Literature DB >> 22444137

Repeatability of lameness, fear and slipping scores to assess animal welfare upon arrival in pig slaughterhouses.

A Dalmau1, N A Geverink, A Van Nuffel, L van Steenbergen, K Van Reenen, V Hautekiet, K Vermeulen, A Velarde, F A M Tuyttens.   

Abstract

The EU project Welfare Quality® proposes an overall assessment system for animal welfare based on animal outcomes. The objective of this study was to test inter-observer reliability (IOR) when assessing lameness, fear and slipping and falling scores as parameters for monitoring the welfare of killing pigs during arrival at the slaughterhouse. Two Belgian and two Spanish slaughterhouses were visited by six to seven observers. Lameness, slipping and falling were assessed twice; during unloading and in the passageway to the lairage zone (lairage). Fear, which was assessed in the unloading area, was based on four indicators: reluctance to move, retreat attempts, turning back and vocalisations. Lameness had low-to-moderate IOR when observed in the passageway to lairage (r = 0.46), but the IOR was low during unloading (r = 0.25). IOR for slipping and falling was moderate to high (r = 0.71 and r = 0.50, respectively), when assessed in the unloading area, but low for observations in the passageway (r = 0.13). Fear indicators had only moderate or low IOR. Turning back was the measure with the highest IOR (r = 0.43) and retreat attempts had the lowest IOR (r = 0.25). Based on these results, we concluded that scoring lameness could be reliable when assessed from the unloading bay to lairage, whereas slipping and falling should be scored in the unloading area of the slaughterhouse. We suggest scoring a maximum of two measures of fear on the same animals at the unloading area, with the most reliable parameters being turning back and reluctance to move. The three indicators of animal welfare (lameness, fear and slipping and falling) should be measured in a way to reduce overtax of the observers in order to achieve accurate results.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 22444137     DOI: 10.1017/S1751731110000066

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Animal        ISSN: 1751-7311            Impact factor:   3.240


  4 in total

1.  Welfare of pigs during transport.

Authors:  Søren Saxmose Nielsen; Julio Alvarez; Dominique Joseph Bicout; Paolo Calistri; Elisabetta Canali; Julian Ashley Drewe; Bruno Garin-Bastuji; Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas; Christian Gortázar Schmidt; Virginie Michel; Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca; Barbara Padalino; Paolo Pasquali; Helen Clare Roberts; Hans Spoolder; Karl Stahl; Antonio Velarde; Arvo Viltrop; Christoph Winckler; Bernadette Earley; Sandra Edwards; Luigi Faucitano; Sonia Marti; Genaro C Miranda de La Lama; Leonardo Nanni Costa; Peter T Thomsen; Sean Ashe; Lina Mur; Yves Van der Stede; Mette Herskin
Journal:  EFSA J       Date:  2022-09-07

2.  Interobserver reliability of the 'Welfare Quality(®) Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Growing Pigs'.

Authors:  I Czycholl; C Kniese; K Büttner; E Grosse Beilage; L Schrader; J Krieter
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2016-07-19

3.  An Indication of Reliability of the Two-Level Approach of the AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Horses.

Authors:  Irena Czycholl; Kathrin Büttner; Philipp Klingbeil; Joachim Krieter
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 4.  A Review of Pain Assessment in Pigs.

Authors:  Sarah H Ison; R Eddie Clutton; Pierpaolo Di Giminiani; Kenneth M D Rutherford
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2016-11-28
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.