TY - JOUR

T1 - 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

AU - Friedrich, Lena

AU - Krieter, Joachim

AU - Kemper, Nicole

AU - Czycholl, Irena

PY - 2020/11

Y1 - 2020/11

N2 - We compare the Kuratorium fur 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(R) 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.

AB - We compare the Kuratorium fur 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(R) 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.

KW - animal welfare assessment

KW - piglets

KW - pen level

KW - sows

KW - Welfare Quality (R)

KW - TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY

KW - SYSTEMS

KW - LEVEL

U2 - 10.3390/agriculture10110506

DO - 10.3390/agriculture10110506

M3 - Journal article

VL - 10

JO - Agriculture

JF - Agriculture

SN - 2077-0472

IS - 11

M1 - 506

ER -