As a minimum, face validity was available for all indicators however, for many, we found evidence of convergent validity and discriminant validity (e.g., lameness as measured by gait score, body condition score). With the exception of the criteria “Absence of prolonged thirst,” we suggest at least one animal-based indicator for each welfare criterion. Where animal-based indicators were potentially unreliably or were not considered feasible, we also considered the resource-based indicators of access to water, stocking density, and floor slipperiness. Using the Welfare Quality ® framework of four Principles and 12 Criteria, we considered the validity, reliability, and feasibility of 46 putative animal-based indicators derived from the literature for these criteria. We focus specifically on ewes, as the most numerous group of sheep present on farm, although many of the indicators may also have relevance to adult male sheep. This diversity means that resource-based indicators are not particularly useful and, thus, a welfare assessment scheme for sheep, focusing on animal-based indicators, was developed.
Sheep are managed under a variety of different environments (continually outdoors, partially outdoors with seasonal or diurnal variation, continuously indoors) and for different purposes, which makes assessing welfare challenging. 3Department of Veterinary Science and Public Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.2Animal Production, Neiker-Tecnalia, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain.1Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Animal and Veterinary Sciences Group, Scotland’s Rural College, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
0 kommentar(er)
