|
|
|
| This
website presents the outputs of research work carried out by
the
Insitute for Food, Nutrition and Human Health (IFNHH) and the EpiCentre
at the Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences (IVABS),
of Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Phase 1 ran
from August 2007 to June 2008, and the outputs of this work
can be
accessed here. Phase 2 is currently getting underway. |
| To
view the presentation of this work at the conference of the
International Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics in
Durban, South Africa, see the News section. |
| The
entire Phase 1 project report can be downloaded as a PDF by clicking
on the icon at right. A synopsis of each chapter is available by
using the menu at left, and these chapters can be individually
downloaded. The scoring forms can be downloaded fron the Assessment protocol page. |
 |
| Executive summary |
|
This project identified
indicators for the
assessment of the welfare of pigs, which were compiled into a
protocol for
on-farm use. The aim was to develop a practical and workable tool which
had an emphasis on animal-based observations,
while maintaining
the Minimum Standards, as defined by the Animal
Welfare (Pigs) Code of Welfare (2005),
as a touchstone.
A partial revision of the current legislation relevant to pig
production, which is contained in the Code, is previewed for the near
future. This Code predominantly defines environment-based parameters.
However, animal welfare science is increasingly identifying and
developing approaches for inclusion of animal-based observations. From
this perspective, the provision in the Code of a greater number of
animal-based criteria is desirable.
The methodology
followed resulted in a general-purpose tool which can be applied in a
wide range of circumstances. A key feature of the work is that the
project structure ensured significant consultation from stakeholders in
the pig sector, in
the form of two workshops and one producers meeting. These
were essential to ensure that the interests of all stakeholders were
represented in the resulting protocol.
An initial literature review provided the
framework and context for the identification of an initial list
of indicators,
which resulted in development of a 'longlist' of welfare indicators,
for possible inclusion in the assessment protocol. Subsequently,
indicators for assessment were identified that are relevant for New
Zealand.
To deal with the large variability in scale and management practices on
New Zealand farms, a modular approach was taken to the development
of the protocol.
An innovative feature is the structural separation of animal-based
observations and facilities-based observations. This was a logical
solution to the difficulties experienced by the project team of trying
to 'integrate' the defined animal-based observations with the more
facilities-based Minimum Standards. Such a separation was also logical
for practical assessment, as it requires the observer to first inspect
the animals, before paying attention to the environment they are
in.
The protocol is widely applicable. As it identifies specific
points
of attention or deficit, it is probably most useful as a benchmarking
tool; when applied for repeated or periodic assessment, the outcomes
can be used to assess the progression over time. Secondly, it can also
be used for enforcement, i.e. in situations where a breach of welfare
is suspected. The animal-focused nature of the tool makes it highly
suited to this purpose, while the implicit integration of the Minimum
Standards makes infractions of the Code easy to directly identify.
Thirdly, the protocol can be simply adapted for use in self-assessment
or audits by producers, as it is intuitive to use, and is very
adaptable.
As highlighted in the discussion,
there is considerable scope for future development. This
includes
topics such as the identification and development of training needs for
inspectors; performing a more extensive on-farm validation
study; the development of tie-ins related to recording, logging and
administration of outputs; and dissemination and publication of work
performed, including in scientific, peer-reviewed animal welfare
journals.
The full
protocol, which is the final output of the project, is
available for download.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
