, A-1180 Vienna, Austria
J Troxler
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, Department of Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria
K Niebuhr
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, Department of Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: katrina.zaludik@vu-wien.ac.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this study was a comparison of Animal Needs Index (ANI) data, derived from annual inspections by a control agency, with data collected from 164 selected on-farm flocks concerning feather damage, injuries, egg production, mortality, bodyweight, foot pad dermatitis, keel bone deviations and reactions towards humans (eg flock showed marked avoidance when the observer walked through the hen-house [yes/no]).

Analysis of data showed a low number of significant correlations with total ANI scores and category scores: 1) Locomotion, 2) Social interaction, 3) Flooring, 4) Light, air and noise and 5) Stockmanship. Correlations found were low and total ANI score showed only a positive correlation with egg production at week 52. Category 3 scores correlated positively with egg production at week 70 and negatively with the percentage of hens with featherless areas and total pecking injuries. Category 5 scores showed positive correlations with egg production at week 52 as well as week 70 and negative correlations with mortality at week 52, the percentage of hens with featherless areas, pecking injuries < 0.5 cm and total pecking injuries.

Flocks showing marked avoidance had a lower total ANI score and lower category 3 and category 5 scores.

In conclusion, welfare-related animal-based parameters are poorly reflected by the ANI-35-L/2001. To assess animal welfare more adequately, animal-based parameters have to be considered additionally in a welfare assessment scheme.

Keywords

animal-based parametersanimal healthAnimal Needs Index (ANI)animal welfarelaying henon-farm welfare assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , May 2007 , pp. 217 - 219
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartussek, H 2001 Animal Needs Index for Laying Hens ANI 35-L/2001 – laying hens. In: Gumpenstein BAL (ed) Federal Research Institute for Agriculture in Alpine Regions(ed) A 8952: Irdning, AustriaGoogle Scholar
Bestmann, MWP and Wagenaar, JP 2003 Farm level factors associated with feather pecking in organic laying hens. Livestock Production Science 80: 133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Geers, R, Miele, M and Veissier, I 2003 Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12: 445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EFSA 2005 Scientific Report: Welfare aspects of various systems for keeping laying hens (EFSA-Q-2003-92). The EFSA Journal 197: 1–23Google Scholar
Gunnarsson, S, Odén, K, Algers, B, Svedberg, J and Keeling, L 1995 Poultry Health and Behaviour in a Tiered System for Loose Housed Layers, Report 35. Institutionen for husdjurshygien, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Hygiene: Skara, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Johnsen, PF, Johannesson, T and Sandøe, P 2001 Assessment of Farm Animal Welfare at Herd Level: Many Goals, Many Methods. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A - Animal Science Supplement 30: 26–33Google Scholar
Mollenhorst, H, Rodenburg, TB, Bokkers, EAM, Koene, P and de Boer, IJM 2004 On-farm assessment of laying hen welfare: a comparison of one environment-based and two animal-based methods. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90: 277–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ, Pötzsch, CJ, Lewis, K and Green, LE 2003 Matched concurrent case-control study of risk factors for feather pecking in hens on free-range commercial farms in the UK. British Poultry Science 44: 515–523CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niebuhr, K, Zaludik, K, Baumung, R, Lugmair, A and Troxler, J 2005 Injurious pecking in free-range and organic laying hen flocks in Austria. In: Animal Science papers and Reports: Proceedings of the 7th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 195–201. Institute of Genetics and Animal Breeding: Jastrzebiec, PolandGoogle Scholar
Pötzsch, CJ, Lewis, K, Nicol, CJ and Green, LE 2001 A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of vent pecking in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with feather pecking, management and disease. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS (Statistic Analysis System) 1999 SAS/STAT User's Guide Version 8. SAS Institute Inc: Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
Wang, G, Ekstrand, C and Svedberg, J 1998 Wet litter and perches as risk factors for the development of foot pad dermatitis in floor-housed hens. British Poultry Science 39: 191–197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkins, LJ, Brown, SN, Zimmerman, PH, Leeb, C and Nicol, CJ 2004 Investigation of palpation as a method for determining the prevalence of keel and furculum damage in laying hens. Veterinary Record 155: 547–549CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkins, LJ, Pope, S, Leeb, C, Glen, E, Phillips, A, Zimmerman, P, Nicol, C and Brown, SN 2005 Fracture rate in laying-strain hens at the end of the rearing period and the end of the laying period. In: Animal Science papers and Reports: Proceedings of the 7th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 189–194. Institute of Genetics and Animal Breeding: Jastrzebiec, PolandGoogle Scholar