Why and How to Measure Goats’ Welfare

Chapter

Abstract

Sustainability, animal welfare and environmental concerns have increased consumers’ interest in knowing how, where and by whom food is produced and handled from ‘farm to fork’. But even if consumers did not object to poor animal welfare, there is enough evidence that good welfare corresponds to better performance and higher quality products. It is well established that animals with poor welfare have suboptimal performances or demand artificial ways of maintaining health and production. Comprehensive welfare assessment is not easy as animal welfare is a multidimensional and complex concept. However, it can be achieved through well-built assessment protocols. These protocols are also excellent tools to discern and monitor disease prevalence (e.g. lameness) and to track changes within the same farm over time as a part of good farm management. Welfare protocols should be devised to fully cover four Welfare Principles (Welfare Quality®—WQ): good feeding; good housing; good health; and appropriate behaviour. This is achieved by including and testing different types of indicators. Currently, welfare assessment is established mainly on animal-based indicators or also called output measures, complemented with some resource-based indicators. The ‘AWIN-animal welfare indicators’ was a large European project dedicated to developing, integrating and disseminating animal-based welfare indicators for different farms species, including goats. From the work of one of its research teams resulted a welfare assessment protocol for intensively kept dairy goats that is an excellent basis for the building of protocols for other production systems. Designing an assessment protocol is a challenging and laborious process that should start by identifying valid, reliable and feasible welfare indicators for goats in different agro-systems. This chapter presents the basis for the construction of a welfare assessment protocol and suggests some indicators to be included in the assessment of goats extensively managed in arid, semi-arid or in poor environmental conditions.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the AWIN team that worked with dairy goats, namely Ana Vieira, Inês Ajuda, Monica Battini and Silvana Mattielo. Also, Inês Canavarro for her work on the welfare in extensively and family kept dairy goats.

References

  1. AWIN (2015) AWIN welfare assessment protocol for goats. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.13130%2FAWIN_goats_2015
  2. Anzuino K, Bell NJ, Bazeley KJ et al (2010) Assessment of welfare on 24 commercial UK dairy goat farms based on direct observations. Vet Rec 167(20):774–780CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Battini M, Vieira A, Barbieri S et al (2014) Animal-based indicators for on-farm welfare assessment for dairy goats. J Dairy Sci 97(11):6625–6648CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Battini M, Stilwell G, Vieira A, Barbieri et al (2015a) On-farm welfare assessment protocol for adult dairy goats in intensive production systems. Anim 5(4):934–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Battini M, Peric T, Ajuda I et al (2015b) Hair coat condition: a valid and reliable indicator for on-farm welfare assessment in adult dairy goats. Small Rumin Res 123(2–3):197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Battini M, Barbieri S, Vieira A et al (2016) Results of testing the prototype of the AWIN welfare assessment protocol for dairy goats in 30 intensive farms in Northern Italy. Ital J Anim Sci 15(2):283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blokhuis HJ, Veissier I, Miele M et al (2010) The welfare Quality® project and beyond: safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agric Scand, A Anim Sci 60(3):129–140Google Scholar
  8. Botreau R, Bracke MBM, Perny P et al (2007) Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: analysis of constraints. Anim 1(8):1188–1197Google Scholar
  9. Can E, Vieira A, Battini M et al (2016) On-farm welfare assessment of dairy goat farms using animal-based indicators: the example of 30 commercial farms in Portugal. Acta Agric Scand, A Anim Sci 66(1):43–55Google Scholar
  10. EFSA—Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (2012) Statement on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of animals. EFSA J 10(6):2767.  https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2767 Google Scholar
  11. Farm Animal Welfare Council (2009) Farm Animal Welfare Council: Five freedoms. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121007104210/http:/www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htmGoogle Scholar
  12. Grandin T (2010) The importance of measurement to improve the welfare of livestock, poultry and fish. In: Improving animal welfare: a practical approach. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  13. Hervieu J, Morand-Fehr P (1999) Comment noter l’état corporel des chèvres. Réussir La Chèvre. La Revue Des Éleveurs de Chèvres. Institut de L´ Elevage 231:26–32Google Scholar
  14. Llonch P, King EM, Clarke KA et al (2015) A systematic review of animal based indicators of sheep welfare on farm, at market and during transport, and qualitative appraisal of their validity and feasibility for use in UK abattoirs. Vet J 206(3):289–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Main DCJ (2009) Application of welfare assessment to commercial livestock production. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 12(2):97–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Meagher RK (2009) Observer ratings: validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Appl Anim Behav Sci 119(1–2):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Phythian CJ, Michalopoulou E, Jones PH et al (2011) Validating indicators of sheep welfare through a consensus of expert opinion. Anim 5(6):943–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sørensen JT, Sandoe P, Halberg N (2001) Animal welfare as one among several values to be considered at farm level: the idea of an ethical a count for livestock farming. Acta Agric Scand A: Anim Sci Suppl 30:11–16Google Scholar
  19. Spoolder H, De Rosa G, Hörning B et al (2003) Integrating parameters of assess on-farm welfare. Anim Welf 12(4):529–534Google Scholar
  20. Vieira A, Brandão S, Monteiro A et al (2015a) Development and validation of a visual body condition scoring system for dairy goats with picture-based training. J Dairy Sci 98(9):6597–6608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Vieira A, Oliveira MD, Nunes T et al (2015b) Making the case for developing alternative lameness scoring systems for dairy goats. Appl Anim Behav Sci 171:94–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Waiblinger S, Knierim U, Winckler C (2001) The development of an epidemiologically based on-farm welfare assessment system for use with dairy cows. Acta Agric Scand, A Anim Sci 30:73–77Google Scholar
  23. Webster AJF (2005) The assessment and implementation of animal welfare: theory into practice. Rev Sci Tech 24(2):723–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Welfare Quality (2009) Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for cattle. Welf. Qual. Assess. Protoc. Cattle Welfare Quality Consortium. Available at: http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/network/45848/7/0/40
  25. Wemelsfelder F, Hunter TEA, Mendl MT et al (2001) Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free choice profiling approach. Anim Behav 62:209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Animal Behaviour and Welfare Research LabCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations