Lin Yi-Chun, Mullan Siobhan, Main David C J
School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK.
School of Veterinary Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan.
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2018 Sep;31(9):1525-1534. doi: 10.5713/ajas.17.0851. Epub 2018 Apr 12.
The aim of this study was to examine the use of outcome-based observations within Assured Dairy Farm scheme (ADF), Soil Association Organic Standards (SA), and cross compliance (CC) farm assessment reports.
A total of 449 ADF reports, 37 SA reports and 26 CC reports were analyzed and their objective comments categorized as either resource-based or outcome-based.
A mean of 61.0% of ADF questions were responded to with comments, in comparison to 25.0% of SA and, 21.0% of CC report questions. The SA and CC reports had significantly more outcome-based comments than the ADF (p<0.001). The assessors' tendency of choosing resource-based approach was revealed in the questionnaire results.
Generally, the comments were comprehensive and contained professional judgements. Large numbers of comments provided in the ADF reports were mostly compliant and resource-based evidence, which serves as proof of assessment rather than aiding the certifying process. The inclusion of specific welfare outcome measures in the SA inspection likely increased the use of outcome-based comments in the reports, irrespective of whether the farm achieved compliance with a given standards. The CC scheme, on the other hand, focused on providing outcome-based evidence to justify noncompliant decisions.
本研究旨在考察“放心奶牛场”计划(ADF)、土壤协会有机标准(SA)和交叉合规(CC)农场评估报告中基于结果的观察数据的使用情况。
共分析了449份ADF报告、37份SA报告和26份CC报告,并将其客观评论分为基于资源的或基于结果的两类。
ADF报告中平均61.0%的问题得到了评论回复,相比之下,SA报告为25.0%,CC报告为21.0%。SA和CC报告中基于结果的评论显著多于ADF报告(p<0.001)。问卷调查结果显示了评估人员选择基于资源方法的倾向。
总体而言,这些评论较为全面且包含专业判断。ADF报告中提供的大量评论大多是合规的且基于资源的证据,这是评估的证明而非有助于认证过程。SA检查中纳入特定的福利结果衡量标准可能增加了报告中基于结果的评论的使用,无论农场是否符合给定标准。另一方面,CC计划侧重于提供基于结果的证据来证明不合规决定的合理性。