Sundrum A
Institut für Organischen Landbau, Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn.
Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 1998 Feb;105(2):65-72.
Along with a general redirection of values in agriculture, the need for action arises for veterinary medicine and other life sciences to establish suitable tools for the objective assessment of housing conditions with regard to their appropriateness concerning animal welfare. First communication between the disciplines involved demands a uniform use of terms. Assessment can be carried out generally either directly by using pathological, physiological and ethological reactions of the animals as criteria or indirectly by the means of technical criteria. Both approaches can indicate poor or good conditions with regard to animal welfare and are generally agreed upon. However using these measures in practise often yields problems referring to the methodology and to the results that are hard to interpret. Criteria referring to the state of the animals have a reduced meaningfulness due to the following aspects: A lot of criteria are lacking sensibility and specificity, which leads to a small diagnostic selectivity. A large number of sources for variance aggravate the use of reference values in order to distinguish between normal or abnormal levels. In many cases there is a lack of firm evidence that the level of changes correlates with the health and welfare of the animals. Due to contradictions caused by the differing properties of the variables being measured the measures do not always co-vary. Results and conclusions of the assessments are closely connected to the specific experimental design and cannot easily be transferred to the housing conditions in practice showing a large variance. Therefore criteria referring to the animals can be used primarily for the assessment of standardized or serial produced housing systems, where a direct comparison between systems is permissible. In order to find out the weak points of the housing conditions concerning animal welfare, on-farm assessment can be carried out more advantageous by using design criteria. Those criteria can be divided into structural and technical elements on the one hand and management born factors like hygiene, climate and feeding on the other. The use of structural and technical elements as criteria ensures a high level or repeatability of the results and practicability in the application. However, a confinement to structural and technical elements went along with a marked reduction in the meaningfulness of the assessment. The use of management born factors is governed by the specific situation. The variation of results depend to a high degree on the time of evaluation. Statements of the real situation within a longer period of time therefore require great efforts. Due to the complex phenomenon there is justified concern that a comprehensive assessment and conclusion referring to the appropriateness of housing conditions concerning animal welfare is not possible. Few criteria cannot be equated with the whole. However, partial statements can be achieved under a scientific point of view using a mixture of different criteria. In order to integrate and weigh the varied results reached by different criteria, a systemic approach and an integrative way of diagnosis is needed. Up to now there is a lack in matured concepts that put the integrative approach of assessment into practice.
随着农业价值观的全面转变,兽医医学和其他生命科学需要采取行动,建立合适的工具,以便客观评估饲养条件对动物福利的适宜性。相关学科之间的首次交流要求统一术语的使用。评估通常可以直接进行,以动物的病理、生理和行为反应作为标准,也可以通过技术标准间接进行。这两种方法都可以表明动物福利方面的优劣状况,并且普遍得到认可。然而,在实际应用这些措施时,往往会在方法和难以解释的结果方面产生问题。由于以下几个方面,涉及动物状态的标准的意义有所降低:许多标准缺乏敏感性和特异性,导致诊断选择性较低。大量的变异来源加剧了参考值的使用难度,难以区分正常或异常水平。在许多情况下,缺乏确凿证据表明变化水平与动物的健康和福利相关。由于所测量变量的不同属性导致的矛盾,这些措施并不总是协同变化。评估的结果和结论与特定的实验设计密切相关,不容易转移到实际中差异很大的饲养条件上。因此,涉及动物的标准主要可用于评估标准化或批量生产的饲养系统,在这些系统中可以进行系统之间的直接比较。为了找出饲养条件在动物福利方面的薄弱环节,通过使用设计标准在农场进行评估可能更具优势。这些标准一方面可以分为结构和技术要素,另一方面可以分为管理相关因素,如卫生、气候和饲养。将结构和技术要素用作标准可确保结果具有较高的重复性和应用的实用性。然而,仅局限于结构和技术要素会导致评估的意义显著降低。管理相关因素的使用取决于具体情况。结果的差异在很大程度上取决于评估时间。因此,要对较长时期内的实际情况进行陈述需要付出巨大努力。由于这种复杂现象,人们有理由担心无法对饲养条件对动物福利的适宜性进行全面评估和得出结论。少数标准不能等同于整体情况。然而,从科学角度来看,使用不同标准的组合可以得出部分陈述。为了整合和权衡不同标准得出的各种结果,需要一种系统方法和综合诊断方式。到目前为止,缺乏将综合评估方法付诸实践的成熟概念。