Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

  • 제31권9호
  • /
  • Pages.1525-1534
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 1011-2367(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1976-5517(eISSN)
아세아태평양축산학회 (Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Use of welfare outcome information in three types of dairy farm inspection reports

  • Lin, Yi-Chun (School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol) ;
  • Mullan, Siobhan (School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol) ;
  • Main, David C.J. (School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol)
  • 투고 : 2017.11.18
  • 심사 : 2018.03.19
  • 발행 : 2018.09.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the use of outcome-based observations within Assured Dairy Farm scheme (ADF), Soil Association Organic Standards (SA), and cross compliance (CC) farm assessment reports. Methods: A total of 449 ADF reports, 37 SA reports and 26 CC reports were analyzed and their objective comments categorized as either resource-based or outcome-based. Results: A mean of 61.0% of ADF questions were responded to with comments, in comparison to 25.0% of SA and, 21.0% of CC report questions. The SA and CC reports had significantly more outcome-based comments than the ADF (p<0.001). The assessors' tendency of choosing resource-based approach was revealed in the questionnaire results. Conclusion: Generally, the comments were comprehensive and contained professional judgements. Large numbers of comments provided in the ADF reports were mostly compliant and resource-based evidence, which serves as proof of assessment rather than aiding the certifying process. The inclusion of specific welfare outcome measures in the SA inspection likely increased the use of outcome-based comments in the reports, irrespective of whether the farm achieved compliance with a given standards. The CC scheme, on the other hand, focused on providing outcome-based evidence to justify noncompliant decisions.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Keeling LJ, Immink V, Hubbard C, et al. Designing animal welfare policies and monitoring progress. Anim Welf 2012;21:95-105.
  2. Main DCJ, Mullan S, Atkinson C, et al. Best practice framework for animal welfare certification schemes. Trends Food Sci Technol 2014;37:127-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.03.009
  3. Horning B. The assessment of housing conditions of dairy cows in littered loose housing systems using three scoring methods. Acta Agric Scand A Anim Sci 2001;51:42-7.
  4. Keeling LJ. An analysis of animal-based versus resource-based comments in official animal welfare inspection reports from organic and conventional farms in Sweden. Anim Welf 2009; 18:391-7.
  5. Rushen J, de Passille A. The scientific basis of animal welfare indicators. In: Smulders FJM, Algers B, editors. Welfare of production animals: assessment and management of risks. Waganingen, The Netherlands: Waganingen Academic Publishers; 2009. p. 391-415.
  6. Whay HR. The journey to animal welfare improvement. Anim Welf 2007;16:117-22.
  7. Main DCJ, Whay HR, Green LE, Webster AJF. Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme on the welfare of dairy cattle. Vet Rec 2003;153:227-31. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.153.8.227
  8. Webster AJF, Main DCJ, Whay HR. Welfare assessment: indices from clinical observation. Anim Welf 2004;13:93-8.
  9. Main DCJ, Whay HR, Lee C, Webster AJF. Formal animalbased welfare assessment in UK certification schemes. Anim Welf 2007;16:233-6.
  10. Farm Animal Welfare Council. Report on the welfare implications of farm assurance schemes. London, UK: FAWC;2005.
  11. Whay HR, Main DCJ, Green LE, Webster AJF. Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: Consensus of expert opinion. Anim Welf 2003;12:205-17.
  12. Burkholder WJ. Use of body condition scores in clinical assessment of the provision of optimal nutrition. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:650-4. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2000.217.650
  13. Rogerson I. Adopting the bristol protocol in the certification of organic farms. In: Rymer C, Vaarst M, Padel S, editors. The 5th Sustaining Animal Health and Food Safety in Organic Farming Workshop 2006. Odense, Denmark. pp. 115-7.
  14. Farmer M, Swales V, Jongeneel R, et al. Exploring the synergies between cross compliance and certification schemes. The Hague, The Netherlands: LEI; 2007.
  15. Albersmeier F, Schulze H, Jahn G, Spiller A. The reliability of third-party certification in the food chain: From checklists to risk-oriented auditing. Food Control 2009;20:927-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.01.010
  16. Roe E, Buller H, Bull J. The performance of farm animal assessment. Anim Welf 2011;20:69-78.
  17. Rushen J, Butterworth A, Swanson JC. Animal Behavior and Well-Being Symposium: Farm animal welfare assurance: Science and application. J Anim Sci 2011;89:1219-28. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3589
  18. Heath CAE, Lin Y, Mullan S, Browne WJ, Main DCJ. Implementing Welfare $Quality^{(R)}$ in UK assurance schemes: evaluating the challenges. Anim Welf 2014;23:95-107. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.1.095
  19. Barker ZE, Leach KA, Whay HR, Bell NJ, Main DCJ. Assessment of lameness prevalence and associated risk factors in dairy herds in England and Wales. J Dairy Sci 2010;93:932-41. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2309
  20. Mork M, Lindberg A, Alenius S, Vagsholm I, Egenvall A. Comparison between dairy cow disease incidence in data registered by farmers and in data from a disease-recording system based on veterinary reporting. Prev Vet Med 2009;88:298-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2008.12.005
  21. Weary DM, Taszkun I. Hock lesions and free-stall design. J Dairy Sci 2000;83:697-702. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)74931-9
  22. Hovi M, Sundrum A, Thamsborg SM. Animal health and welfare in organic livestock production in Europe: current state and future challenges. Livest Prod Sci 2003;80:41-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00320-2
  23. Veissier I, Butterworth A, Bock B, Roe E. European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008; 113:279-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.008
  24. Richert RM, Cicconi KM, Gamroth MJ, et al. Risk factors for clinical mastitis, ketosis, and pneumonia in dairy cattle on organic and small conventional farms in the United States. J Dairy Sci 2013;96:4269-85. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5980
  25. Rutherford KMD, Langford FM, Jack MC, et al. Lameness prevalence and risk factors in organic and non-organic dairy herds in the United Kingdom. Vet J 2009;180:95-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2008.03.015
  26. Rutherford KMD, Langford FM, Jack MC, et al. Organic dairy cow management and indicators of energy balance. Vet Rec 2009;165:147-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.165.5.147
  27. Huxley JN, Burke J, Roderick S, Main DCJ, Whay HR. Animal welfare assessment benchmarking as a tool for health and welfare planning in organic dairy herds. Vet Rec 2004;155:237-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.155.8.237
  28. Mullan S, Edwards SA, Butterworth A, Whay HR, Main DCJ. Inter-observer reliability testing of pig welfare outcome measures proposed for inclusion within farm assurance schemes. Vet J 2011;190:100-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.01.012
  29. Anneberg I, Vaarst M, Sandoe P. To inspect, to motivate - or to do both? A dilemma for on-farm inspection of animal welfare. Anim Welf 2013;22:185-94. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.2.185
  30. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). Statement on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of animals. EFSA J 2012;10:2767-96.

피인용 문헌

  1. Animal welfare official inspections: farmers and inspectors shared concerns vol.15, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2020.100038
  2. Recommendations for Ensuring Good Welfare of Horses Used for Industrial Blood, Serum, or Urine Production vol.11, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051466