Bilag til afsluttende projektrapport Udvikling af nationale dyrevelfærdsindekser for kvæg og svin

724 Pages·2016·28.95 MB·Danish

Bilag til afsluttende projektrapport

Udvikling af nationale dyrevelfærdsindekser
for kvæg og svin
Bilag 1
22. oktober 2013

Leverance 1

Baggrund
Dyrevelfærd indeholder mange aspekter og kan defineres på mange måder. Filosoffer der beskæftiger sig
med dyrevelfærd taler ofte om tre distinkte skoler. En der fokuserer på dyrets naturlige adfærd og evner, og
mener at dyret kun kan have god dyrevelfærd, hvis det har mulighed for at udfolde sin naturlige adfærd. En
anden skole fokuserer på, hvorvidt dyret kan fungere i den aktuelle situation, som dyret befinder sig i,
vægten kommer derfor at ligge på sundhed og produktion. Den tredje og sidste skole argumenterer for, at
det er dyrets egne oplevelser der er afgørende for, hvorvidt et dyr har god velfærd eller ej.

På trods af, at de tre ovennævnte skoler kan ses som værende meget forskellige i deres tilgang til
vurderingen af dyrevelfærd er der et stort overlap (se figur 1). Således mener mange, at et dyr får positive
oplevelser af at leve et naturligt liv, at et sygt dyr føler sig dårligt, samt at et sygt dyr vokser langsommere
end et raskt dyr. Der er meget få mennesker, der er fuldstændig tilhængere af enten en skole eller en anden.
Det mest hyppige er, at holdningerne er et kompromis mellem de forskellige skoler.

Når et dyrevelfærdsindeks skal konstrueres findes der både fordele og ulemper i forhold til en meget klar
definition af dyrevelfærd. Fordelen ved at bruge en enkelt klar definition er, at det gør det lettere at formidle
og diskutere resultater og af vægtninger mellem forskellige mål. Det er svært at validere et
velfærdsvurderingsskema, men ved at bruge en klar velfærdsdefinition så sikrer man sig, at der er "et fælles
mål" som så kan bruges til at vægte forskellige variabler og forhold over for hinanden. Jo mere
kompromisløs definitionen er desto lettere er det at vægte de forskellige dele over for hinanden.

Ulempen ved at anvende en enkelt definition er, at definitionen kan opleves som alt for restriktiv af borgere
og samfund. Hvis den oprindelige definition er meget klar er det lettere efterfølgende at modificere den for at
tilpasse den til andre krav - hvis der er behov for dette. Det skal dog være klart at sådan en modificering vil
gøre fortolkningen af indekset sværere.
Figur 1. Tre forskellige definitioner af dyrevelfærd

Valg af definition

I det pågældende projekt er der enighed i projektgruppen om at anvende følgende enkle definition af
dyrevelfærd:
Dyrevelfærd skal vurderes ud fra dyrets oplevelser af dets aktuelle situation. Dvs. at det er dyrets egne
oplevelser der er afgørende for, hvorvidt et dyr har god velfærd eller ej

Denne definition er også den definition, som hovedsaglig er blevet anvendt i forbindelse med Welfare Quality
– som er det mest gennemarbejdede velfærdsvurderingsprotokol som eksisterer på nuværende tidspunkt. Et
argument for at anvende samme velfærdsdefinition som i Welfare Quality, er, at velfærdsindeksetuden
problemer kan anvende Welfare Quality som "Golden Standard”.
I projektet Welfare Quality er den overordnede definition en samlet vurdering af fire forskellige områder
(kaldet principper) som derefter er delt op i 12 kriterier (se tabel 1). Dette gør det muligt at validere projektets
velfærdsindeks på mange forskellige aggregationsniveauer, noget der gør det lettere at undersøge hvor
eventuelle forskelle mellem velfærdsindeksprojektets resultat og Welfare Quality er.

Tabel 1. Velfærdsprincipper og kriterier der er inkluderet i Welfare Quality ®
Welfare principles Welfare criteria
Good feeding 1 Absence of prolonged hunger
2 Absence of prolonged thirst
Good housing 3 Comfort around resting
4 Thermal comfort
5 Ease of movement
Good health 6 Absence of injuries
7 Absence of disease
8 Absence of pain induced by management
Appropriate behaviour 9 Expression of social behaviours
10 Expression of other behaviours
11 Good human animal relationship
12 Positive emotional state
Bilag 2
Bruttoliste indeks 1, svin – 28.02.2014

deVries et al. (2011): Invited Review – Associations between variables of routine herd data and dairy cattle welfare indicators.
1. Absence of hunger
Literature review BCS:
investigating the age,/parity/genotype,
associations between culling/survival time (pos)
register variables and mortality rate calves (pos)
animal-based milk yield – (pos+neg+no assoc.), nadir BCS/fat/protein/lactose (pos), SCC (pos+no assoc.)
indicators reproductive performance
postpartum anoestrus interval/calving interval (neg), pregnancy rate at first service/ pregnancy rate later (pos)
Level: 2. Absence of thirst
Cow, herd animals per drinker and water flow:
milk yield (no assoc)
water intake:
animals per drinker/length of water troughs/water flow
milk yield/lactation stage/restricted water intake -> milk composition (pos. and no assoc.)
3. Comfort around resting-
Lying down:
Parity (no assoc.), Housing system (not specified) (pos)
Cleanliness:
Parity (pos), winter and conventional systems higher than organic
Mortality of calves (<90 days)
DIM/lactation vs. dry period (pos), milk yield (pos+no assoc.)
SCC herd+cow level (pos for leg and udder, no assoc. for hind)
4. Thermal comfort
5. Ease of movement
Tethering/Access to pasture: no studies found
6. Absence of injuries
Lameness:
Age/parity (pos)
Culling (pos, neg + no assoc.)
Assoc. w/higher risk of culling
Zero-grazing (pos)
Organic (neg, no assoc.)
Biosecurity status
DIM (neg), milk yield (pos, neg, no assoc.)
Side 1 af 11
Bruttoliste indeks 1, svin – 28.02.2014

Age at first calving (neg), Calving-to-first service interval/calving-to-conception interval/late ongoing service (pos)
Integument alterations:
Age/parity (pos, no assoc.)
Conventional/tie-stalls – higher risk
Access to pasture (pos, no assoc.)
Herd size (no assoc.)
DIM (pos w/hock & neck, neg w/knee, no assoc.), milk yield (neg.), SCC - cow (no assoc.), Devations in urea (neg)
Age of first mating (neg), short calving interval (+/- assoc.)
7. Absence of disease
Vulvar discharge: Twinning/calf mortality (pos), lower pregnancy rate
Respiratory problems: on-farm mortality (pos)
Downer cows: culling in start of lactation, pasture lower risk; DIM (neg), high yield (no assoc.)
Dystocia: primiparity and bull calves/increased death rates/decreased survival/ culling DIM >200 days/ stillbirth,/calf
mortality (pos), pasture (neg), milk yield/fat/protein (neg + no assoc.), SCC (no assoc.), decreased conception, higher
number of services in primiparous cows
Diarrhoea: low milk yield
8. Absence of pain:
Tail docking with anesthetics no effect on milk yield, no effect on SCC and mastitis
Disbudding – no studies found
9. Expression of social behaviours:
Average age/herd size/introduction of new cows (pos)
Milk yield assoc. with dominance rank of cow but confounded with age and parity, no assoc. with yield and head
butts/displacements, SCC (no assoc.)
10. Expression of other behaviours:
Access to pasture
Lower culling rates, milk yield (neg, pos, no effect), protein content (pos, no effect), SCC (no effect), no assoc. with
reproductive performance
11. Good human-animal relationship:
Avoidance distance: herd size (neg), milk yield (no assoc.)
Other tests: Aversive handling - milk yield, fat, protein content (neg, no assoc.), Flinch/kick/step responses – milk yield
(neg), Approach behaviour – milk yield (pos, no assoc.)/conception rate at first service (pos), Flight distance – milk yield
(moderate assoc.)
12. Positive emotional state:
QBA: no studies found

Side 2 af 11
Bruttoliste indeks 1, svin – 28.02.2014

Validity of register data as welfare indicators

Criteria Register variable FVST Result

Absence of hunger
Kristensen et al. (2006) BCS (OSR registrations) - Good inter-observer agreement amongst
instructors (kappa=0.91)
- Moderate IOA amongst veterinarians
(kappa=0.55)
- Sampling issues: mandatory BCS
registrations only performed for fresh cows
and cows at drying off
Agenas et al. (2006) Urea - No associations found between urea and
BCS
- Not suitable as indicator of prolonged
hunger
Cameron et al. (1998) Incidence of abomasal displacements - risk factors for LDA: negatives energy
balance pre-partum (NEFA conc.), high dry
cow BCS, suboptimal dry cow feeding
Absence of injuries
Pedersen & Christensen (2011) Incidence of emergency - reasons for culling only registered in 60%
slaughter/euthanasia/death certificate of cases
Bligaard et al. (2009) Abattoir data (fractures, hoof disorders, muscular - Sensitivity issues of meat inspection data
necrosis, chronic osteomyelitis, hip luxation/joint
luxation, bursitis/skin lesions)
Absence of disease
Lind (2013) Treatment data - Evaluation of the completeness of
treatment registrations within the Danish
Cattle Database showed varying levels of
Se, depending on disease complex:
Highest Se for mastitis (0.94), lameness
related disorders (0.88), hypocalcemia
(0.88), ketosis (0.84)

Side 3 af 11
Bruttoliste indeks 1, svin – 28.02.2014

Bligaard et al. (2009) Somatic cell count - high measurement validity

Abattoir data - low prevalences of chronic conditions
would make an overall variable as
“proportion of remarks” more robust
Hill (2004) EpiLab Treatment data - Strength – coverage over whole lifespan
- Prone to bias due to:
- being registered for billing purposes
- farmers treatment threshold
- misclassification bias of veterinarians
diagnosis

- medicine use only on herd level
Drug use -VetStat data - no linkage between drug and disease
diagnosis
- treatment threshold

- invasive nature of the inspections
Abattoir data uncovers subclinical and intermittent
conditions
- likelihood of detection is linked to severity
- data collected for the evaluation of
suitability for human consumption
- varying sensitivities between slaughter
houses
- “home blindness”
- sampling bias -not a representative
sample

Side 4 af 11