1

Group assessment and management of welfare

動物福利的群體評估與管理

Module 8

模組 8

2

This module will enable you to此模組將使你能夠

• Understand the principles of welfare assessment at group level 了解群體福利之評估原則

• Identify different methods for assessment 確認不同的評估方法

• Recognise applications for welfare assessment at group level 認識動物福利群體評估的應用

• Understand management of health and welfare in group systems 了解群體健康與福利系統的管理

3

Introduction 介紹Assessment of individual animal 動物的個體評估使用下列參數：For example, assessment of comb colour, feather-score, beak 雞冠色澤 , 羽毛評估 , 喙

How do you assess How do you assess thousands?thousands? 你要如何評估上千隻動物？

4

Principles of welfare assessment on group level 群體動物福利評估的原則

• Which groups of animals? 什麼樣的動物群體– Farms 農場動物– Laboratory animals 實驗動物– Animals in shelters 收容所的動物– Wildlife 野生動物– Etc. 及其他

5

Principles of welfare assessment on group level 群體動物福利評估的原則

• Requirements for welfare indicators 動物福利指標的要求– Practicability 實用性

• E.g. time constraints, expenses 如時間限制、成本– Reliability: Amount of random error, including 可信度 :

統計誤差 , 包括• Agreement between observers 不同評審之一致同意• Agreement between different observations of the

same observer 同一評審對不同測試項目之觀察結果– Validity: Meaningfulness of the parameter 有效性 : 有意

義的參數

6

Epidemiological approach 流行病學

• Selecting a representative cross-section of groups of animals (e.g. from all dairy units of an area) 從不同動物群體中橫切選擇有代表性的抽樣 ( 如同一地區之不同乳牛群 )

• Random selection of animals of a group 同一群體中之動物做亂數抽樣

• Assessment 評估 – Severity and duration of a problem 問題的嚴重性和持

續性– Numbers of animals affected – i.e. Prevalence and

Incidence 受影響的動物數目 - 盛行率和發生率

7

Methods 方法

• Input – assessment 間接評估– Measurements of housing 房舍測量– Provision of food and water 食物飲水提供– Qualification of stockperson 工作人員能力– Medicine records 醫療記錄

• Output – assessment 直接評估– Assessment of live animal 活動物的評估– Assessment of dead animal (abattoir, post mortems) 死動物評

估 ( 屠宰場 , 死後屠體等評估 )

8

ANIMAL-BASED MEASURES以動物為基礎的評估

Welfare Inputs & Outputs 動物福利的間接與成果ENVIRONMENT 環境

E.g. housing, diet 房舍食物

STOCKMAN 技師

E.g. training 訓練

ANIMAL 動物

E.g. breeding 育種

WELFARE INPUTS 動物福利的間接

WELFARE

OUTPUTS動物福利的

成果

Disease/production 疾病和生產Behaviour 行為 Physiology 生理

9

Example 1: Animal-centred assessment 例子 1: 以動物為中心的評估 (Main et al

2003)

• Welfare outputs• 動物福利的直接參數• Dairy cows 乳牛

– Farm records 農場檢驗紀錄– Farmer’s estimates

of disease incidence, body condition etc 農民對疾病發生率及身體狀況的評估

– Independent observations 獨立的觀察

10

Example 2: Animal Needs Index 例子2: 動物需求指數 (Bartussek et al

2000)• Uses welfare inputs & outputs 使用動物福利

的間接和直接參數• Space and movement 空間和移動• Social interaction 社交• Flooring 地板材料 • Light and air 光線和空氣• Stockmanship 飼養員關懷

– E.g. animal cleanliness 動物的清潔

11

Can we describe ‘welfare’ with one score? 是否可以用一種標準測

量• A variety of parameters are assessed 各種

評估參數– Can they be summarised to one score? 是否可

以簡化到只用一種標準做指標– Are some more important than others? 是否某

些參數較重要– What is a ‘normal’ level? 何謂正常水準？

12

Applications 應用• Research 研究

– Health and welfare monitoring 衛生與福利監測– Impact assessment of interventions 干擾衝擊評估

• Voluntary Certification Schemes NGO 主辦之認證制度– E.g., American Meat Institute 如美國肉類協會

• Legislation 立法• Advisory - Preventive medicine 勸導 - 預防醫學

13

Research examples 研究範例• Monitoring 監測下列各項評估• Assess range in ‘normal’ groups 正常群體評估項目• Assess husbandry systems 農場系統評估• Assess individual resources (risk factors) 個體資

源 ( 風險因子 ) 評估• Assess certification schemes NGO 認證系統評估• Assess influence of new legislation 新法規效力• Assess impact of projects 策略衝擊評估

14

Results Profile of 53 Dairy FarmsMeasure Source of Unit of Score Categories

Information Measure (20% in each banding) Dr H WhayEst. - Estimated by farmer, Obs.-Observed during visit, Rec.-Farm records © Bristol University

A B C D E

Health & ProductionNutritionAnnual Ave. milk yield Est. Litres 10500 8300 8200 7789 7652 7118 7000 6500 6313 4275Thin cows (BCS <2) Obs. % 0 5.6 6.3 11.1 13.3 21.4 21.7 31.3 33.3 61.1Fat cows (BCS >3.5) Obs. % 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 5 5.1 27.6

Bloated rumen1 Obs. % 0 0 2.6 6.5 6.7 16.7 17.5 24.1 25 46.7

Hollow rumen1 Obs. % 0 6.3 7.4 13.8 14.3 20 20.8 31.3 32.1 82.4Milk fever cases Est. /100 cows/year 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.3 30.6

Other disease2 Est. /100 cows/year 0 2.7 3.0 4.4 4.7 6.9 7.3 9.5 10.3 19.1ReproductionConception rate to 1st Service Est. % 80 68 66 60 59 56 55 49 47 28Assisted calving cases Est. /100 cows/year 0 0 0 0 0.9 1.1 1.1 4.8 4.9 40Mastitis

Mastitis cases Rec. /100 cows/year 0 9 11.5 20.7 21.3 34.5 40.8 46.2 46.8 120Mastitis cases Est. /100 cows/year 2.8 13.3 14.8 18.9 20 32.7 33.0 46.7 46.8 89.1Lameness

No. of lame cows Obs. % 0 13.6 13.8 18 19.5 23.5 23.6 29.6 29.8 50Lameness cases Rec. /100 cows/year 0 0 0 0 2.2 4.1 4.3 11.0 11.5 42.3Lameness cases Est. /100 cows/year 3.2 8.7 9.2 14.7 14.9 20.7 21.3 34.8 34.9 54.4

Claw overgrowth3 Obs. % 0 11.8 12.5 25 26.7 34.4 35 46.2 46.4 76.5

Poor claw conformation4 Obs. % 0 0 0 0 3.3 7.1 7.4 16.7 17.9 37.5Non-specific Illness / MortalityDull / Obviously sick Obs. % 0 0 0 0 2.2 3.3 3.6 6.3 6.7 20Sudden death / casualty Est. /100 cows/year 0 1.0 1.1 1.7 1.8 2.8 3.1 4.1 4.3 15.6

Assess range in normal farms正常乳牛場生理值

15

Compare husbandry systems比較農場系統

Group housing of pregnant sows 群體懷孕豬舍

• 5.3% lame 跛足• 8.3% overgrown claws趾過長• 18.2% calluses 長老繭

Individual housing of pregnant sows (Leeb et al, 2001) 個別懷孕母豬舍• 2.4% lame 跛足

• 21.4% overgrown claws趾過長• 41.7% calluses 長老繭

16

Assess effect of interventions評估干涉的效果

• Vaccination campaigns 疫苗注射活動• Owner education

and training 飼主之教育訓練• Assess before & after

intervention 干渉前後之差別• Compare locations

with and without intervention 有或沒有實施干涉

17

Example: Health monitoring舉例 : 衛生監測

• Current policy 當前政策– Normal treatment and prevention protocol 正常防治計畫

• Records 記錄 - 疾病發生– Disease incidence

• Review 檢視水準– Target levels 目標水準– Intervention levels 干涉水準

• Action plan 計劃做法

18

Health and welfare monitoring衛生與福利監測

• Also applicable for wild animals 同樣應用再野生動物

• Assessment of inputs e.g. 評估間接參數如

– Adequate grazing 適當牧區

– Access to water 牧區內之飲水

• Assessments of outputs 評估直接參數

– Body condition score 體態評分

– Number of young 幼畜數目

– Physiological parameters - e.g. cortisol in faeces 生理參數 - 如糞皮質醇

19

Voluntary/certification examples NGO 認證舉例

• Farm assurance schemes 農場保險– Usually market-led 通常是市場導向– Prime concern is food safety 主要考慮食品安全

• UK - Red Tractor Mark scheme, Freedom Foods 英國認證標籤

• USA – Certified Humane Program 美國認證標籤

• Austria - “Tierschutzgeprueft” use Animal Needs Index for laying hens 澳洲 : 使用動物需求索引在蛋雞上

20

Voluntary/certification examples NGO 認證舉例

• EUREPGAP - international 國際認證法律• Organic certification systems 有機認證系統

– Voluntary membership but some EU legislative requirements (EU reg. 1804/1999)歐盟有機立法

• Subsidy requirements補貼需求– Voluntary system, can choose to join or not

可自由選擇加入

21

Legislation examples 立法舉例• EU legislation 98/58/EC 歐盟立法

– Primarily resource-based standards 基本資源標準

– However, some can be assessed by observing the animal然而，有些情況是目測動物

• Austria: Animal Needs Index in certain provinces 澳洲 : 動物需求索引在某些地區– Salzburg & Tyrol (澳洲若干省 )

– Minimum ANI score 使用最低的 ANI 評分

22

Legislation examples 立法舉例• Ireland: Individual cow health assessment愛爾蘭 : 牛隻個體衛生評估– Annual inspection of cow as part of TB test

結核病檢測列入年度母牛評鑑• Switzerland: Assessment of system by

research centre 瑞士 : 研究中心評估– New husbandry systems assessed and

authorised 新畜牧系統評估授權

23

How do legislation or certification schemes work? 立法或認證之程序

Standards...Standards.....-(1) Where calves are housed in groups, they shall have sufficient unobstructed floor -(1) Where calves are housed in groups, they shall have sufficient unobstructed floor space to be able to turn round and lie down without hindrance, and in any event each space to be able to turn round and lie down without hindrance, and in any event each calf of 150 kg or more live weight must have at least 1.5 square metres unobstructed calf of 150 kg or more live weight must have at least 1.5 square metres unobstructed floor space.(2) Until 1st January 2004, the preceding sub-paragraph shall not apply in floor space.(2) Until 1st January 2004, the preceding sub-paragraph shall not apply in relation to accommodation in use before 1st January 1994.(3) Where tethers are relation to accommodation in use before 1st January 1994.(3) Where tethers are used, they must not cause injury to the calves and must be inspected regularly and used, they must not cause injury to the calves and must be inspected regularly and adjusted as necessary to ensure a comfortable fit.adjusted as necessary to ensure a comfortable fit. Each tether must be of sufficient Each tether must be of sufficient length to allow the calves to stand up, lie down, rest and groom itself without length to allow the calves to stand up, lie down, rest and groom itself without hindrance. The design must be such as to avoid, as far as possible, any risk of hindrance. The design must be such as to avoid, as far as possible, any risk of strangulation or injury.strangulation or injury.2. 2. Where a calf is housed in an individual stall or pen-(a) the Where a calf is housed in an individual stall or pen-(a) the stall or pen shall have at least one perforated wall which enables the calf to see other stall or pen shall have at least one perforated wall which enables the calf to see other animals in neighbouring pens or stalls unless isolated for veterinary reasons, except animals in neighbouring pens or stalls unless isolated for veterinary reasons, except that -until 1st January 2004. this shall not apply in relation to accommodation in use that -until 1st January 2004. this shall not apply in relation to accommodation in use before 1st January 1994;(b) the width of the stall or pen shall be no less than the before 1st January 1994;(b) the width of the stall or pen shall be no less than the height of the calf at the withers;(c) the calf must be able to stand up, turn round, lie height of the calf at the withers;(c) the calf must be able to stand up, turn round, lie down, rest and groom itself without hindrance.down, rest and groom itself without hindrance.

Standards define the resources that should be provided 標準 ( 規範 )定義應提供之資源要求

24

Standards: Means-orientated設備導向標準

• Resources are required independent of their actual effect 要求與它們的實際影響無相關性

• Based on good practice/ welfare research應以好的操作與福利研究為要求基礎

• Assessed by looking at resources 應以觀察設備資源進行評估

• Example: “Animals not kept in buildings shall at all times have access to a well-drained lying area”無畜舍農場應全時間提供動物乾燥躺臥處所

25

Standards: Goal-orientated目標導向標準 ( 譯註：直接標準 )

• Level of required resources is defined with reference to their effect on the animals on each farm 必要提供的資源要求水準是根據其對該農場動物之影響

• Assessed by looking at the animal 要親眼看到動物予以評估

Example: ‘Animals shall be fed a wholesome diet in sufficient quantity to maintain them in good health, satisfy their nutritional needs and promote a positive state of well-being.’ 例如：動物應該給予完全食物，供應量需達到維持良好衛生之要求，滿足營養需求與提升正面福利狀況。

26

Advisory/Management examples建議 / 管理舉例

• Problem analysis 問題分析– Perceive–evaluate-act-revaluate 問題之察覺 - 評估 - 行

動 -再評估• Benchmarking system 參考評分系統

– Giving points of references for 給下列評分標準之分數• Animal based parameters 以動物為基礎之參數• Production performance 生產表現

• Management system 管理系統– Health plan e.g. Farm Assurance requirement 衛生計畫，

如農場保險需求– HACCP systems危害分析及關鍵管制點系統

27

Example: Goat farm舉例 : 山羊農場

• Perceive problem 察覺問題– Death of 3 adult breeding females 3 隻成年種母羊死亡

• Clinical evaluation e.g 臨床評估如

– Body condition score 體態評分

– Teeth 檢視牙齒– Superficial lymph nodes 表層淋巴結

– Mucous membranes黏膜

28

Example: Goat farm (cont)舉例 : 山羊農場 ( 續 )

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

BCS1,5

BCS2

BCS2.5

BCS3

BCS3.5

prevalence of goats (%)

29

Benchmarking systems參考評分系統

• Welfare assessment of farm 農場之福利評估• Compare with welfare on farms in the

same area 和同地域的農場比較動物福利• Produce farm-specific priorities for action建立農場特定的行動優先次序

• Identify farm strengths and weaknesses確認農場之優缺點

30

BenchmarkingExample 1: Calluses in sows

參考評分 舉例 1: 43 個豬場之豬腿繭數目做檢測標準

Number of calluses per pig on 43 farms

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

calluses

(Leeb et al, 2001)

31

BenchmarkingExample 2: Health of dairy cows

參考評分舉例 2: 乳牛的衛生 Results Profile of 53 Dairy Farms

Measure Source of Unit of Score CategoriesInformation Measure (20% in each banding) Dr H Whay

Est. - Estimated by farmer, Obs.-Observed during visit, Rec.-Farm records © Bristol UniversityA B C D E

Health & ProductionNutritionAnnual Ave. milk yield Est. Litres 10500 8300 8200 7789 7652 7118 7000 6500 6313 4275Thin cows (BCS <2) Obs. % 0 5.6 6.3 11.1 13.3 21.4 21.7 31.3 33.3 61.1Fat cows (BCS >3.5) Obs. % 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 5 5.1 27.6

Bloated rumen1 Obs. % 0 0 2.6 6.5 6.7 16.7 17.5 24.1 25 46.7

Hollow rumen1 Obs. % 0 6.3 7.4 13.8 14.3 20 20.8 31.3 32.1 82.4Milk fever cases Est. /100 cows/year 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.3 30.6

Other disease2 Est. /100 cows/year 0 2.7 3.0 4.4 4.7 6.9 7.3 9.5 10.3 19.1ReproductionConception rate to 1st Service Est. % 80 68 66 60 59 56 55 49 47 28Assisted calving cases Est. /100 cows/year 0 0 0 0 0.9 1.1 1.1 4.8 4.9 40Mastitis

Mastitis cases Rec. /100 cows/year 0 9 11.5 20.7 21.3 34.5 40.8 46.2 46.8 120Mastitis cases Est. /100 cows/year 2.8 13.3 14.8 18.9 20 32.7 33.0 46.7 46.8 89.1Lameness

No. of lame cows Obs. % 0 13.6 13.8 18 19.5 23.5 23.6 29.6 29.8 50Lameness cases Rec. /100 cows/year 0 0 0 0 2.2 4.1 4.3 11.0 11.5 42.3Lameness cases Est. /100 cows/year 3.2 8.7 9.2 14.7 14.9 20.7 21.3 34.8 34.9 54.4

Claw overgrowth3 Obs. % 0 11.8 12.5 25 26.7 34.4 35 46.2 46.4 76.5

Poor claw conformation4 Obs. % 0 0 0 0 3.3 7.1 7.4 16.7 17.9 37.5Non-specific Illness / MortalityDull / Obviously sick Obs. % 0 0 0 0 2.2 3.3 3.6 6.3 6.7 20Sudden death / casualty Est. /100 cows/year 0 1.0 1.1 1.7 1.8 2.8 3.1 4.1 4.3 15.6

32

Benefits of benchmarking參考評分的益處

• Feedback to farmers motivates them 對農民的回饋可以激勵他們

• Encourage鼓勵– Competition between farms over results 各

農場結果 ( 數據 ) 之競爭– Incentive system補貼系統– Better price for animal products if criteria

are met畜產品若符合標準則設法降價

33

Benefits of benchmarking參考評分的益處

• Educate推廣教育– Raise awareness of own performance 提高自己表現之認知– Awareness of husbandry solutions to problems 了解農場必須解決問題

• Enforce加強執行力– Define minimum welfare performance定義最低動物福利表

現 – Can be used to pass/fail e.g. animal-dependent legislation

可用在及格 / 不及格 如：以動物為基礎之立法– Alternatively, farmer must produce and implement action

plan for certification scheme 或者，農民必須建立行動計畫並執行取得認證

34

Health plan 衛生計畫

62. Each herd should have a written health and welfare programme produced, where necessary, with expert advice. This should set out health and husbandry activities covering the whole of the yearly cycle of production. The programme should be reviewed and updated annually by the farmer and should be available for inspection by enforcement authorities.

各農場均要有書面之衛生與福利計畫，必要時得請專家建議。

計畫需包含衛生與畜產整年度之生產行動。內容須每年由農民做檢討與修正且需隨時可供督導單位監察。

Farm Animal Welfare Council Report on dairy cattle (1997)農場動物福利委員會乳牛報告 (1997)

35

Who is responsible? 誰的責任• Responsibility for the success of a welfare

action plan lies with為衛生計畫的成功進度負責的– Animal owner 動物飼主– Their advisors e.g. vet, nutritionist 他們的顧問 , 如獸醫、營養師

– The external assessor of the welfare scheme外界的福利評審員

• Owner 飼主 – Overall responsibility負一切責任 – Formulate plan for procedures擬訂計畫步驟– Maintain records保管紀錄

36

Who is responsible? 誰的責任• Advisor顧問

– Advice on plans and record system給予計畫與記錄系統建議

– Review of performance 審查農場表現– Advice on corrective action給予修正建議

• Assurance assessor保險評估者– Assess availability of health plans/records 衛生計

畫 / 記錄評估– Assess frequency of review 檢討頻度評估– Assess implementation of health plan 衛生計畫執

行評估– Assess effectiveness of health plana 衛生計畫效

果評估

37

General comments 通案性意見

• Legislation and certification standards are mostly resource–based 立法與認證標準是大部份資源之基礎– They rely on welfare research 有賴於動物福利研究

• Legislation is variably enforced in many countries 不同國家之立法推動程度不同

• Certification schemes have a role in enforcing and going beyond legislation 認證體制扮演推動執法與超越立法的重要角色

• Management systems (e.g. health plans) are not currently used much 管理系統 ( 如衛生計畫 ) 目前使用率不高

38

Conclusions/Summary 結論和摘要• Practicability, reliability and validity are important 可行性、

可信性與有效性都很重要• Depending on the aim, a combination of different

parameters is favourable (inputs and outputs)決定於目標，由多項參數共同決定是最好的 ( 直接參數與間接參數 )

• Research, voluntary certification schemes, legislation and advisory tools are applications of welfare assessment at group level科學研究、自發認證計劃、立法與諮詢手段皆為群體動物福利評估之應用範疇

• The aim of all assessments should be the improvement of animal welfare 所有評估應以改善動物福利為宗旨

39

Resources: Animal welfare judging, online

資源 : 動物福利線上評估

• Michigan State University, Animal Behavior and Welfare Group

密西根州大學動物行為與福利團體

– http://www.msu.edu/~zanella/awjc.html

40

Resources: websites 資源 : 網站

• EurepGAP– A private sector body that sets voluntary standards for the

certification of agricultural products around the globe– www.eurep.org

• COST Action: a forum for methods of measuring and monitoring farm animal welfare and to stimulate welfare research – www.cost846.unina.it

• UK Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs– http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/

• Welfare standards in organic farming– http://www.veeru.reading.ac.uk/organic/proc/proceedings.htm– http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/ahws/fhp/pdf/actionplan.pdf– Welfare Quality Project, EU. www.welfarequality.net

41

Resources: welfare assessment and monitoring 資源 : 動物福利評估與監測

• Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm or Group Level - Proceedings of an international workshop organised by the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences and the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, 27-28 Aug. 1999, Denmark. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A Animal Sci., 2001 Suppl. 30, 3-4

• Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm or Group level- Abstracts of presentations and posters, University of Bristol (4-6 Sept. 2002, UK). Animal Welfare Volume 2003; Volume 12, Issue 4

• Ekesbo I. 1992: Monitoring systems using clinical, subclinical and behavioural records for improving health and welfare. In: Moss, R. (ed) Livestock Health and Welfare, Bath press, Avon, UK pp 20-50

42

Further Reading 進階閱讀• Bartussek H. 1999 A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for

the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science, 61: 179 – 192.

• Bartussek H, Leeb Ch & Held S 2000. Animal Needs Index for Cattle. Federal Research Institute for Agriculture in Alpine Regions.

• Farm Animal Welfare Council 1997 Report on the Welfare of Dairy Cattle. Report 3426. www.fawc.org.uk/reports.htm

• Grandin T. Interpretation of the American Meat Institute Animal Handling Guidelines for auditing the welfare of cattle, pigs, and sheep at slaughter plants. http://www.grandin.com/interpreting.ami.guidelines.html

43

Further Reading 進階閱讀• Johnsen PF, Johannesson T & Sandøe P. 2001. Assessment

of farm animal welfare at herd level: many goals, many methods. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science 51 (Supplement 30) 2001 26 – 33

• Leeb B,Leeb Ch, Troxler J, Schuh M. 2001 Skin Lesions and Callosities in Group-Housed Pregnant Sows: Animal-Related Welfare Indicators. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science 51 (Supplement 30):82 - 87

• Main DC, Whay HR ,Green LE & Webster AJ. 2003. Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food Scheme on the welfare of dairy cattle. Veterinary Record 153: 227-231

• Whay HR, Main DCJ, Green LE & Webster AJF. 2003 Assessment of dairy cattle welfare using animal–based measurements:direct observations and investigation of farm records. Veterinary Record 153: 197-202