How Far Are We From Data-Driven and Animal-Based Welfare Assessment? A Critical Analysis of European Quality Schemes

被引:19
作者
Stygar, Anna H. [1 ]
Krampe, Caspar [2 ]
Llonch, Pol [3 ]
Niemi, Jarkko K. [1 ]
机构
[1] Nat Resources Inst Finland Luke, Bioecon & Environm, Helsinki, Finland
[2] Wageningen Univ, Dept Social Sci, Mkt & Consumer Behav Grp, Wageningen, Netherlands
[3] Univ Autonoma Barcelona, Dept Anim & Food Sci, Anim Welf & Nutr Serv SNiBA, Cerdanyola Del Valles, Spain
来源
FRONTIERS IN ANIMAL SCIENCE | 2022年 / 3卷
关键词
cow; pig; labeling; PLF (precision livestock farming); animal-based measure; BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT; SENSOR SYSTEMS; DAIRY-CATTLE; PROTOCOL; MILK; RELIABILITY; STANDARDS; COWS;
D O I
10.3389/fanim.2022.874260
中图分类号
S8 [畜牧、 动物医学、狩猎、蚕、蜂];
学科分类号
0905 ;
摘要
Within the European Union, there is no harmonization of farm animal welfare quality schemes formeat and dairy products. Instead, there are several industry-driven initiatives and voluntary schemes that seek to provide information on animal welfare for attentive consumers. This study had two aims. First, we quantified how selected industry-wide quality schemes cover the welfare of pigs and dairy cattle on farms by comparing the evaluation criteria selected by schemes with the animal-, resource- and managementbased measures defined in the Welfare Quality protocol (WQ((R))). Second, we identified how these quality schemes use the data generated along the value chain (sensors, breeding, production, and health recordings) for animal welfare assessments. A total of 12 quality schemes, paying attention to animal welfare but not necessarily limited to welfare, were selected for the analysis. The schemes originated from eight European countries: Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, and Spain. Among the studied quality schemes, we have identified 19 standards for certification: nine for dairy and 10 for pig production. Most of the analyzed standards were comprehensive in welfare assessment. In total, 15 out of 19 standards corresponded to WQ((R)) in more than 70%. However, this high correspondence was obtained when allowing for different information sources (environment instead of animal) than defined in WQ((R)). Compared to WQ((R)), the investigated schemes were lagging in terms of the number of measures evaluated based on the animals, with only five standards, out of 19, using predominantly animal-based measures. The quality schemes mostly applied resource-based instead of animal-based measures while assessing good health and appropriate behavior. The utilization of data generated along the value chain by the quality schemes remains insignificant as only one quality scheme allowed the direct application of sensor technologies for providing information on animal welfare. Nevertheless, several schemes used data from farm recording systems, mostly on animal health. The quality schemes rely mostly on resource-based indicators taken during inspection visits, which reduce the relevance of the welfare assessment. Our results suggest that the quality schemes could be enhanced in terms of data collection by the broader utilization of data generated along the value chain.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 83 条
[1]   Milk losses and dynamics during perturbations in dairy cows differ with parity and lactation stage [J].
Adriaens, I ;
van den Brulle, I ;
D'Anvers, L. ;
Statham, J. M. E. ;
Geerinckx, K. ;
De Vliegher, S. ;
Piepers, S. ;
Aernout, B. .
JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2021, 104 (01) :405-418
[2]  
Agrarmarkt Austria Marketing GesmbH, 2020, HALT KUH
[3]  
Agrarmarkt Austria Marketing GesmbH, 2018, SCHWEIN
[4]   Biosecurity in pig farms: a review [J].
Alarcon, Laura Valeria ;
Alberto, Alberto Allepuz ;
Mateu, Enric .
PORCINE HEALTH MANAGEMENT, 2021, 7 (01)
[5]  
Alban L., 2011, EFSA SUPPORT PUBL, V8, p190E, DOI [10.2903/sp.efsa.2011.EN-190, DOI 10.2903/SP.EFSA.2011.EN-190]
[6]   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 [J].
Andreasen, S. N. ;
Sandoe, P. ;
Forkman, B. .
ANIMAL WELFARE, 2014, 23 (01) :81-94
[7]   Evaluation of minimum animal welfare conditions in national standards and farm certification schemes for pig fattening [J].
Annen, D. N. ;
Wieck, C. ;
Kempen, M. .
ACTA AGRICULTURAE SCANDINAVICA SECTION A-ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2011, 61 (01) :40-54
[8]  
[Anonymous], 1998, COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 98
[9]  
[Anonymous], 2005, COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on Support for Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
[10]  
[Anonymous], 2009, Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers