Abstract

Simple SummaryDespite being important to the general public, the monitoring of animal welfare is not systematic. The Danish political parties agreed in 2012 to establish national animal welfare indices for cattle and pigs, and here we assess the potential for using data from the systematic meat inspection to contribute to such indices. We demonstrate that although a number of recordings may be relevant for animal welfare, differences in recording practices between slaughterhouses can be so large that correction is not deemed feasible. For example, significant differences in tail fractures in pigs and sows were recorded between abattoirs, despite the fact that this condition should be easier to diagnose compared to e.g., the more consistently recorded “chronic arthritis” in cows. The study findings suggest that some recordings may be useful for inclusion in animal welfare indices, but that their relevance should be assessed along with the recording practices if included. Furthermore, factors such as appropriate behaviour are also important to monitor as part of the welfare of both cattle and pigs.National welfare indices of cattle and pigs are constructed in Denmark, and meat inspection data may be used to contribute to these. We select potentially welfare-relevant abattoir recordings and assess the sources of variation within these with a view towards inclusion in the indices. Meat inspection codes were pre-selected based on expert judgement of having potential animal welfare relevance. Random effects logistic regression was then used to determine the magnitude of variation derived at the level of the farm or abattoir, of which farm variation might be associated with welfare, whereas abattoir variation is most likely caused by differences in recording practices. Codes were excluded for use in the indices based on poor model fit or a large abattoir effect. There was a large abattoir effect for most of the codes modelled and these codes were deemed to be not appropriate to be carried forward to the welfare index. A few were found to be potentially useful for a welfare index: Eight for slaughter pigs, 15 for sows, five for cattle <18 months of age, and six for older cattle. The absolute accuracy of each code/combination could not be assessed, only the relative variation between farms and abattoirs.

Highlights

  • In 2012, a joint agreement between the political parties represented in the Danish parliament decided to establish animal welfare indices [1]

  • The objectives of the present study were to provide a statistical assessment of meat inspection data to (a) select codes of relevance to an animal welfare index based on prevalence and welfare impact; (b) assess the contribution of each slaughterhouse on the variation in prevalence of each relevant meat inspection variable; and (c) provide estimates of a correction factor for each slaughterhouse for each of the relevant meat inspection code

  • This study provides estimates of the differences in meat inspection recording due to farm and abattoir effect for a selection of meat inspection codes from three sow, nine pig and eight cattle abattoirs

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In 2012, a joint agreement between the political parties represented in the Danish parliament decided to establish animal welfare indices [1]. To create an index that is transparent it was decided to choose a hedonistic approach to animal welfare. This approach places the emphasis on the experiences of the animal [5], with the consequence that e.g., disease or reduced growth are only taken into account if they have an impact on the affective state of the animal. This is the same approach as the one taken in the EU-project Welfare

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.