ANIMAL BEHAVIOR AND WELL-BEING SYMPOSIUM: Farm animal welfare assurance: Science and application1

Rushen, J.; Butterworth, Andrew; Swanson, J. C.

doi:10.2527/jas.2010-3589

Cited by 96 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These are therefore measures of a welfare outcome at a particular point in time. Welfare Quality® proposes four welfare principles, linked to 12 criteria ( Figure 1) that result in good welfare (Blokhuis et al, 2010) and can be considered a useful guideline for achieving it (Rushen et al, 2011). Again the multidimensional aspect of welfare is emphasised.…”

Section: 1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Statement on the use of animal‐based measures to assess the welfare of animals

2012

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The overall aim of the work outlined in this statement is to help establish a common framework for future scientific opinions dealing with the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of animals. The statement is mainly intended to support the work of EFSA, and a list of considerations for experts working on these future scientific opinions is presented. EFSA has already published a scientific opinion on dairy cattle and another on pigs related to the topic. This statement clarifies some common issues on terminology and integration of concepts, and presents some essential characteristics of animal-based measures to ensure that they are ‗fit for purpose'. It highlights that more information is needed about the direction and strength of the various links between input factors and the animalbased measures (welfare indicators) that are used to assess their consequences. The statement highlights the importance of the systematic collection of standardised field data on animal-based measures and subsequent availability in well-defined databases. Targeted analysis of such data will help when selecting the most appropriate measure, or combination of measures, from the ‗toolbox' of many potential measures, according to the specific purpose of the welfare assessment, as well as contribute to better assessing their validity and robustness. This will support the move towards quantitative risk assessment of animal welfare. © European SUMMARYEFSA has been asked to produce a series of scientific opinions on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of farm animals. The starting points for the first of these opinions have been the previous EFSA opinions on the welfare of dairy cattle, pigs and poultry and the protocols developed in the EU-funded Welfare Quality® project and other similar scientific research. Some issues arose in the process of combining the risk assessment approach and the welfare assessment approach. This statement summarises some of these issues and so contributes towards establishing a common framework for future EFSA scientific opinions dealing with the use of animal-based measures in the assessment of welfare, both as welfare outcome indicators and for animal welfare research. This statement also discusses the potential for access to systematically collected, animal-based measures for EFSA's future work in animal welfare risk assessment.The scientific opinions published so far in the series have proposed lists of potential animal-based measures that could be linked to hazards in the animal's environment and used to determine the extent to which recommendations in earlier EFSA opinions have been fulfilled. However, these lists of animal-based measures are long and it is not necessary to recruit all measures on every occasion when the welfare of an animal is to be assessed. Instead it is proposed that they are considered as a form of -toolbox‖, from which to select the range of animal-based measures necessary to address the specific objectives of the assessment for that particu...

show abstract

Section: 1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Statement on the use of animal‐based measures to assess the welfare of animals

2012

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 To provide proper scientific evidence for regulatory decisions and for the development of pain-mitigating options, there is a need for studies in which pain-relieving techniques for food animal species are investigated. A major impediment to determination of conclusions from such studies is the lack of an objective measure of pain in animals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of sample handling methods on substance P concentrations and immunoreactivity in bovine blood samples

Mosher

Coetzee

Allen

et al. 2014

ajvr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective—To determine the effects of protease inhibitors and holding times and temperatures before processing on the stability of substance P in bovine blood samples. Samples—Blood samples obtained from a healthy 6-month-old calf. Procedures—Blood samples were dispensed into tubes containing exogenous substance P and 1 of 6 degradative enzyme inhibitor treatments: heparin, EDTA, EDTA with 1 of 2 concentrations of aprotinin, or EDTA with 1 of 2 concentrations of a commercially available protease inhibitor cocktail. Plasma was harvested immediately following collection or after 1, 3, 6, 12, or 24 hours of holding at ambient (20.3° to 25.4°C) or ice bath temperatures. Total substance P immunoreactivity was determined with an ELISA; concentrations of the substance P parent molecule, a metabolite composed of the 9 terminal amino acids, and a metabolite composed of the 5 terminal amino acids were determined with liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. Results—Regarding blood samples processed immediately, no significant differences in substance P concentrations or immunoreactivity were detected among enzyme inhibitor treatments. In blood samples processed at 1 hour of holding, substance P parent molecule concentration was significantly lower for ambient temperature versus ice bath temperature holding conditions; aprotinin was the most effective inhibitor of substance P degradation at the ice bath temperature. The ELISA substance P immunoreactivity was typically lower for blood samples with heparin versus samples with other inhibitors processed at 1 hour of holding in either temperature condition. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results suggested that blood samples should be chilled and plasma harvested within 1 hour after collection to prevent substance P degradation.

show abstract

“…AWIN research was grounded on and progressed from the approach defined in the Welfare Quality ® research project (Botreau et al, 2007;Blokhuis et al, 2010;Rushen et al, 2011) and by Visser et al (2014). As for horses, AWIN research was not only focussed on developing a welfare assessment protocol grounded on valid animal-based indicators , but also on finding innovative methods to standardize on-farm data collection .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Initial outcomes of a harmonized approach to collect welfare data in sport and leisure horses

Costa

Dai

Lebelt³

et al. 2017

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A truthful snapshot of horse welfare conditions is a prerequisite for predicting the impact of any actions intended to improve the quality of life of horses. This can be achieved when welfare information, gathered by different assessors in diverse geographical areas, is valid, comparable and collected in a harmonized way. This paper aims to present the first outcomes of the Animal Welfare Indicators (AWIN) approach: the results of on-farm assessment and a reliable and harmonized data collection system. A total of 355 sport and leisure horses, stabled in 40 facilities in Italy and in Germany, were evaluated by three trained assessors using the AWIN welfare assessment protocol for horses. The AWINHorse app was used to collect, store and send data to a common server. Identified welfare issues were obesity, unsatisfactory box dimensions, long periods of confinement and lack of social interaction. The digitalized data collection was feasible in an on-farm environment, and our results suggest that this approach could prove useful in identifying the most relevant welfare issues of horses in Europe or worldwide.

show abstract

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR AND WELL-BEING SYMPOSIUM: Farm animal welfare assurance: Science and application1

Cited by 96 publications

References 46 publications

Statement on the use of animal‐based measures to assess the welfare of animals

Statement on the use of animal‐based measures to assess the welfare of animals

Effects of sample handling methods on substance P concentrations and immunoreactivity in bovine blood samples

Initial outcomes of a harmonized approach to collect welfare data in sport and leisure horses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About