Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zlgnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T14:18:30.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validating indicators of sheep welfare through a consensus of expert opinion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2011

C. J. Phythian ,
E. Michalopoulou ,
P. H. Jones ,
A. C. Winter ,
M. J. Clarkson ,
L. A. Stubbings ,
D. Grove-White ,
P. J. Cripps  and
J. S. Duncan
C. J. Phythian*
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Institute of Global Health and Infection, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston CH64 7TE, UK
E. Michalopoulou
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Institute of Global Health and Infection, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston CH64 7TE, UK
P. H. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Institute of Global Health and Infection, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston CH64 7TE, UK
A. C. Winter
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Institute of Global Health and Infection, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston CH64 7TE, UK
M. J. Clarkson
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Institute of Global Health and Infection, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston CH64 7TE, UK
L. A. Stubbings
Affiliation:
LSSC Ltd 3 Fullers Close, Aldwincle, Kettering, NN14 3UU, UK
D. Grove-White
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Institute of Global Health and Infection, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston CH64 7TE, UK
P. J. Cripps
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Institute of Global Health and Infection, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston CH64 7TE, UK
J. S. Duncan
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Institute of Global Health and Infection, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston CH64 7TE, UK
*
†E-mail: C.J.Phythian@liverpool.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

A consensus of expert opinion was used to provide both face and consensual validity to a list of potential indicators of sheep welfare. This approach was used as a first step in the identification of valid welfare indicators for sheep. The consensus methodology of the National Institute of Health, using pre-meeting consultation and focus group discussions, was used to ascertain the consensus opinion of a panel of sheep welfare experts. The Farm Animal Welfare Council's five freedoms were used as a framework to organise a list of current on-farm welfare issues for sheep. The five freedoms were also the welfare criterion used to identify potential on-farm welfare indicators for sheep. As a result, experts identified 193 welfare issues for sheep and lambs managed on farms across England and Wales. Subsequently, a combination of animal- (n = 26), resource- (n = 13) and management- (n = 22) based indicators was suggested for (i) adult rams, (ii) adult ewes (male and female sheep, over 1 year old), (iii) growing lambs (male and female sheep, over 6 weeks to 1 year old) and (iv) young lambs (male and female lambs, 6 weeks old and under). The results from this study could therefore be used to inform the further development of valid methods of assessing the on-farm welfare of sheep.

Keywords

sheepanimal welfareindicatorexpert opinionvalidity

Information

Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 6 , June 2011 , pp. 943 - 952
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abramson, JH 1974. Validity. In Survey methods in community medicine, pp. 151–164. Churchill Livingstone, New York.Google Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Geers, R, Miele, M, Veissier, I 2003. Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12, 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Perny, P 2009. Overall assessment of animal welfare: strategy adopted in welfare quality. Animal Welfare 18, 363–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Metz, JHM, Spruijt, BM, Schouten, WGP 2002. Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows B: validation by expert opinion. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1835–1845.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bracke, MBM, Edwards, SA, Engel, B, Buist, WG, Algers, B 2008. Expert opinion as ‘validation’ of risk assessment applied to calf welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50, 29–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capdeville, J, Veissier, I 2001. A method of assessing welfare in loose housed dairy cows at farm level, focusing on animal observations. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 51, 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM, Barnett, JL, Edge, JK, Hemsworth, PH 2002. Identifying animal welfare issues for sheep in Australia. International Journal of Sheep and Wool Science 50, 534–550.Google Scholar
de Passillé, AM, Rushen, J 2005. Can we measure human-animal interactions in on-farm animal welfare assessment? Some unresolved issues. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delbecq, AL, Van de Ven, AH, Gustafson, DH 1975. Group techniques for program planning. In A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes (ed. AC Filley) Scott, Foresman and Company, Illinois.Google Scholar
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2007. Basic information for the development of the animal welfare risk assessment guidelines. (ed. S Berbieri and C Nassuato), Parma 2007. EFSA/AHAW/2006/01, pp. 1–36. Retrieved 1 November 2007, from http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/130ar.pdf.Google Scholar
FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council) 1994. Report on the welfare of sheep: PB 1755. FAWC, London.Google Scholar
FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council) 2009. Report on farm animal welfare in Great Britain: past, present and future. FAWC, London.Google Scholar
Fernie, AC, Tribe, A, Murray, PJ, Phillips, CJC 2008. The creation and implementation of a Great Ape welfare index. In Proceedings of the International Primatological Society XXII Congress (ed. P Lee, H Buchanan-Smith, P Honess, A MacLarnon and B Sellers). Edinburgh, Scotland, 361pp.Google Scholar
Fink, A, Kosecoff, J, Chassin, M, Brook, RH 1984. Consensus methods – characteristics and guidelines for use. American Journal of Public Health 74, 979–983.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzpatrick, R, Boulton, M 1994. Qualitative methods for assessing health care. Quality in Health Care 3, 107–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, WM 1989. The improved nominal group technique. Journal of Management Development 8, 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garabed, RB, Perez, AM, Johnson, WO, Thurmond, MC 2009. Use of expert opinion for animal disease decisions: an example of foot-and-mouth disease status designation. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 92, 20–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glaser, EM 1980. Using behavioural science strategies for defining the state-of-the-art. Journal of Applied and Behavioural Science 16, 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiner, M, Gardner, IA 2000. Epidemiologic issues in the validation of veterinary diagnostic tests. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 45, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, C, Sanford, BA 2007. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Practical assessment, research and evaluation 12. Retrieved 12 April 2010, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2010february/rb2.php.Google Scholar
Johnsen, PF, Johannesson, T, Sandøe, P 2001. Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: many goals, many methods. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A- Animal Science 51, 26–33.Google Scholar
Knierim, U, Winckler, C 2009. On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future perspectives with special regard to the welfare quality approach. Animal Welfare 18, 451–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, RA, Casey, MA 2009. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research, 2nd edition. SAGE Publishing, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kynn, M 2008. The ‘heuristics and biases’ bias in expert elicitation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series a-Statistics in Society 171, 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Whay, HR, Green, LE, Webster, AJF 2003a. Preliminary investigation into the use of expert opinion to compare the overall welfare of dairy cattle farms in different farm assurance schemes. Animal Welfare 12, 565–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Kent, JP, Wemelsfelder, F, Ofner, E, Tuyttens, FAM 2003b. Applications for methods of on-farm welfare assessment. Animal Welfare 12, 523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molony, V, Kent, JE 1997. Assessment of acute pain in farm animals using behavioral and physiological measurements. Journal of Animal Science 75, 266–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR, Main, DCJ 2009. Interdependence of welfare outcome measures and potential confounding factors on finishing pig farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napolitano, F, De Rosa, G, Ferrante, V, Grasso, F, Braghieri, A 2009. Monitoring the welfare of sheep in organic and conventional farms using an ANI 35 L derived method. Small Ruminant Research 83, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NIH (National Institute of Health) 1990. Consensus development at the NIH: improving the programme. Report of a study by a committee of the Institute of Medicine council on health care technology. National Academy Press, Washington DC. Retrieved 4 January 2008, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1563.Google Scholar
Phillips, CJC, Phillips, AP 2010. Attitudes of Australian sheep farmers to animal welfare. Journal of International Farm Management 5th edition 2, 1–26.Google Scholar
Phillips, CJC, Wojciechowska, J, Meng, J, Cross, N 2009. Perceptions of the importance of different welfare issues in livestock production. Animal 3, 1152–1166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pines, MK, Petherick, JC, Gaughan, JB, Phillips, CJC 2007. Stakeholders’ assessment of welfare indicators for sheep and cattle exported by sea from Australia. Animal Welfare 16, 489–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russel, AJF, Doney, JM, Gunn, RG 1969. Subjective assessment of body fat in live sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science 72, 451–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousing, T, Jakobsen, IA, Hindhede, J, Klaas, IC, Bonde, M, Sørensen, JT 2007. Evaluation of a welfare indicator protocol for assessing animal welfare in AMS herds: researcher, production advisor and veterinary practitioner opinion. Animal Welfare 16, 213–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, E, Black, N 1991. When does consensus exist in expert panels? Journal of Public Health Medicine 13, 344–344.Google ScholarPubMed
Scott, EM, Nolan, AM, Fitzpatrick, JL 2001. Conceptual and methodological issues related to welfare assessment: a framework for measurement. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 51, 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, JT, Fraser, D 2010. On-farm welfare assessment for regulatory purposes: issues and possible solutions. Livestock Science 131, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoolder, H, De Rosa, G, Horning, B, Waiblinger, S, Wemelsfelder, F 2003. Integrating parameters to assess on-farm welfare. Animal Welfare 12, 529–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vang, J 1986. The consensus development conference and the European experience. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2, 65–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waiblinger, S, Knierim, U, Winckler, C 2001. The development of an epidemiologically based on-farm welfare assessment system for use with dairy cows. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 51, 73–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterhouse, T, Colgrove, P, Vipond, J, Goddard, A 2003. Identification of key issues – a summary of the final group session. In Improving sheep welfare on extensively managed flocks: economics, husbandry and welfare (ed. PE Goddard), pp. 73–77. Scottish Agricultural College, Aberdeen, Scotland.Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Lawrence, AB 2001. Qualitative assessment of animal behaviour as an on-farm welfare-monitoring tool. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 51, 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE, Webster, AJF 2003a. Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare 12, 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE, Webster, AJF 2003b. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Veterinary Record 153, 197–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed