|
|
| Discussion
|
 |
|
The
development of the assessment of
welfare of farmed animals in New Zealand has been characterised by an
incremental process of change, rather than precipitous change. The
brief of this project was to compile
and identify a list of indicators to assess the welfare of pigs,
adapted to the specific New Zealand situation; and subsequently, to
compile these into a protocol that can be applied for on-farm use. A
focus of the work was to incorporate animal-based observations.
|
|
A revision of sections of the Animal Welfare (Pigs) Code of
Welfare 2005
has been scheduled for the near future.
In keeping with most welfare legislation worldwide, the Code defines
criteria that must be complied with by producers -- most of which refer
to measurable dimensions or criteria related to the farm facilities and
environment. However, welfare science is increasingly identifying and
developing approaches for the inclusion of animal-based observations,
which are a direct reflection of the welfare status, over
environment-based parameters, which can be considered to represent
proxies for welfare provision. From this perspective, the inclusion in
the Code of a greater number of animal-based criteria is desirable.
Our aim was to develop a practical and workable tool, while also
maintaining the Minimum Standards (as defined by the Code) as a
touchstone. The methodology and steps followed have 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, i.e.
producers, vets, policy-makers, scientists and representatives of
welfare organisations. Consequently, opinions and comments were
incorporated from all these sources; we hope that the outcomes reflect
this, and are representative of the stakeholders' opinions and inputs.
The development of the protocol required integration of different
criteria and approaches. This was not straightforward, as these
requirements were not always compatible with one another. To deal with
the large variability in scale and management practices on New Zealand
farms, a modular approach was taken to the assessment.
An innovative feature of the protocol 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. The pilot studies affirmed
that making such a separation was also logical from the practical
assessment perspective: it requires the observer to first inspect the
animals, before paying attention to the environment they are in.
Another aspect is that the animal-based observations are defined by a
'generic' set of observations. These are applied to three categories:
provision of feed and water, environment and health. The interpretation
of the generic observations is dependent on the category for which they
are made -- detailed information of these indicators is given on the
protocol sheets. They are scored following a traffic light scheme,
which allows intermediate scores to be incorporated. This structure was
created for simplicity; also, it incorporates an extent of flexibility
in interpretation which is appropriate given the inherent degree of
subjectivity for animal-based observations. However, the farm tests
showed that it was sufficiently detailed to capture nuances that were
not identified by inspection of the facilities alone.
The protocol can be used for a variety of purposes. The integration of
all scores into a single outcome variable is a complex issue that has
recently received some attention, but it was beyond the scope of the
work performed on this project. Rather, the protocol defines specific
points of attention or deficit. Hence, it is probably most useful as a
benchmarking tool, i.e. for a comparison of the practices performed
on-farm with recognised 'best practice'. When applied for repeated or
periodic assessment, the outcomes can be used to assess the progression
over time.
As the protocol implicitly incorporates the Minimum Standards, 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 simultaneous inclusion of the
Minimum Standards makes infractions of the Code easy to directly
identify.
Thirdly, the protocol can simply be adapted for use in self-assessment
or audits by producers. One of the objectives which was elucidated
during the first stakeholder workshop was that protocol would, in
effect, simulate an experienced stockperson's interpretation and
judgment, by attempting to 'pick up' on details which are not easily
defined (and which are represented in the protocol by the 'generic'
categories and traffic light scheme). Hence, the protocol should be
intuitive to use for producers. It is also very adaptable: while the
animal-based observations have been linked to the corresponding Minimum
Standards, the protocol could be modified to associate the animal-based
observations with generic facilities-based outcomes, and / or to
incorporate production parameters into the protocol.
| Future perspectives |
|
The scope of this project was
limited,
and there is substantial scope for follow-up work. The following
aspects could
be considered:
|
|
- |
The
protocol does not address the training
needs and procedures for inspectors. Identification
and development of training needs is essential before implementation of
the protocol. |
|
- |
While
the protocol has been tested on-farm
by four observers, a more extensive validation should be performed to
assess its repeatability and reliability. This is particularly
important of the animal-based observations component, as this would be
expected to show up some variability of outcomes. Hence, a more
extensive validation study should be carried out, incorporating a wide
range of production systems, and a number of different
inspectors. |
|
- |
There
is
scope for development of tie-ins related to recording, logging and
administration of outputs. For instance, software forms could be
created for input into a database (i.e. a front-end graphical user
interface coupled to a back-end database). |
|
- |
Depending
on future developments,
dissemination and publication of the approach and findings could be an
important aspect -- including scientific, peer-reviewed publication in
relevant animal welfare journals. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
