|
|
| Development of an on-farm welfare
assessment protocol |
 |
|
This
page provides some background and
detail on the steps taken during the development of the protocol, to
finally arrive at the format presented as the Assessment
protocol.
|
|
Most
of the indicators identified during the first stakeholder meeting were
animal-based, and there was consensus that the focus of the protocol
should be on this. However, the Minimum Standards did need to be
incorporated into the protocol; these are predominantly
facilities-based.
Also, the requirements and priorities of the stakeholders are
inevitably somewhat diverse and not always directly comparable.
A further complication was one of assessment and interpretation of the
animal-based indicators identified: what should be considered to be the
appropriate level of detail, and how should these indicators be
interpreted or assessed?
Another output of the stakeholder meeting was a perception that the
tool should emulate the series of observations that an
experienced stockholder routinely makes, as part of a mental checklist
that is almost intuitively followed. In effect, the protocol
would then be capturing and 'transferring' the knowledge and expertise
of such an experienced observer so that a less experienced inspector
could
arrive at the same conclusion.
| Approaches and steps taken |
|
It became apparent
that it would
be very difficult to integrate all the indicators into a single,
universal document while maintaining a manageable length, flexibility,
and ease of use. The solution arrived at by the project team was
therefore rather to disaggregate the assessment into a number of
separate components. This was achieved by stratification into a series
of levels. |
|
- |
Farm level. The protocol consists of three
parts, as summarised in the flow diagram. The questionnaire interview
aims to elicit information on practices relating to
husbandry, stockmanship and management
which cannot be
determined by inspection alone. Systematic inspection of the
farm is done following a modular approach,
i.e. assess all sites on-farm separately.
|
|
- |
Site level. The fundamental distinction
which has
been applied is to separately assess animal-based outcomes and
facilities-based outcomes. The emphasis of the protocol lies
on observing animal- based indicators;
this is followed by assessment of the environment the animals are kept
in. The protocol consists of indicators
subdivided into three parts: Hunger and thirst; Interaction with the physical
environment; Health,
injury and disease. Per part, the animal-based
indicators are captured by a set of 5 generic
criteria: vocalisation
/ noise; physical
appearance; behaviour;
mobility
and faeces / discharges.
Detailed information to facilitate interpretation and assessment is provided on the
overside of the scoring sheet. Each of the generic criteria is
scored via
a 'traffic light' system, which provides an extra shading of detail
beyond the binary 'good / bad' score. The Minimum Standards
corresponding to each of the three parts are
also evaluated, using a simple 'pass / fail' score.
|
|
- |
Individual level. The consideration of welfare
at the
individual level versus the group level is an important one. The
protocol is
structured in such a way that it requires all animals to be
individually 'seen' by the inspector. It
is inevitable that no farm will be free of animals whose welfare is
compromised at the time of inspection.
The aim is therefore to assess how grave the suffering is on the
individual level, and what the prevalence is on the
group and farm level. Setting
such criteria was well beyond the brief of this project. However, we
have made use of the SWAP handbook for this. |
|
- |
Compilation of findings and
debriefing. A
summary sheet is included which summarises notable
findings, comments or
problems.
In particular, this is aimed at the 'amber' and 'red' scores, and
instances where the Minimum Standards were 'not OK'. The inspectors may
then discuss, address or share these issues with the owner, manager and
/ or stockmen. 'Amber' outcomes will
consist of points of attention indicating that welfare is not optimal,
but may be relatively easily corrected by appropriate intervention.
'Red' outcomes indicate more serious welfare problems that
require direct intervention. Likewise, failure to meet the Minimum
Standards should be directly addressed.
|
|
- |
Supplementary information.
This has
been put together to enable common problems to be assessed in a more
quantitative way. A scoring sheet is included to make the calculations. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
