This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
This study identifies iceberg indicators for welfare assessment in sows and piglets to enhance feasibility and sustainability of available protocols. Indicators of the Welfare Quality® protocol and of a German protocol were collected over 65 farm visits to 13 farms in Germany between September 2016 and April 2018. Data were analysed using partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). A hierarchical component model was built (animal welfare = higher-order, Welfare Quality® principles = lower-order components). In sows, welfare was revealed to be most influenced by the principles good housing, good health and appropriate behaviour (path coefficients = 0.77, 0.86, 0.91). High coefficients of determination R² indicated a large amount of explained variance (good housing R² = 0.59, good health R² = 0.75, appropriate behaviour R² = 0.83). Stereotypies was the indicator most valuable to assess sow welfare. Additionally, the final model included the indicators panting, shoulder sores, metritis, mortality and an indicator assessing stereotypies in resting animals (indicator reliabilities 0.54–0.88). However, the model did not include the indicators lameness and body condition, which may be due to the farm sample. Welfare of piglets was most explained by the indicators carpal joint lesions, mortality, sneezing and undersized animals (indicator reliabilities 0.48–0.86).
Lena Friedrich; Joachim Krieter; Nicole Kemper; Irena Czycholl. Iceberg Indicators for Sow and Piglet Welfare. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8967 .
AMA StyleLena Friedrich, Joachim Krieter, Nicole Kemper, Irena Czycholl. Iceberg Indicators for Sow and Piglet Welfare. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (21):8967.
Chicago/Turabian StyleLena Friedrich; Joachim Krieter; Nicole Kemper; Irena Czycholl. 2020. "Iceberg Indicators for Sow and Piglet Welfare." Sustainability 12, no. 21: 8967.
The present study’s aim was to test a German guideline for farm’s self-monitoring in sows and piglets for its feasibility as well as its interobserver and test–retest reliability. The study was performed between September 2016 and April 2018 on 13 farrowing farms in Northern Germany. Contrary to the guideline, the testing was not carried out by the farmers themselves but by 2 observers with experience in pigs representing common farmers. For the interobserver reliability study, the observers performed 20 joint farm visits independently assessing the same animals. For the test–retest reliability study, each farm was visited 5 times by 1 observer (day 0, day 3, week 7, month 5, month 10). Farm visit 1 (day 0) was used as reference and compared with the remaining farm visits. The reliability was evaluated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and limits of agreement (LoA). As results, the guideline’s feasibility was limited. The indicators’ reliability also presented divergent results: All indicators in piglets revealed acceptable to good interobserver reliability (RS 0.64 to 0.77 ICC 0.33 to 0.48 LoA between the intervals −0.02 to 0.13 and −0.02 to 0.00). Contrarily, interobserver reliability was low for indicators in sows (e.g., claw alterations: RS −0.41 ICC 0.00 LoA −0.97 to 0.68). Overall acceptable test–retest reliability could be assigned to all indicators although no exact agreement existed but only the pursuit of trends is indicated. On the basis of the present results, the guideline in its present form cannot be recommended for farms’ self-monitoring. Given the restricted applicability, it should be reconsidered whether it might not be more appropriate to use scientifically tested and generally accepted animal welfare assessment systems such as the Welfare Quality animal welfare assessment protocols, although their application is also time-consuming.
Lena Friedrich; Joachim Krieter; Nicole Kemper; Irena Czycholl. Feasibility and reliability of a German guideline for farm’s self-monitoring in sows and piglets. Journal of Animal Science 2020, 98, 1 .
AMA StyleLena Friedrich, Joachim Krieter, Nicole Kemper, Irena Czycholl. Feasibility and reliability of a German guideline for farm’s self-monitoring in sows and piglets. Journal of Animal Science. 2020; 98 (10):1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleLena Friedrich; Joachim Krieter; Nicole Kemper; Irena Czycholl. 2020. "Feasibility and reliability of a German guideline for farm’s self-monitoring in sows and piglets." Journal of Animal Science 98, no. 10: 1.
Sample sizes of welfare assessment protocols must warrant to reflect prevalences on-farm properly – regardless of farm size. Still, solely a fixed sample size was specified for the Welfare Quality® protocol for sows and piglets. The present study investigated whether animals may be assessed from only one body side as applied in the protocol and whether the pre-set sample size of 30 animals mirrors the prevalences of the animal-based indicators on-farm in the gestation unit considering different farm sizes. All indicators were assessed for both sides of an animal’s body by one observer on 13 farms in Germany, which were visited five times within 10 months. The farm visits were treated as independent since different animals were housed in the gestation units. The number of sows in the gestation units varied between 18 and 549 animals. The comparison of sides was carried out calculating exact agreement between animals’ sides and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test (W). The results signified that it is sufficient to assess the animal from one side (exact agreement: 88.3% to 99.5%, except for bursitis (70.0%); W: P-values 0.14 to 0.92). However, if side preferences existed in the indicator bursitis a potential bias must be considered. In the following, the sample size was evaluated by comparing samples’ prevalences against true prevalence, that is, the prevalence of all observed animals in the gestation unit in each farm visit. Therefore, subsets of data were generated by applying simple random sampling without replacement. The samples randomly included the animals’ right or left sides. Linear regression was rated as appropriate provided: coefficient of determination R2 ≥ 0.90, slope = 1 and intercept = 0 signifying exact agreement. The results revealed that the sample size required by the protocol and the application of calculation formulas are solely appropriate to mirror the prevalences of frequent indicators in the gestation unit, for example, bursitis (mean prevalence 34.4%). Using a proportion of animals, for example, a sample of 30% of all observed animals in a farm visit, pointed out that proportions must increase with indicators’ underlying prevalence narrowing 0.00%. Local infections (mean prevalence 13.3%) needed samples including 60% of all observed animals in each farm visit, whereas vulva lesions (mean prevalence 7.28%) only reached accuracy with the inclusion of 70% of the animals. Indicators with a mean prevalence of <1% were not analysed but can most likely only be ascertained by the assessment of all animals.
L. Friedrich; J. Krieter; N. Kemper; I. Czycholl. Short communication: Evaluation of the sample size of individual indicators in gestating sows concerning the Welfare Quality® protocol applied to sows and piglets. Animal 2020, 14, 1278 -1282.
AMA StyleL. Friedrich, J. Krieter, N. Kemper, I. Czycholl. Short communication: Evaluation of the sample size of individual indicators in gestating sows concerning the Welfare Quality® protocol applied to sows and piglets. Animal. 2020; 14 (6):1278-1282.
Chicago/Turabian StyleL. Friedrich; J. Krieter; N. Kemper; I. Czycholl. 2020. "Short communication: Evaluation of the sample size of individual indicators in gestating sows concerning the Welfare Quality® protocol applied to sows and piglets." Animal 14, no. 6: 1278-1282.
The present study aimed at introducing a reliable and more feasible indicator to evaluate stereotypies in sows in comparison with the ‘Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment protocol for sows and piglets’. Therefore, the indicators for the assessment of stereotypies of the Welfare Quality® protocol for sows and piglets as the gold standard (sham chewing, tongue rolling, teeth grinding, bar, drinker, trough biting and floor licking) were tested in relation to the potential indicator ‘frothy saliva’ in an on-farm study on farrowing farms. The analysis included the correlation between indicators, their interobserver agreement and test-retest reliability. Therefore, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), smallest detectable change (SDC) and limits of agreement (LoA) were used. As results, the potential indicator ‘frothy saliva’ showed an acceptable correlation with the most observed indicator sham chewing (RS 0.42), which was in turn correlated to the indicator tongue rolling (RS 0.35). ‘Frothy saliva’ showed similar interobserver agreement as the indicators for the assessment of stereotypies, e.g. ‘frothy saliva’ (RS 0.90 ICC 0.93 SDC 0.16 LoA [-0.18;0.14]) and sham chewing (RS 0.96 ICC 0.94 SDC 0.11 LoA [-0.08;0.13]). Concerning its test-retest reliability, the results showed that the potential indicator ‘frothy saliva’ can be used to differentiate between farms (RS 0.61-0.87 ICC 0.74-0.91 SDC 0.20-0.35 LoA [-0.16;0.24]-[-0.46;0.25]), which matched the results of the indicators for the assessment of stereotypies, e.g. sham chewing (RS 0.81-0.93 ICC 0.80-0.91 SDC 0.16-0.23 LoA [-0.22;0.10]-[-0.24;0.21]). Sensitivity, specificity and regarding result parameters confirmed the usefulness of the potential indicator ‘frothy saliva’ on-farm (sensitivity 0.86, specificity 0.62, positive likelihood ratio 2.26, negative likelihood ratio 0.23). However, organic enrichment material can be a confounding factor. So does the currently still unknown relationship between ‘frothy saliva’ and non-stereotypic foraging or eating activities of sows.. Besides that, the potential indicator ‘frothy saliva’ proved to be as reliable as the indicators for the assessment of stereotypies and demonstrated higher feasibility. Hence, the use of the potential indicator ‘frothy saliva’ is recommended to assess stereotypies in sows. Thereby, it could contribute to an improvement of the Welfare Quality® protocol for sows and piglets.
Lena Friedrich; Joachim Krieter; Nicole Kemper; Irena Czycholl. Frothy saliva—A novel indicator to assess stereotypies in sows? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2019, 222, 104897 .
AMA StyleLena Friedrich, Joachim Krieter, Nicole Kemper, Irena Czycholl. Frothy saliva—A novel indicator to assess stereotypies in sows? Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2019; 222 ():104897.
Chicago/Turabian StyleLena Friedrich; Joachim Krieter; Nicole Kemper; Irena Czycholl. 2019. "Frothy saliva—A novel indicator to assess stereotypies in sows?" Applied Animal Behaviour Science 222, no. : 104897.
The present study’s aim was to assess the test−retest reliability (TRR) of the ‘Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment protocol for sows and piglets’ focusing on the welfare principle ‘appropriate behavior’. TRR was calculated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), smallest detectable change (SDC), and limits of agreement (LoA). Principal component analysis (PCA) was used for deeper analysis of the Qualitative Behavior Assessment (QBA). The study was conducted on thirteen farms in Northern Germany, which were visited five times by the same observer. Farm visits 1 (F1; day 0) were compared to farm visits 2 to 5 (F2–F5). The QBA indicated no TRR when applying the statistical parameters introduced above (e.g., ‘playful‘ (F1–F4) RS 0.08 ICC 0.00 SDC 0.50 LoA [−0.62, 0.38]). The PCA detected contradictory TRR. Acceptable TRR could be found for parts of the instantaneous scan sampling (e.g., negative social behavior (F1–F3) RS 0.45 ICC 0.37 SDC 0.02 LoA [−0.03, 0.02]). The human−animal relationship test solely achieved poor TRR, whereas scans for stereotypies showed sufficient TRR (e.g., floor licking (F1–F4) RS 0.63 ICC 0.52 SDC 0.05 LoA [−0.08, 0.04]). Concluding, the principle ‘appropriate behavior’ does not represent TRR and further investigation is needed before implementation on-farm.
Lena Friedrich; Joachim Krieter; Nicole Kemper; Irena Czycholl. Test−Retest Reliability of the ‘Welfare Quality® Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Sows and Piglets’. Part 1. Assessment of the Welfare Principle of ‘Appropriate Behavior’. Animals 2019, 9, 398 .
AMA StyleLena Friedrich, Joachim Krieter, Nicole Kemper, Irena Czycholl. Test−Retest Reliability of the ‘Welfare Quality® Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Sows and Piglets’. Part 1. Assessment of the Welfare Principle of ‘Appropriate Behavior’. Animals. 2019; 9 (7):398.
Chicago/Turabian StyleLena Friedrich; Joachim Krieter; Nicole Kemper; Irena Czycholl. 2019. "Test−Retest Reliability of the ‘Welfare Quality® Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Sows and Piglets’. Part 1. Assessment of the Welfare Principle of ‘Appropriate Behavior’." Animals 9, no. 7: 398.
The present study aimed at testing the feasibility and on-farm test-retest reliability of the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for pigs applied to sows and piglets. The study was conducted on thirteen farms in Northern Germany, which were visited five times by the same observer, and included two experimental setups: first, the complete Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for sows and piglets was applied to the farms. Second, additional assessments in the gestation unit considered all sows. The complete protocol assessments were used to evaluate the feasibility of the protocol. Further, the data were analyzed with regard to on-farm test-retest reliability. The present publication focuses on the Welfare Quality principles good feeding, good housing, and good health, which are based on individual indicators (IN). The second experimental setup was utilized to verify the test-retest reliability of IN in the gestation unit with an increased number of animals under assessment. The test-retest reliability was calculated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), smallest detectable change (SDC), and limits of agreement (LoA). Farm visit 1 (F1; day 0) was set as a reference and compared with farm visits 2 to 5 (F2-5; day 3, week 7, month 5, month 10). The IN of the above-named Welfare Quality principles achieved mostly acceptable test-retest reliability (e.g. wounds on the body F1-F4: RS 0.34–0.57 ICC 0.40–0.41 SDC 0.02–0.12 LoA [-0.03;0.02]-[-0.09;0.14]) in terms of the on-farm test-retest reliability. Poor test-retest reliability was detected for body condition score concerning the principle good feeding , for bursitis and panting in sows and for huddling and panting in piglets within the principle good housing , and finally for vulva lesions, metritis, and local infections in sows and for scouring and lameness in piglets in the principle good health. Variations among the farm visits, which resulted in poor test-retest reliability, may be explained by seasonal effects (panting), moving animals (bursitis, lameness, huddling), rare occurrences of diseases (metritis, local infections, scouring), and differently conditioned sow groups (body condition score). The second experimental setup confirmed the results for IN in the gestation unit. Thus, the reported test-retest reliability determines the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for sows and piglets to be a reliable approach to assess welfare in sows and piglets.
Lena Friedrich; Joachim Krieter; Nicole Kemper; Irena Czycholl. Test–retest reliability of the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for pigs applied to sows and piglets. Part 2. Assessment of the principles good feeding, good housing, and good health1. Journal of Animal Science 2019, 97, 1143 -1157.
AMA StyleLena Friedrich, Joachim Krieter, Nicole Kemper, Irena Czycholl. Test–retest reliability of the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for pigs applied to sows and piglets. Part 2. Assessment of the principles good feeding, good housing, and good health1. Journal of Animal Science. 2019; 97 (3):1143-1157.
Chicago/Turabian StyleLena Friedrich; Joachim Krieter; Nicole Kemper; Irena Czycholl. 2019. "Test–retest reliability of the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for pigs applied to sows and piglets. Part 2. Assessment of the principles good feeding, good housing, and good health1." Journal of Animal Science 97, no. 3: 1143-1157.