HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bracke, M. B. M. Articles by Schouten, W. G. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bracke, M. B. M. Articles by Schouten, W. G. P.

Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows B: Validation by expert opinion

M. B. M. Bracke^*,2, J. H. M. Metz^*, B. M. Spruijt and W. G. P. Schouten

^* Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering (IMAG), Wageningen University and Research Centre, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands; and Animal Welfare Centre—Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Utrecht, Yalelaan 17, 3584 CL, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and and Department of Animal Sciences, Ethology Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands

² Correspondence:
Inst. of Animal Science and Health (ID-Lelystad), Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands (phone: +31-(0)320-238205; fax: +31-(0)320-238050; E-mail:
m.b.m.bracke{at}id.wag-ur.nl).

This paper examines the validity of a model that is embedded in a computer-based decision support system to assess the welfare status of pregnant sows in housing and management systems. The so-called SOWEL (SOw WELfare) model was constructed using a formalized procedure to identify and weight welfare-relevant attributes of housing systems in relation to the animal’s needs, and evidenced by scientific statements collected in a database. The model’s predictions about welfare scores for 15 different housing systems and weighting factors for 20 attributes were compared with expert opinion, which was solicited using a written questionnaire for pig-welfare scientists.

The experts identified tethering and individual housing in stalls as low welfare systems. The group of mid-welfare systems contained indoor group-housing systems and an individual-housing system with additional space and substrate. The five best systems were all systems with outdoor access and the provision of some kind of substrate such as straw. The highest weighting factors were given for the attributes "social contact," "health and hygiene status," "water availability," "space per pen," "foraging and bulk," "food agonism," "rooting substrate," "social stability," and "movement comfort." The degree of concordance among the experts was reasonable for welfare scores of housing systems, but low for weighting factors of attributes. Both for welfare scores and weighting factors the model correlated significantly with expert opinion (Spearman’s Rho: 0.92, P < 0.001, and 0.72, P < 0.01, respectively). The results support the validity of the model and its underlying procedure to assess farm-animal welfare in an explicit and systematic way based on available scientific knowledge.

Key Words: Animal Welfare • Housing • Indexes • Management • Pigs

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. L. Salak-Johnson, S. R. Niekamp, S. L. Rodriguez-Zas, M. Ellis, and S. E. Curtis Space allowance for dry, pregnant sows in pens: Body condition, skin lesions, and performance J Anim Sci, July 1, 2007; 85(7): 1758 - 1769. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]