Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T00:10:20.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can animal-based welfare assessment be simplified? A comparison of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle and the simpler and less time-consuming protocol developed by the Danish Cattle Federation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

SN Andreasen ,
P SandØe  and
B Forkman
SN Andreasen*
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, GrØnnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark
P SandØe
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, GrØnnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark
B Forkman
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, GrØnnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: sinen@sund.ku.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Welfare assessment protocols using primarily animal-based measures are believed to give valid information about the welfare of animals. However, they tend to be time consuming and therefore costly, thus in practice there is often considerable reluctance to use them. In the present study, the relatively quick to use, simple but non-validated welfare assessment protocol for dairy cattle developed by the Danish Cattle Federation and the validated comprehensive Welfare Quality® protocol were compared in Danish conditions. In total, 44 Danish dairy herds were evaluated using the two protocols. The protocols were correlated on four sub-levels (corresponding to the ‘Principles’ in the Welfare Quality® protocol) and on the Overall welfare score. They correlated significantly with regard to the Principles ‘Good health’ and ‘Appropriate behaviour’. Significant correlations were not found for ‘Good feeding’, ‘Good housing’, and the Overall score. On the basis of this we changed the Danish Cattle Federation protocol by introducing six new measures, changing three measuring procedures and omitting two measures. This extended protocol was found to correlate significantly with the Welfare Quality® protocol in all four Principles and on the Overall score. The extended protocol still has the advantage of the original Danish Cattle Federation protocol whereby under Danish field conditions it will take only 2 h to apply as opposed to 7-8 h for the Welfare Quality® protocol. We believe that the extended protocol balances, in a good way, the demands of practicability against its value as a diagnostic test.

Keywords

animal-based measuresanimal welfaredairy cattleon-farm assessmentwelfare-assessment protocolWelfare Quality®
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 81 - 94
Copyright
© 2014 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

Andreasen, SN, Wemelsfelder, F, SandØe, P and Forkman, B 2013 The correlation of Qualitative Behavior Assessments with Welfare Quality® protocol outcomes in on-farm welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 143: 9–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 1997 BekendtgØrelse om afhorning af dyr. https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=85970. [Title translation: Order concerning the dehorning of animals]Google Scholar
Anonymous 2003 BekendtgØrelse om halekupering og kastration af dyr. http://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=1572. [Title translation: Order concerning tail docking and the castration of animals]Google Scholar
Anonymous 2013a Fråga Kon. http://www.svensk mjolk.se/Mjolkgarden/Djurvalfard/Service-och-radgivning/Fragakon/. [Title translation: Ask the cow]Google Scholar
Anonymous 2013b Danish Metereological Institute. http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/saadan_er_sommerenGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 2013c The Welfare Quality® homepage. http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone/43299/7/0/22Google Scholar
Blokhuis, H, Miele, M, Veissier, I and Jones, B 2013 Improving farm animal welfare. Science and society working together: the Welfare Quality approach. Wageningen Academic Publishers: The Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-770-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Veissier, I, Miele, M and Jones, B 2010 The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science 60: 129–140Google Scholar
Bokkers, EAM, de Vries, M, Antonissen, ICMA and de Boer, IJM 2012 Inter- and intra-observer reliability of experienced and inexperienced observers for the Qualitative Behaviour Assessment in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 21: 307–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.3.307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007 Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225–22810.1017/S0962728600031390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I and Perny, P 2009 Overall assessment of animal welfare: strategy adopted in Welfare Quality®. Animal Welfare 18: 363–37010.1017/S0962728600000762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brörkens, N, Plesch, G, Laister, S, Zucca, D, Winckler, C, Minero, M and Knierim, U 2009 Reliability testing concerning behaviour around resting in cattle in dairy cows and beef bulls. Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves. Welfare Quality Reports No 11 pp 7–24. Sixth Framework Programme: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Brscic, M, Wemelsfelder, F, Tessitore, E, Gottardol, F, Cozzi, G and Van Reenen, CG 2009 Welfare assessment: correlations and integration between a Qualitative Behavioural Assessment and a clinical/health protocol applied in veal calves farms. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8: 601–60310.4081/ijas.2009.s2.601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canali, E, Whay, HR and Leach, KA 2009 Cattle health status. Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves. Welfare Quality Reports No 11 pp 77–88. Sixth Framework Programme: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Charlton, GL, Rutter, SM, East, M and Sinclair, LA 2011 Preference of dairy cows: indoor cubicle housing with access to a total mixed ration vs access to pasture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 130: 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.11.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danish Cattle Federation 2005 Kvæginfo 1547 - Dansk Kvægs branchepolitik for dyrevelfærd. https://www.landbrugsinfo.dk/Kvaeg/Sundhed-og-dyrevelfaerd/Dyrevelfaerd/Sider/Dansk_Kvaegs_Branchepolitik_for_Dyrevelf.aspx. [Title translation: The Danish Cattle Federation, business guidelines concerning animal welfare]Google Scholar
de Vries, M, Engel, B, den Uijl, I, van Schaik, G, Dijkstra, T, de Boer, IJM and Bokkers, EAM 2013 Assessment time of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 22: 85–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Committee 2013 Five Freedoms. http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htmGoogle Scholar
Forkman, B and Keeling, L 2009 Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves. Welfare Quality Reports No 11. Sixth Framework Programme: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Beveridge, L and Matthews, LR 1995 The welfare of extensively managed dairy cattle: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42: 161–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(94)00538-PCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Igbokwe, IO 1997 The effects of water deprivation in livestock ruminants: an overview. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 50: 905–914Google Scholar
Ingemann, R, SandØe, P, Enemark, P and Forkman, B 2009 Conflicting goals of welfare assessment schemes: a case study. Animal Welfare 18: 487–49510.1017/S0962728600000907CrossRefGoogle 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 30: 26–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/090647001316923027Google Scholar
Laister, S, Brörkens, N, Lolli, S, Zucca, D, Knierim, U, Minero, M, Canali, E and Winckler, C 2009a Reliablity of measures of agonistic behaivour in dairy and beef cattle. Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves, Welfare Quality Reports No 11 pp 95–112. Sixth Framework Programme: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Laister, S, Regner, A-M, Zenger, K, Winckler, C, Brörkens, N, Quast, R and Knierim, U 2009b Validation of social licking as an indicator for positive emotions. Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves, Welfare Quality Reports No 11 pp 113–123. Sixth Framework Programme: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Leach, KA, Knierim, U and Whay, HR 2009a Condition scoring for dairy and beef cattle and veal calves. Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves, Welfare Quality Reports No 11 pp 1–6. Sixth Framework Programme: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Leach, KA, Winckler, C and Whay, HR 2009b Lameness in dairy and beef cattle and veal calves. Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves, Welfare Quality Reports No 11 pp 35–41. Sixth Framework Programme: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Miele, M, Veissier, I, Evans, A and Botreau, R 2011 Animal welfare: establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare 20: 103–11710.1017/S0962728600002475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minero, M, Tosi, MV, Canali, E and Wemelsfelder, F 2009 Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the response of foals to the presence of an unfamiliar human. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116: 74–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2008.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napolitano, F, De Rosa, G, Grasso, F and Wemelsfelder, F 2012 Qualitative behaviour assessment of dairy buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 141: 91–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napolitano, F, Girolami, A and Braghieri, A 2010 Consumer liking and willingness to pay for high welfare animal-based products. Trends in Food Science & Technology 21: 537–543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2010.07.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, JR, Friggens, NC, Kay, JK, Fisher, MW, Stafford, KJ and Berry, DP 2009 Invited review: body condition score and its association with dairy cow productivity, health and welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 5769–5801. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2431CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roenfeldt, S 1998 You can't afford to ignore heat stress. Dairy Herd Management 35(5): 6–12Google Scholar
Rushen, J and de Passillé, AMB 1992 The scientific assessment of the impact of housing on animal welfare: a critical review. Canadian journal of animal science 72: 721–743. http://dx.doi.org/10.4141/cjas92-085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockman, CA, McGilchrist, P, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, D, Wickham, SL, Greenwood, PL, Cafe, LM, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2012 Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of Angus steers during pre-slaughter handling and relationship with temperament and physiological responses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 142: 125–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.10.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terragani, L and Torjusen, H 2007 Norway. Consumers’ Views About Farm Animal Welfare, Part 1: National Reports Based on Focus Group Research. Welfare Quality Reports No 4 pp 253–322. Sixth Framework Programme: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Jensen, KK, Botreau, R and SandØe, P 2011 Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the Welfare Quality® scheme. Animal Welfare 20: 89–10110.1017/S0962728600002463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2001 The development of an epidemiologically based on-farm welfare assessment system for use with dairy cows. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A - Animal Science 30: 73–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/090647001316923108Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F 1997 The scientific validity of subjective concepts in models of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 75–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01152-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, EA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2000 The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 193–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00093-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Windschnurer, I, Schmied, C, Boivin, X and Waiblinger, S 2009 Assessment of human-animal relationships in dairy cows. Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves, Welfare Quality Reports No 11 pp 137–152. Sixth Framework Programme: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Andreasen et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 160.6 KB