Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T07:50:14.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bridging consumer perception and on-farm assessment of animal welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

F Napolitano ,
G De Rosa ,
G Caporale ,
A Carlucci ,
F Grasso  and
E Monteleone
F Napolitano*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze delle Produzioni Animali, Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Via dell'Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy
G De Rosa
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze del Suolo, della Pianta, dell'Ambiente e delle Produzioni animali, Università degli Studi di Napoli ‘Federico II’, Via Università 133, 8055 Portici (NA), Italy
G Caporale
Affiliation:
Smell & Taste Association, CAT Confesercenti, Via dell'Edilizia, 85100 Potenza, Italy
A Carlucci
Affiliation:
Smell & Taste Association, CAT Confesercenti, Via dell'Edilizia, 85100 Potenza, Italy
F Grasso
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze del Suolo, della Pianta, dell'Ambiente e delle Produzioni animali, Università degli Studi di Napoli ‘Federico II’, Via Università 133, 8055 Portici (NA), Italy
E Monteleone
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Biotecnologie Agrarie, Sezione di Tecnologie Alimentari, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Via Donizetti, 650144, Firenze, Italy
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: fabio.napolitano@unibas.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study aims to assess the relationship between consumer perception and on-farm assessment of animal welfare performed using the Animal Needs Index 35L (ANI). Two tie-stall, 2 straw yard and 2 cubicle farms were scored by trained assessors using the ANI and filmed to produce six 3.5 min videos. Each of them contained 4 clips: barn overall view, feeding, milking and individual animals. Ten untrained observers were asked to elicit terms describing how they perceived the observed farming systems to affect animal welfare using Free Choice Profiling (FCP). Data from FCP were subjected to Generalised Procrustes Analysis (GPA). GPA showed a significant consensus among observers. Observers characterised the first dimension with terms ranging from constrictive to comfortable conditions and the second one in terms of cleanliness/dirtiness. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted using the scores of the farms on the first two dimensions of GPA and the data gathered through the ANI. The first dimension of GPA (Comfortable), ANI's sheet 1 (Locomotion), sheet 2 (Social interaction) and sheet 6 (Total score) showed high loadings on the first component of PCA, whereas the second dimension of GPA (Clean), sheet 3 (Flooring) and sheet 4 (Stockmanship) were correlated with the second component of PCA. We concluded that FCP may be used to elicit lay person perception of welfare-related characteristics of dairy cattle farming systems, thus providing a tool to study the relationships between consumer perception and on-farm assessment of animal welfare.

Keywords

Animal Needs Indexanimal welfareconsumer perceptiondairy cattleFree Choice Profilingqualitative 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. 249 - 253
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, Leeb, CH and Held, S 2000 Animal needs index for cattle. ANI 35L/2000 – cattle. Federal Research Institute for Agriculture in Alpine Regions BAL Gumpenstein, A 8952 Irdning: Austria (www.bal.bmlf.gv.at/index.php)Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, GB and Heiser, WJ 1995 The role of permutation test in exploratory multivariate data analysis. Food Quality and Preference 6: 263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2003 Assessing animal welfare at farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12: 433–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, TEA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2000 The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expression in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 193–215CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, TEA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2001 Assessing the whole animal: a free choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62: 209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar