Upload
controlpost
View
62
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
18/05/2014
1
Improvement of Animal Welfare During Long Distance Transport
SANCO/2011/G3/CRPA/SI2.610274
CP2 FINAL CONFERENCEKurhaus, Scheveningen The Hague
7° May 2014
Animal based measures for a ‘Welfare-plus’ certification scheme for long distance transport
Hans Spoolder1, Wijbrand Ouweltjes1, Patrick Chevilllon2, Paolo Ferrarri3, Michael Marahrens4, Stefano Messori5, Beatrice Mounaix6,
Cecilia Pedernera7, Evangelia Sossidou8 and Kathalijne Visser1
1WUR Livestock Research - NL, 2 IFIP - FR, 3CRPA - IT, 4FLI - DE, 5IZS - IT, 6Institut de l’Elevage - FR, 7IRTA - ES, 8HAO DEMETER - GR
WP2 of the project aimed:
To provide a scientific basis
... for an assessment scheme which identifies
... long distance transports with a
... high level of animal welfare
How to measure welfare?1
How to measure welfare?1
1
2
3
4
Available pen area
Shiny coat / clean feathers
Presence of toys
Good locomotion (cattle / broilers)
Access to outside area
Species specific behaviour
Partly unslatted flooring
Little or no aggression
How to measure welfare?
Available pen area
Shiny coat / clean feathers
Presence of toys
Good locomotion (cattle / broilers)
Access to outside area
Species specific behaviour
Partly unslatted flooring
Little or no aggression
Animal Based vs Environment Based
18/05/2014
2
WP2 starting position and focus:
• Environment and management based parameters are essential and remain the basis of the scheme
• The welfare ‘plus’ is achieved through high performance on animal based parameters
Animal Based vs Environment Based
In addition we investigated:
• Fitness to travel
• Electronic data collection
Animal Based Measures
• To provide a scientific basis for animal based assessment, we:
• identified suitable ABMs
• identified thresholds for certificationat measure level
• identified minimum number of certifiable measures for a certifiable overall score
• Welfare Quality® approach
• In combination with risk assessment
Which Animal Based Measures to include?
• Welfare Quality® approach
• In combination with risk assessmentWQ Welfare principles
WQ Welfare criteriaAdverse effects
Good feeding 1 Absence of prolonged hunger Hunger2 Absence of prolonged thirst Dehydration
Good housing 3 Comfort around resting Exhaustion4 Thermal comfort Heat stress, Cold stress5 Ease of movement Pain & injury
Good health 6 Absence of injuries Pain & injury7 Absence of disease Disease8 Absence of pain induced by management procedures Pain & injury
Appropriate behaviour
9 Expression of social behaviours Fear, Aggression10 Expression of other behaviours Pain & injury11 Good human-animal relationship Fear12 Positive emotional state Fear
Adapted from WQ® and EFSA Journal 2011; 9(1):Table 4, p 58
Which Animal Based Measures to include?
Adverse effect MeasuresDirect observation Other
Hunger Quantity of eating; manure; explorative behaviour, skin lesions, body weight loss, body condition
State of stomach; plasma corticosteroids; fatty acids; ketone
Dehydration Extreme thirst, collapse, mortality; Skin-pinch test Haematocrit, Blood pCO2, pH Urine colour, specific gravity
Exhaustion Apathy, reluctance to moveProstration, collapse, mortality
Dark, firm dry carcasses Blood enzymes (CK, CPK)
Heat stress Thermal panting, drooling, sweating (horses, cattle), gasping; extreme thirst, collapse, mortality
Body temperature
Cold stress Shivering, huddling, skin colour (pig); collapse, mortality
Body temperature
Pain & injury Lameness, swollen joints/feet, slipping, falling,Abnormal body posture; skin lesions
Fractures; hypersensitivity to touch
Disease Collapse, mortality; nasal, ocular discharge; abnormal respiration, diarrhoea, blood in faeces; vomiting
Body temperature; Abnormal respiratory sounds; pathogens
Aggression Vocalisation, aggression, escape behaviour, QBA, change in normal behaviour, HAR, skin lesions
Bleeding, Haematoma, plasma corticosteroids, blood enzymes
Fear Vocalisation, escape behaviour; urination and/or defecation, reluctance to move
Plasma corticosteroids
Which Animal Based Measures to include?
Adverse effect MeasuresOther
Hunger Quantity of eating; manure; explorative behaviour, skin lesions, body weight loss, body condition
State of stomach; plasma corticosteroids; fatty acids; ketone
Dehydration Extreme thirst, collapse, mortality; Skin-pinch test Haematocrit, Blood pCO2, pH Urine colour, specific gravity
Exhaustion Apathy, reluctance to moveProstration, collapse, mortality
Dark, firm dry carcasses Blood enzymes (CK, CPK)
Heat stress Thermalpanting, drooling,sweating(horses, cattle), gasping; extreme thirst, collapse, mortality
Body temperature
Cold stress Shivering, huddling, skin colour (pig); collapse, mortality
Body temperature
Pain & injury Lameness, swollen joints/feet slipping, fallingAbnormal body posture; skin lesions
Fractures; hypersensitivity to touch
Disease Collapse, mortality; nasal, ocular discharge;abnormal respiration, diarrhoea, blood in faeces; vomiting
Body temperature; Abnormal respiratory sounds; pathogens
Aggression Vocalisation, aggression, escape behaviour, QBA, change in normal behaviour, HAR, skin lesions
Bleeding, Haematoma, plasma corticosteroids, blood enzymes
Fear Vocalisation, escape behaviour; urination and/or defecation, reluctance to move
Plasma corticosteroids
Which Animal Based Measures to include?
18/05/2014
3
Assessment Protocols
Assessments
At arrival General characteristics of the transport / electronic data
Truck characteristics
Unloading Conditions during unloading
ABMs
Animal handling
Resting pens ABMs
Additional information Drivers checklist Fitness to travel
Training materials
Horses• 25 arrivals in Italy, by CRPA• 26 arrivals in Italy, by ICT
Sheep• 25 arrivals in Italy, by ICT• 23 arrivals in Greece, by Demeter
200 assessmentsPigs
• 26 arrivals in France, by IFIP
• 25 arrivals in Germany, by FLI
Cattle
• 9 arrivals in Spain, by IRTA
• 41 arrivals in France, by IDELE
Outcomes Fitness to travel
• Loading fit animals is crucial
• How to include this aspect into a scheme?
• The study design only allowed loading data to be collected retrospectively (from the driver)
Outcomes Fitness to travel
• Information from the driver after the journey generated few useable results.
• Assessments carried out after long journeys revealed that the vast majority of animals were fit after travel .
• It can be assumed they were fit at loading.
Outcomes Fitness to travel
For discussion:
• Obvious shortcomingsof our assessment were the retrospective assessments, not randomly selected
• For the purpose of a certification system: is it sufficient to check fitness on arrival?
• Is average fitness to travel for long journeys better than for short?
18/05/2014
4
Outcomes Electronic data• Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 require
electronic data to verify the transport organisation and the physical environment of animals during long transports.
• The route of the vehicle
• Open/close status of the loading door
• Temperature on board
• Can we link this to our welfare assessments?
• Data was collected on arrival
Outcomes Electronic dataOutcomes:
• The aim was to match the electronic data of long transports with the animal based measures
• Drivers were reluctant to share information, and seemed generally unable to provide them in an interpretable format.
• This is related to the fact that providers of data collection systems use their own data formats.
• At the Advisory Board meeting in Bologna (February 2013) it was agreed a different approach was needed.
Outcomes Electronic data
Next steps & discussion issues:
Two meetings with the main European system providers were held. They agreed:
• Data format: all legally based data in XML format
• Time intervals: No real time data transmission. Data collection every 15 minutes in addition to some asynchronous events (loading doors, temp alarms)
• Data flow: Data submission procedures and need for on board internet connection.
Outcomes ABMs
• The data collected give an indication of the range of values that can be observed
• Information regarding the feasibility of parameters-> improved protocol
Outcomes ABMs• Eight animal categories:
weaner pigs, finishing pigs, calves, heifers, other cattle, horses, lambs and adult sheep
• Each 10-14 measures
• Unloading and resting pen
Outcomes ABMs
Measure description min median max
Dead on arrival Animal that has stopped breathing and has no pulse (cardiac arrest) on arrival.
0 0 1.1
Severe lameness An animal is considered severely lame when it shows inability to bear weight on one or more limbs while not lying.
0 0 0
Slipping Animal showing a loss of balance during unloading without a non-limbic part of the body touching the ground.
0 4.2 17.2
Falling Animal showing a loss of balance during unloading causing other part(s) of the body (beside legs) to touch the floor
0 2.1 11.2
Pig measures at unloading
18/05/2014
5
ABMs: acceptability level
• Following selection of the measures, we:
• identified thresholds for certificationat measure level
• identified minimum number of certifiable measures for a certifiable overall score
Delphi approach
• Iterative process, aiming for consensus: • ask for opinions
• return them to all participants and ask to reconsider opinion
• repeat....
• Two questions: • Q1: what are acceptability thresholds for each measure?
• Q2: how to determine an overall score based on number of ‘acceptable’ ABM outcomes
• Three rounds for Q1 and Two rounds for Q2
Excellent response:
• Three rounds for Q1: 185, 105 and 91 sets returned
• Two rounds for Q2: 127 and 101 answers
Q1 Threshold levels
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3
TH2 Integument (weaners)
Q3
Median
Q1
Q1 Threshold levels - outcomes(EXAMPLE)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3
TH2 Slipping (horses)
Q3
Median
Q1
Q1 Threshold levels - outcomes(EXAMPLE)
18/05/2014
6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3
TH2 Falling (sheep)
Q3
Median
Q1
Q1 Threshold levels - outcomes(EXAMPLE)
Q1 Threshold levels - weaners
Q1 Threshold levels - finishers Q1 Threshold levels - horses
Q1 Threshold levels - calves Q1 Threshold levels – heifers & cows
18/05/2014
7
Q1 Threshold levels – other cattle Q1 Threshold levels - lambs
Q1 Threshold levels - sheep Q2 Overall score
Q2 Overall score
• Each animal category has 10-14 measures
• Given the possible outcomes:• Unacceptable
• Acceptable
• Certifiable
• How many ‘Acceptables’ are allowed for a transport to still be certifiable?
Q2 Overall scores - outcomes
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
First Round
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Second Round
18/05/2014
8
Summary advice re. ‘Welfare Plus’• Resource and management based measures provide
legal Welfare minimum
• Animal Based Measures can provide the ‘Plus’
• Feasible protocols and training material are available to assess animal based measures
• Thresholds for certifiability and acceptability are proposed
• Max 3-4 ‘acceptable’ measures allowed for a ‘Welfare Plus’. The rest should be at ‘certifiable’ level.
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from DG SANCO and from the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs