Are there risk factors commonly observed on Australian farms where the welfare of livestock is poor?

Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) Pub Date : 2024-09-16 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1017/awf.2024.27
Natarsha Williams, Lauren Hemsworth, Sarah Chaplin, Richard Shephard, Andrew Fisher
{"title":"Are there risk factors commonly observed on Australian farms where the welfare of livestock is poor?","authors":"Natarsha Williams, Lauren Hemsworth, Sarah Chaplin, Richard Shephard, Andrew Fisher","doi":"10.1017/awf.2024.27","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this study was to identify factors more commonly observed on farms with poor livestock welfare compared to farms with good welfare. Potentially, these factors may be used to develop an animal welfare risk assessment tool (AWRAT) that could be used to identify livestock at risk of poor welfare. Identifying livestock at risk of poor welfare would facilitate early intervention and improve strategies to promptly resolve welfare issues. This study focuses on cattle, sheep and goats in non-dairy extensive farming systems in Australia. To assist with identifying potential risk factors, a survey was developed presenting 99 factors about the farm, farmers, animals and various aspects of management. Based on their experience, key stakeholders, including veterinarians, stock agents, consultants, extension and animal welfare officers were asked to consider a farm where the welfare of the livestock was either high or low and rate the likelihood of observing these factors. Of the 141 responses, 65% were for farms with low welfare. Only 6% of factors had ratings that were not significantly different between high and low welfare surveys, and these were not considered further. Factors from poor welfare surveys with median ratings in the lowest 25% were considered potential risks (n = 49). Considering correlation, ease of verification and the different livestock farming systems in Australia, 18 risk factors relating to farm infrastructure, nutrition, treatment and husbandry were selected. The AWRAT requires validation in future studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":520228,"journal":{"name":"Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11418073/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2024.27","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective of this study was to identify factors more commonly observed on farms with poor livestock welfare compared to farms with good welfare. Potentially, these factors may be used to develop an animal welfare risk assessment tool (AWRAT) that could be used to identify livestock at risk of poor welfare. Identifying livestock at risk of poor welfare would facilitate early intervention and improve strategies to promptly resolve welfare issues. This study focuses on cattle, sheep and goats in non-dairy extensive farming systems in Australia. To assist with identifying potential risk factors, a survey was developed presenting 99 factors about the farm, farmers, animals and various aspects of management. Based on their experience, key stakeholders, including veterinarians, stock agents, consultants, extension and animal welfare officers were asked to consider a farm where the welfare of the livestock was either high or low and rate the likelihood of observing these factors. Of the 141 responses, 65% were for farms with low welfare. Only 6% of factors had ratings that were not significantly different between high and low welfare surveys, and these were not considered further. Factors from poor welfare surveys with median ratings in the lowest 25% were considered potential risks (n = 49). Considering correlation, ease of verification and the different livestock farming systems in Australia, 18 risk factors relating to farm infrastructure, nutrition, treatment and husbandry were selected. The AWRAT requires validation in future studies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在牲畜福利较差的澳大利亚农场中,是否普遍存在一些风险因素?
本研究的目的是找出牲畜福利差的农场与福利好的农场相比更常见的因素。这些因素有可能用于开发动物福利风险评估工具(AWRAT),该工具可用于识别面临福利差风险的牲畜。识别面临低福利风险的牲畜将有助于及早干预,并改进及时解决福利问题的策略。本研究的重点是澳大利亚非乳畜牧业系统中的牛、绵羊和山羊。为了帮助识别潜在的风险因素,我们编制了一份调查表,列出了有关农场、农场主、动物和管理各个方面的 99 个因素。调查要求兽医、牲畜经纪人、顾问、推广人员和动物福利官员等主要利益相关者根据自身经验,考虑牲畜福利较高或较低的农场,并评定观察到这些因素的可能性。在 141 份答复中,65% 是针对低福利农场的。只有 6% 的因素在高福利调查和低福利调查中的评分没有显著差异,这些因素未被进一步考虑。低福利调查中评分中位数在最低 25% 的因素被视为潜在风险(n = 49)。考虑到相关性、验证的难易程度以及澳大利亚不同的畜牧系统,选出了 18 个与农场基础设施、营养、治疗和饲养有关的风险因素。AWRAT 需要在今后的研究中进行验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Between animal research and animal welfare: Analysing the openness practices of UK Named Veterinary Surgeons. Conceptual foundations for a clarified meaning of the 3Rs principles in animal experimentation. A comparison of the welfare of free-ranging native pony herds on common land with those used for conservation grazing in the UK. Can an animal welfare risk assessment tool identify livestock at risk of poor welfare outcomes? Neutralisation techniques used by defendants charged with animal welfare offences in Finland.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1