IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v10y2020i11p506-d436123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Animal Welfare Assessment in Sows and Piglets—Introduction of a New German Protocol for Farm’s Self-Inspection and of New Animal-Based Indicators for Piglets

Author

Listed:
  • Lena Friedrich

    (Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany)

  • Joachim Krieter

    (Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany)

  • Nicole Kemper

    (Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany)

  • Irena Czycholl

    (Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany)

Abstract

We compare the Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL) protocol, a German protocol for sows and piglets developed for farm’s self-inspection, to the Welfare Quality ® protocol for sows and piglets (WQ). The KTBL protocol introduces new indicators for piglets to be assessed at pen level (face lesions, carpal joint lesions, undersized animals). The reliability of their assessment at pen level was analysed by comparison to assessments at individual level. Both protocols were applied by one observer in 65 farm visits. The protocols are highly similar, although the composition varies (WQ protocol: focus on animal-based, KTBL protocol: focus on management-based indicators). Consequently, the WQ protocol detected more welfare issues (e.g., welfare issues related to appropriate behaviour: 62.9% (WQ) vs. 21.0% (KTBL protocol)). The comparison between pen and individual level of piglets’ indicators was determined using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and limits of agreement (LoA). Carpal joint lesions and undersized animals (RS 0.73/0.80 ICC 0.55/0.57 LoA −0.12 to 0.03/−0.01 to 0.01) are reliably assessed at pen level but face lesions (RS 0.19 ICC 0.18 LoA −0.42 to 0.03) are not. Concluding, we present advantages and disadvantages of the KTBL protocol and introduce indicators for piglets which may enhance existing protocols.

Suggested Citation

  • Lena Friedrich & Joachim Krieter & Nicole Kemper & Irena Czycholl, 2020. "Animal Welfare Assessment in Sows and Piglets—Introduction of a New German Protocol for Farm’s Self-Inspection and of New Animal-Based Indicators for Piglets," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:11:p:506-:d:436123
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/11/506/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/11/506/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lena Friedrich & Joachim Krieter & Nicole Kemper & Irena Czycholl, 2020. "Iceberg Indicators for Sow and Piglet Welfare," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-24, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:11:p:506-:d:436123. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.