On farm welfare assessment of beef cattle using an environmentally-based welfare index and investigation of the human-animal relationship.

End of Project ReportStudy 1. Animal welfare index (AWI): an on-farm survey of beef suckler farms in Ireland Summary The objectives were to (i) examine the welfare status of Irish beef suckler herds using an animal welfare index (AWI) adapted from a previously validated welfare assessment method (TGI); (ii) determine the influence of the stockpersons’ status (full: FT or part-time: PT), their interest in farming and herd size on the AWI; and (iii) compare the AWI with the TGI. Beef suckler farms (196 throughout 13 counties) were assessed once with housed cattle and once with cattle at grass using the AWI. Twenty-three of the 196 farms were revisited a year after using the AWI and the TGI. Thirty-three indicators were collected in five categories: locomotion (5 indicators); social interactions (7), flooring (5), environment (7) and stockpersonship (9). Three indicators relating to the size of the farm were also collected. The mean AWI was 65% and ranged from 54% to 83%. The grass period represented 16.5% of mean 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 FT and PT farmers. PT farmers had greater (P = 0.01) “social interactions”: calving (P = 0.03) and weaning (P < 0.001) scores. FT farmers had cleaner animals (P = 0.03) and less lameness (P = 0.01). The number of animals 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. Farms could be categorized into three classes, the most discriminating factors for the classes were the interest of the farmer (higher scores when the farmer was more interested in farming) and the number of animals (higher scores when the herds were smaller). Study 2. Investigation and specificity of behavioural fear responses of heifers to different fear-eliciting situations involving humans. Summary This study investigated the specificity of fear responses in housed beef heifers’ over time using four behavioural tests; flight, docility, fear and chute tests. The flight, (time to join peers and avoidance distance), docility (isolation and handling) and fear (4 phases; responses of isolated heifers in (i), the absence (ii), the presence, of food and responses to a stationary human (iii) without and (iv) with visual contact of their peers) tests were carried out over three consecutive days, in that order, commencing on day 30 and again on day 80 post-housing. The chute test (movement through a race and agitation of heifers during blood sampling) was performed on day 84 post-housing. Scores (higher scores meant less fearful animals) were assigned to the fear responses. Heifers had the lowest (P < 0.05) scores during phases (i) and (iii) of the fear test and the highest (P< 0.05) during phase (iv). The most docile heifers during the docility test were the most agitated during the chute test (P < 0.001). The fear scores were sTable over time for the docility test but decreased for the fear test. The fear scores when restrained (chute test) were not correlated with other scores except for the agitation. A PCA showed that two components (avoidance of stimulus and general agitation explained 49% of the total variation. In conclusion, this study showed that fear responses of heifers can vary over time and that fear is not unitary but multidimensional. Consequently, fear responses are condition specific and tests assessing fear should consider their specificity.European Union Structural Funds (EAGGF

An on-farm investigation of beef suckler herds using an animal welfare index (AWI)

peer-reviewedBackground: 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. Results: 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 0.05) 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

Swedish Farm SafetyPracticeand E.U. Influences

End of project reportAn All Island Farm Safety Conference took place on Wednesday, 18 June 2008 at the Hillgrove Hotel, Old Armagh Road, Monaghan. The presentations from this conference will be of interest to farmers, agricultural contractors, and anyone with an interest in safety and health in agriculture. The presentations from this conference will be of interest to farmers, agricultural contractors, and anyone with an interest in safety and health in agriculture. Each of the talk titles below is a link to the Microsoft PowerPoint presentation in PDF forma

On farm welfare assessment of beef cattle using an environmentally-based welfare index and investigation of the human-animal relationship

End of project reportOn farm welfare assessment of beef cattle using an environmentally-based welfare index and investigation of the human-animal relationship. Study 1. Animal welfare index (AWI): an on-farm survey of beef suckler farms in Ireland. Study 2. Investigation and specificity of behavioural fear responses of heifers to different fear-eliciting situations involving humans.Teagasc acknowledges with gratitude the support of European Union Structural Funds (EAGGF) in financing this research projec

On farm welfare assessment of beef cattle using an environmentally-based welfare index and investigation of the human-animal relationship.

End of Project ReportStudy 1. Animal welfare index (AWI): an on-farm survey of beef suckler farms in Ireland Summary The objectives were to (i) examine the welfare status of Irish beef suckler herds using an animal welfare index (AWI) adapted from a previously validated welfare assessment method (TGI); (ii) determine the influence of the stockpersons’ status (full: FT or part-time: PT), their interest in farming and herd size on the AWI; and (iii) compare the AWI with the TGI. Beef suckler farms (196 throughout 13 counties) were assessed once with housed cattle and once with cattle at grass using the AWI. Twenty-three of the 196 farms were revisited a year after using the AWI and the TGI. Thirty-three indicators were collected in five categories: locomotion (5 indicators); social interactions (7), flooring (5), environment (7) and stockpersonship (9). Three indicators relating to the size of the farm were also collected. The mean AWI was 65% and ranged from 54% to 83%. The grass period represented 16.5% of mean 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 FT and PT farmers. PT farmers had greater (P = 0.01) “social interactions”: calving (P = 0.03) and weaning (P < 0.001) scores. FT farmers had cleaner animals (P = 0.03) and less lameness (P = 0.01). The number of animals 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. Farms could be categorized into three classes, the most discriminating factors for the classes were the interest of the farmer (higher scores when the farmer was more interested in farming) and the number of animals (higher scores when the herds were smaller). Study 2. Investigation and specificity of behavioural fear responses of heifers to different fear-eliciting situations involving humans. Summary This study investigated the specificity of fear responses in housed beef heifers’ over time using four behavioural tests; flight, docility, fear and chute tests. The flight, (time to join peers and avoidance distance), docility (isolation and handling) and fear (4 phases; responses of isolated heifers in (i), the absence (ii), the presence, of food and responses to a stationary human (iii) without and (iv) with visual contact of their peers) tests were carried out over three consecutive days, in that order, commencing on day 30 and again on day 80 post-housing. The chute test (movement through a race and agitation of heifers during blood sampling) was performed on day 84 post-housing. Scores (higher scores meant less fearful animals) were assigned to the fear responses. Heifers had the lowest (P < 0.05) scores during phases (i) and (iii) of the fear test and the highest (P< 0.05) during phase (iv). The most docile heifers during the docility test were the most agitated during the chute test (P < 0.001). The fear scores were sTable over time for the docility test but decreased for the fear test. The fear scores when restrained (chute test) were not correlated with other scores except for the agitation. A PCA showed that two components (avoidance of stimulus and general agitation explained 49% of the total variation. In conclusion, this study showed that fear responses of heifers can vary over time and that fear is not unitary but multidimensional. Consequently, fear responses are condition specific and tests assessing fear should consider their specificity.European Union Structural Funds (EAGGF

Presentations from the All Island Farm Safety Conference

End of Project ReportAn All Island Farm Safety Conference took place on Wednesday, 18 June 2008 at the Hillgrove Hotel, Old Armagh Road, Monaghan. The presentations from this conference will be of interest to farmers, agricultural contractors, and anyone with an interest in safety and health in agriculture. Each of the talk titles below is a link to the Microsoft PowerPoint presentation in PDF forma