Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 1: a review of existing methods

Self Cite

The overall assessment of animal welfare is a multicriterion evaluation problem that needs a constructive strategy to compound information produced by many measures. The construction depends on specific features such as the concept of welfare, the measures used and the way data are collected. Welfare is multidimensional and one dimension probably cannot fully compensate for another one (e.g. good health cannot fully compensate for behavioural deprivation). Welfare measures may vary in precision, relevance and their relative contribution to an overall welfare assessment. The data collected are often expressed on ordinal scales, which limits the use of weighted sums to aggregate them. A sequential aggregation is proposed in the Welfare Quality R project, first from measures to welfare criteria (corresponding to dimensions with pre-set objectives) and then to an overall welfare assessment, using rules determined at each level depending on the nature and number of variables to be considered and the level of compensation to be permitted. Scientific evidence and expert opinion are used to refine the model, and stakeholders' approval of general principles is sought. This approach could potentially be extended to other problems in agriculture such as the overall assessment of the sustainability of production systems.

Section: Specific Features Linked To the Concept Of Welfarementioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: analysis of constraints

Botreau

Bracke

Perny

et al. 2007

Self Cite

“…With regard to other methods proposed for the overall evaluation of animal welfare, such as sum of ranks and sum of scores (Botreau et al, 2007a), the use of the CI as an aggregator presented an important advantage since it allowed interaction between measures to be taken into account, thus allowing the possibility to limit the interaction between them, and in this way, solving one of the main problems described by Botreau et al (2007b). The CI was also used in the WQ protocol for the aggregation of some measures into criteria and for the aggregation of criteria into principles (Welfare Quality ® , 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a multi-criteria evaluation system to assess growing pig welfare

Martin¹,

Traulsen²,

Buxadé

et al. 2017

The aim of this paper was to present an alternative multi-criteria evaluation model to assess animal welfare on farms based on the Welfare Quality ® (WQ) project, using an example of welfare assessment of growing pigs. The WQ assessment protocol follows a three-step aggregation process. Measures are aggregated into criteria, criteria into principles and principles into an overall assessment. This study focussed on the first step of the aggregation. Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) was used to produce a value of welfare for each criterion. The utility functions and the aggregation function were constructed in two separated steps. The Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique (MACBETH) method was used for utility function determination and the Choquet Integral (CI) was used as an aggregation operator. The WQ decision-makers' preferences were fitted in order to construct the utility functions and to determine the CI parameters. The methods were tested with generated data sets for farms of growing pigs. Using the MAUT, similar results were obtained to the ones obtained applying the WQ protocol aggregation methods. It can be concluded that due to the use of an interactive approach such as MACBETH, this alternative methodology is more transparent and more flexible than the methodology proposed by WQ, which allows the possibility to modify the model according, for instance, to new scientific knowledge.

“…Therefore, questions about substrate were asked throughout the different phases of farrowing for both sow and piglets, giving it a high overall weighting in the WDI. Unwarranted double counting could also be a concern (Botreau et al, 2007); however, this is overcome by distinguishing that the outcome of each measure is different from one dimension to another, by fulfilling different needs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alternative farrowing accommodation: welfare and economic aspects of existing farrowing and lactation systems for pigs

Baxter

Lawrence

Edwards

2012

There is growing societal pressure, expressed through government legislation and consumers' purchasing choices, to abolish livestock systems considered detrimental to farm animal welfare. Such systems include farrowing crates, which are behaviourally and physically restrictive for sows. Therefore, identifying less restrictive farrowing systems for commercial implementation has become an important focus of pig research. Despite numerous attempts to develop indoor alternatives to crates, there is as yet no universal acceptance of such systems at the commercial level. The primary concern is piglet survival, because often favourable figures are reported at the experimental level, but not replicated in commercial evaluation. Alternative farrowing systems should equal or surpass survival levels in conventional systems and perform consistently across a range of farm circumstances for widespread commercial implementation. In addition, it is important that alternatives consider ease of management, operator safety and economic sustainability. Utilising a large database of literature, 12 existing alternative indoor systems were identified and compared against each other, conventional crates and outdoor systems. An assessment of how well alternative systems satisfy the design criteria for meeting animals' biological needs was carried out by developing a welfare design index (WDI). The physical and financial performance of these systems was also evaluated and summarised. The derived WDI yielded values of 0.95 for conventional crates, with higher scores for commercial outdoor systems of 1.10 and indoor group farrowing or multi-suckling systems (e.g. Thorstensson 5 2.20). However, the high total piglet mortality (23.7% 6 s.e. 2.26) in indoor group systems compared with conventional crates (18.3% 6 s.e. 0.63) and outdoor systems (17.0% 6 s.e. 2.05), together with the added capital cost (92% more than conventional crates, 249% more than commercial outdoor huts), mainly as a result of extra building space provided per animal, question their feasibility to deliver from an economic perspective. Designed pen systems offered the best compromise, scoring 1.64 from the WDI, with a total piglet mortality of 16.6% (6s.e. 0.88) and capital costs and labour input more comparable to farrowing crates (17.5% more than crates). The critical review of different systems was hampered by the lack of comprehensive data and detailed system descriptions. When attempting to assess welfare and economic attributes of systems, there are certain caveats that require discussion, in particular weighting of the contribution of different design attributes to pig welfare, the relative importance of the sow and her piglets and the many potential confounding factors that arise. Also, when judging any system, it must be emphasised that the maternal characteristics of sows and the quality of stockpersonship will be integral to its success.