Animal Welfare Assessment in Sows and Piglets—Introduction of a New German Protocol for Farm’s Self-Inspection and of New Animal-Based Indicators for Piglets

Lena Friedrich, Joachim Krieter, Nicole Kemper and Irena Czycholl
Additional contact information
Lena Friedrich: Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany
Joachim Krieter: Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany
Nicole Kemper: Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany
Irena Czycholl: Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany

Agriculture, 2020, vol. 10, issue 11, 1-14

Abstract: We compare the Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL) protocol, a German protocol for sows and piglets developed for farm’s self-inspection, to the Welfare Quality ® protocol for sows and piglets (WQ). The KTBL protocol introduces new indicators for piglets to be assessed at pen level (face lesions, carpal joint lesions, undersized animals). The reliability of their assessment at pen level was analysed by comparison to assessments at individual level. Both protocols were applied by one observer in 65 farm visits. The protocols are highly similar, although the composition varies (WQ protocol: focus on animal-based, KTBL protocol: focus on management-based indicators). Consequently, the WQ protocol detected more welfare issues (e.g., welfare issues related to appropriate behaviour: 62.9% (WQ) vs. 21.0% (KTBL protocol)). The comparison between pen and individual level of piglets’ indicators was determined using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and limits of agreement (LoA). Carpal joint lesions and undersized animals (RS 0.73/0.80 ICC 0.55/0.57 LoA −0.12 to 0.03/−0.01 to 0.01) are reliably assessed at pen level but face lesions (RS 0.19 ICC 0.18 LoA −0.42 to 0.03) are not. Concluding, we present advantages and disadvantages of the KTBL protocol and introduce indicators for piglets which may enhance existing protocols.

Keywords: animal welfare assessment; piglets; pen level; sows; Welfare Quality ® (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q1 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/11/506/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/11/506/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:11:p:506-:d:436123

Access Statistics for this article

Agriculture is currently edited by Ms. Leda Xuan

More articles in Agriculture from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().