Evaluation of animal-based indicators for use in a welfare assessment protocol for sheep

SE Richmond, F Wemelsfelder, IB de Heredia, R Ruiz, E Canali, CM Dwyer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Sheep are managed under a variety of different environments (continually outdoors, partially outdoors with seasonal or diurnal variation, continuously indoors) and for different purposes, which makes assessing welfare challenging. This diversity means that resource-based indicators are not particularly useful and thus a welfare assessment scheme for sheep, focusing on animal-based indicators, was developed. We focus specifically on ewes, as the most numerous group of sheep present on farm, although many of the indicators may also have relevance to adult male sheep. Using the Welfare Quality® framework of four Principles and 12 Criteria, we considered the validity, reliability and feasibility of 46 putative animal-based indicators for these criteria, derived from the literature. Where animal-based indicators were potentially unreliably or were not considered feasible, we also considered the resource-based indicators of access to water, stocking density and floor slipperiness. With the exception of the criteria ‘Absence of prolonged thirst’ we suggest at least one animal-based indicator for each welfare criterion. As a minimum, face validity was available for all indicators, however for many we found evidence of convergent validity, and discriminant validity (e.g. lameness as measured by gait score, body condition score). The reliability of most of the physical and health measures has been tested in the field and found to be appropriate for use in welfare assessment. However, for the majority of the proposed behavioural indicators (lying synchrony, social withdrawal, postures associated with pain, vocalisations, stereotypy, vigilance, response to surprise and human approach test) this still needs to be tested. In conclusion, the comprehensive assessment of sheep welfare through largely animal-based measures is supported by the literature through the use of indicators focusing on specific aspects of sheep biology. Further work is required for some indicators to ensure that measures are reliable when used in commercial settings.
Original languageEnglish
JournalFrontiers in Veterinary Science
Volume4
Issue number210
Early online date11 Dec 2017
DOIs
Publication statusFirst published - 11 Dec 2017

Fingerprint

sheep
animals
thirst
gait
posture
diurnal variation
vocalization
lameness
stocking rate
body condition
pain
ewes
seasonal variation
Biological Sciences
farms
water
testing

Bibliographical note

1031433

Keywords

  • Animal-based measures
  • Behaviour
  • Health
  • Sheep
  • Welfare assessment

Cite this

@article{ce5de51aa57d42db94e8ecc9139d0911,
title = "Evaluation of animal-based indicators for use in a welfare assessment protocol for sheep",
abstract = "Sheep are managed under a variety of different environments (continually outdoors, partially outdoors with seasonal or diurnal variation, continuously indoors) and for different purposes, which makes assessing welfare challenging. This diversity means that resource-based indicators are not particularly useful and thus a welfare assessment scheme for sheep, focusing on animal-based indicators, was developed. We focus specifically on ewes, as the most numerous group of sheep present on farm, although many of the indicators may also have relevance to adult male sheep. Using the Welfare Quality{\circledR} framework of four Principles and 12 Criteria, we considered the validity, reliability and feasibility of 46 putative animal-based indicators for these criteria, derived from the literature. Where animal-based indicators were potentially unreliably or were not considered feasible, we also considered the resource-based indicators of access to water, stocking density and floor slipperiness. With the exception of the criteria ‘Absence of prolonged thirst’ we suggest at least one animal-based indicator for each welfare criterion. As a minimum, face validity was available for all indicators, however for many we found evidence of convergent validity, and discriminant validity (e.g. lameness as measured by gait score, body condition score). The reliability of most of the physical and health measures has been tested in the field and found to be appropriate for use in welfare assessment. However, for the majority of the proposed behavioural indicators (lying synchrony, social withdrawal, postures associated with pain, vocalisations, stereotypy, vigilance, response to surprise and human approach test) this still needs to be tested. In conclusion, the comprehensive assessment of sheep welfare through largely animal-based measures is supported by the literature through the use of indicators focusing on specific aspects of sheep biology. Further work is required for some indicators to ensure that measures are reliable when used in commercial settings.",
keywords = "Animal-based measures, Behaviour, Health, Sheep, Welfare assessment",
author = "SE Richmond and F Wemelsfelder and {de Heredia}, IB and R Ruiz and E Canali and CM Dwyer",
note = "1031433",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "11",
doi = "10.3389/fvets.2017.00210",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
journal = "Frontiers in Veterinary Science",
issn = "2297-1769",
publisher = "Frontiers Media",
number = "210",

}

Evaluation of animal-based indicators for use in a welfare assessment protocol for sheep. / Richmond, SE; Wemelsfelder, F; de Heredia, IB; Ruiz, R; Canali, E; Dwyer, CM.

In: Frontiers in Veterinary Science, Vol. 4, No. 210, 11.12.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of animal-based indicators for use in a welfare assessment protocol for sheep

AU - Richmond, SE

AU - Wemelsfelder, F

AU - de Heredia, IB

AU - Ruiz, R

AU - Canali, E

AU - Dwyer, CM

N1 - 1031433

PY - 2017/12/11

Y1 - 2017/12/11

N2 - Sheep are managed under a variety of different environments (continually outdoors, partially outdoors with seasonal or diurnal variation, continuously indoors) and for different purposes, which makes assessing welfare challenging. This diversity means that resource-based indicators are not particularly useful and thus a welfare assessment scheme for sheep, focusing on animal-based indicators, was developed. We focus specifically on ewes, as the most numerous group of sheep present on farm, although many of the indicators may also have relevance to adult male sheep. Using the Welfare Quality® framework of four Principles and 12 Criteria, we considered the validity, reliability and feasibility of 46 putative animal-based indicators for these criteria, derived from the literature. Where animal-based indicators were potentially unreliably or were not considered feasible, we also considered the resource-based indicators of access to water, stocking density and floor slipperiness. With the exception of the criteria ‘Absence of prolonged thirst’ we suggest at least one animal-based indicator for each welfare criterion. As a minimum, face validity was available for all indicators, however for many we found evidence of convergent validity, and discriminant validity (e.g. lameness as measured by gait score, body condition score). The reliability of most of the physical and health measures has been tested in the field and found to be appropriate for use in welfare assessment. However, for the majority of the proposed behavioural indicators (lying synchrony, social withdrawal, postures associated with pain, vocalisations, stereotypy, vigilance, response to surprise and human approach test) this still needs to be tested. In conclusion, the comprehensive assessment of sheep welfare through largely animal-based measures is supported by the literature through the use of indicators focusing on specific aspects of sheep biology. Further work is required for some indicators to ensure that measures are reliable when used in commercial settings.

AB - Sheep are managed under a variety of different environments (continually outdoors, partially outdoors with seasonal or diurnal variation, continuously indoors) and for different purposes, which makes assessing welfare challenging. This diversity means that resource-based indicators are not particularly useful and thus a welfare assessment scheme for sheep, focusing on animal-based indicators, was developed. We focus specifically on ewes, as the most numerous group of sheep present on farm, although many of the indicators may also have relevance to adult male sheep. Using the Welfare Quality® framework of four Principles and 12 Criteria, we considered the validity, reliability and feasibility of 46 putative animal-based indicators for these criteria, derived from the literature. Where animal-based indicators were potentially unreliably or were not considered feasible, we also considered the resource-based indicators of access to water, stocking density and floor slipperiness. With the exception of the criteria ‘Absence of prolonged thirst’ we suggest at least one animal-based indicator for each welfare criterion. As a minimum, face validity was available for all indicators, however for many we found evidence of convergent validity, and discriminant validity (e.g. lameness as measured by gait score, body condition score). The reliability of most of the physical and health measures has been tested in the field and found to be appropriate for use in welfare assessment. However, for the majority of the proposed behavioural indicators (lying synchrony, social withdrawal, postures associated with pain, vocalisations, stereotypy, vigilance, response to surprise and human approach test) this still needs to be tested. In conclusion, the comprehensive assessment of sheep welfare through largely animal-based measures is supported by the literature through the use of indicators focusing on specific aspects of sheep biology. Further work is required for some indicators to ensure that measures are reliable when used in commercial settings.

KW - Animal-based measures

KW - Behaviour

KW - Health

KW - Sheep

KW - Welfare assessment

U2 - 10.3389/fvets.2017.00210

DO - 10.3389/fvets.2017.00210

M3 - Article

VL - 4

JO - Frontiers in Veterinary Science

JF - Frontiers in Veterinary Science

SN - 2297-1769

IS - 210

ER -