IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0218603.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the welfare of extensively managed sheep

Author

Listed:
  • Carolina A Munoz
  • Angus J D Campbell
  • Paul H Hemsworth
  • Rebecca E Doyle

Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify the main on-farm welfare issues likely to be encountered in extensive sheep farming systems. Thirty-two commercial sheep farms in Victoria, Australia were involved in this study. Of the 32 farms involved, 30 were visited twice (at mid-pregnancy and weaning), and 2 farms only once (both at weaning). In total, 62 visits were conducted and 6,200 ewes (aged 2–5 years) were examined using six animal-based indicators: body condition score (BCS), fleece condition, skin lesions, tail length, dag score and lameness. In addition, the number of ewes that needed further care (such as sick or injured sheep) was recorded and reported to the farmers. Generalised linear mixed models were conducted to investigate associations between welfare outcomes and visit, ewe breed and location, with all three, and their interactions, as fixed factors. In all instances, farm was set as a random factor to account for specific variation between farms. Overall, the welfare of the ewe flocks, based on the six indicators measured, was considered good. A total of 86.9% of the ewes were in adequate BCS (2.5–3.5), 91% had good fleece condition, 69.2% had no skin lesions, 97.1% had low dag scores, and overall lameness was 4.7%. An important and prevalent risk to welfare identified across farms was short tail length; with 85.7% of ewes having tails docked shorter than the third palpable joint. While the welfare of the flock was good, ewes in need of further care were identified at all farms. There were 185 (3.0%) cases needing further care, and the extent of welfare compromise of these animals was considered significant. Main reasons for further care were moderate/severe lameness or foot-related issues, BCS ≤ 2 and active dermatophilosis or broken wool. To our knowledge, this study constitutes the largest assessment of ewes conducted in Australia, and the findings provide valuable insight into the main welfare issues likely to be encountered in extensive sheep farming enterprises. Future studies should develop practical technologies that can assist in the detection of the welfare issues identified in this study. In addition, the thresholds identified here could be used for future comparison and sheep welfare benchmarking programs to assess farm performance and measure continuous improvements.

Suggested Citation

  • Carolina A Munoz & Angus J D Campbell & Paul H Hemsworth & Rebecca E Doyle, 2019. "Evaluating the welfare of extensively managed sheep," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0218603
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218603
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0218603
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0218603&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0218603?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael T. Wallace & Joan E. Moss, 2002. "Farmer Decision‐Making with Conflicting Goals: A Recursive Strategic Programming Analysis," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 82-100, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Davidson, Angus Alexander & Young, Michael Denis & Leake, John Espie & O’Connor, Patrick, 2022. "Aid and forgetting the enemy: A systematic review of the unintended consequences of international development in fragile and conflict-affected situations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    2. O'Donnell, M. & Burrow, S. & Grose, M. & Usher, R. & Marriott, R. & Taplin, S., 2024. "Child protection proceedings for infants: Analysis of court files to identify court outcomes and requirements for families in child protection safety plans," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).

    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.
    1. Janssen, Sander & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2007. "Assessing farm innovations and responses to policies: A review of bio-economic farm models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 622-636, June.
    2. Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2011. "Farm-household investment behaviour and the CAP decoupling: Methodological issues in assessing policy impacts," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 127-145, January.
    3. Vayssières, Jonathan & Bocquier, François & Lecomte, Philippe, 2009. "GAMEDE: A global activity model for evaluating the sustainability of dairy enterprises. Part II - Interactive simulation of various management strategies with diverse stakeholders," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 139-151, July.
    4. Paloma, S. Gomez & Majewski, Edward & Raggi, M. & Viaggi, D., 2007. "Investment Behaviour of Polish Farmers Facing Policy and Market Scenarios," 100th Seminar, June 21-23, 2007, Novi Sad, Serbia and Montenegro 162386, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Stelios Rozakis & Alexandra Sintori & Konstantinos Tsiboukas, 2009. "Utility-derived Supply Function of Sheep Milk: The Case of Etoloakarnania, Greece," Working Papers 2009-11, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    6. Pham, Huong Dien & Waibel, Hermann, 2018. "Risk attitudes, knowledge, skills and agricultural productivity," TVSEP Working Papers wp-007, Leibniz Universitaet Hannover, Institute for Environmental Economics and World Trade, Project TVSEP.
    7. Domptail, Stéphanie & Nuppenau, Ernst-August, 2010. "The role of uncertainty and expectations in modeling (range)land use strategies: An application of dynamic optimization modeling with recursion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2475-2485, October.
    8. Joan Moss & Claire Jack & Michael Wallace, 2004. "Employment Location and Associated Commuting Patterns for Individuals in Disadvantaged Rural Areas in Northern Ireland," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 121-136.
    9. Davis, John & Caskie, Paul & Wallace, Michael, 2013. "Promoting structural adjustment in agriculture: The economics of New Entrant Schemes for farmers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 90-96.
    10. Alexander, Peter & Moran, Dominic, 2013. "Impact of perennial energy crops income variability on the crop selection of risk averse farmers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 587-596.
    11. Agata Sielska, 2015. "The impact of weights on the quality of agricultural producers' multicriteria decision models," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 25(4), pages 51-69.
    12. Gallerani, Vittorio & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2008. "Modelling The Effect Of Eu Policy Reforms On Farm Investment Behaviour," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6444, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2010. "An integer programming dynamic farm-household model to evaluate the impact of agricultural policy reforms on farm investment behaviour," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 1130-1139, December.
    14. Aleksander Grzelak, 2020. "The Objectives of Farm Operations—Evidence from a Region in Poland," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    15. Neal, Mark & Fulkerson, Bill, 2006. ""One size fits all"? - The relationship between the value of genetic traits and the farm system," Risk and Sustainable Management Group Working Papers 149855, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    16. Pereira, Mariana A. & Fairweather, John R. & Woodford, Keith B. & Nuthall, Peter L., 2016. "Assessing the diversity of values and goals amongst Brazilian commercial-scale progressive beef farmers using Q-methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-8.
    17. John Davis & Paul Caskie & Michael Wallace, 2013. "How Effective are New Entrant Schemes for Farmers?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 12(3), pages 32-37, December.
    18. repec:bla:eurcho:v:8:y:2009:i:3:p:29-36 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Amare, Mulubrhan & Balana, Bedru, 2023. "Climate change, income sources, crop mix, and input use decisions: Evidence from Nigeria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    20. Harun, ME & Legesse, B, 2023. "Determinants Of Crop Choice In North Shewa, Ethiopia: A Fractional Multinomial Approach," African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), vol. 23(3), January.
    21. Robert, Marion & Thomas, Alban & Bergez, Jacques Eric, 2016. "Processes of adpatation in farm decision-making models. A review," TSE Working Papers 16-731, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0218603. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.