Animal and Bioscience Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co, Meath, Ireland.
BMC Vet Res. 2010 Dec 13;6:55. doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-6-55.
Beef suckler farms (194 farms throughout 13 counties) were assessed once with housed cattle and once with cattle at grass using an animal welfare index (AWI). Twenty-three of the 194 farms were revisited a year later and re-evaluated using the AWI and the Tier-Gerechtheits-Index 35L/2000 (TGI35L/2000). Thirty-three indicators were collected in five categories: locomotion (5 indicators); social interactions (between animals) (7), flooring (5), environment (7) and Stockpersonship (9). Three indicators relating to the size of the farm were also collected.Improving animal welfare is an increasingly important aspect of livestock production systems predominantly due to increased consumer concern about the source of animal products. The objectives were (i) to evaluate animal welfare of Irish beef suckler herds using an animal welfare index (AWI), (ii) to examine correlations between parameters, how they influence the AWI and investigate the applicability of the parameters used, (iii) to investigate the impact of the activity of the farmer (full-time or part-time), the interest of the farmer and the number of animals on the AWI.
The mean AWI was 65% and ranged from 54% to 83%. The grazing period represented 16.5% of the total points of the AWI. Seventy percent of the farms were rated as "Very Good" or "Excellent". There was no difference (P > 0.05) in AWI between full-time and part-time farmers. Part-time farmers had greater (P = 0.01) "social interactions": calving (P = 0.03) and weaning (P < 0.001) scores. Full-time farmers had cleaner animals (P = 0.03) and their animals had less lameness (P = 0.01). The number of animals on-farm and the interest of the Stockperson were negatively and positively correlated (P = 0.001), respectively, with the AWI. A hierarchical classification was performed to examine how the indicators influenced the AWI.
The AWI was easily applicable for an on-farm evaluation of welfare. The Stockpersonship was an important factor in determining the AWI (11% of the total variation) more specifically, the interest of the farmer. Part and full-time farming did not differ (P > 0.05) in AWI scores. This method could, with further development, be used in countries with both intensive and/or extensive production systems and would require substantially less resources than animal-based methods.
采用动物福利指数（AWI）对 194 个农场的牛进行了 1 次室内牛和 1 次放牧牛评估。23 个农场一年后进行了回访，并使用 AWI 和 Tier-Gerechtheits-Index 35L/2000（TGI35L/2000）重新进行了评估。在五个类别中收集了 33 个指标：运动（5 个指标）；动物间的社会互动（7）、地板（5）、环境（7）和饲养员（9）。还收集了与农场规模相关的三个指标。提高动物福利是畜牧业生产系统中越来越重要的方面，主要是因为消费者对动物产品来源的担忧增加。目标是（i）使用动物福利指数（AWI）评估爱尔兰肉牛群的动物福利，（ii）研究参数之间的相关性，它们如何影响 AWI 以及研究使用参数的适用性，（iii）调查农民的活动（全职或兼职）、农民的兴趣和动物数量对 AWI 的影响。
平均 AWI 为 65%，范围为 54%至 83%。放牧期占 AWI 总分数的 16.5%。70%的农场被评为“非常好”或“优秀”。全职和兼职农民的 AWI 没有差异（P>0.05）。兼职农民的“社会互动”得分更高（P=0.01）：产犊（P=0.03）和断奶（P<0.001）。全职农民的动物更干净（P=0.03），跛行较少（P=0.01）。农场动物数量和饲养员的兴趣分别与 AWI 呈负相关（P=0.001）和正相关。进行了层次分类，以检查指标如何影响 AWI。
AWI 易于在农场进行福利评估。饲养员是决定 AWI 的一个重要因素（占总变异的 11%），更具体地说是农民的兴趣。全职和兼职农业在 AWI 评分上没有差异（P>0.05）。这种方法可以在具有集约化和/或粗放化生产系统的国家进一步发展，并且需要的资源比基于动物的方法要少得多。
