The Use of the General Animal-Based Measures Codified Terms in the Scientific Literature on Farm Animal Welfare

Abstract

Background: The approach to farm animal welfare evaluation has changed and animal-based measures (ABM), defined as the responses of an animal or effects on an animal, were introduced to assess animal welfare. Animal-based measures can be taken directly on the animal or indirectly and include the use of animal records. They can result from a specific event or be the cumulative outcome of many days, weeks, or months. The objective of the current study was to analyze the use of general ABM codified terms in the scientific literature, the presence of their definitions, and the gap mapping of their use across animal species, categories, years of publication, and geographical areas of the corresponding author's institution. The ultimate aim was to propose a common standard terminology to improve communication among stakeholders. In this study, data models were populated by collecting information coming from scientific papers extracted through a transparent and reproducible protocol using Web of ScienceTM and filtering for the general ABM codified terms (or synonyms/equivalents). A total of 199 papers were retained, and their full texts were assessed. The frequency of general codified ABM terms was analyzed according to the classification factors listed in the objectives. These papers were prevalently European (159 documents), and the most represented species was cattle. Fifty percent of the papers did not provide a definition of the general ABM terms, and 54% cited other sources as reference for their definition. The results of the study showed a very low penetration of the general codified ABM term in the literature on farm animal welfare, with only 1.5% of the papers including the term ABM. This does not mean that specific ABM are not studied, but rather that these specific ABM are not defined as such under a common umbrella, and there is no consensus on the use of terminology, not even among scientists. Thus, we cannot expect the stakeholders to use a common language and a standardized terminology. The recognition and the inclusion of ABM in the lists of commonly accepted abbreviations of scientific journals could be a first step to harmonize the terminology in the scientific literature.

From the Five Freedoms to a more holistic perspective on animal welfare in the Dutch Animals Act

“…In recent years, more scientific research has been carried out regarding the use of animal-based measures and environmental factors to assess animal welfare (Spigarelli et al, 2020;Brscic et al, 2021). Animal-based measures have also been developed at a European level.…”

Opportunities for Regulatory Authorities to Assess Animal-Based Measures at the Slaughterhouse Using Sensor Technology and Artificial Intelligence: A Review

“…No limitation on publication year. The search string by Brscic et al [59] was used as an example for selecting the terms. As a second step filters were set on full text available, language in English and review or systematic review as type of document.…”

How Far Are We From Data-Driven and Animal-Based Welfare Assessment? A Critical Analysis of European Quality Schemes

“…WQ R , at the time of being developed, was primarily considered a standardized research protocol, however, it was also envisioned as a potential tool for assessing compliance with welfare legislation, EU standards for welfare labeling as well as a farm management tool (Blokhuis et al, 2010). More than 10 years after being published (Blokhuis et al, 2010), WQ R certainly has had an impact on farm animal welfare assessment, with increased numbers of animal-based measures being referred to in the scientific literature (Brscic et al, 2021). Based on our results, WQ R has also influenced the assessment protocols of several quality schemes, with one quality scheme fully implementing the WQ R protocol for welfare assessment.…”

“…The same document pointed out the need for a more targeted comparison of quality schemes regarding their use of established animal welfare standards. In scientific literature, Welfare Quality R (WQ R ) has been considered to be the most impactful assessment protocol in promoting the adoption of animal-based measures (Brscic et al, 2021). Despite some limitations of the WQ R , such as being time-consuming and lacking the clear aggregation of all indicators, it offers many advantages.…”