Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-5vn5w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-23T21:22:20.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development and testing of an on-farm welfare assessment protocol for dairy goats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

K Muri ,
SM Stubsjøen  and
PS Valle
K Muri*
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, PO Box 8146 Dep, 0033 Oslo, Norway
SM Stubsjøen
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, PO Box 8146 Dep, 0033 Oslo, Norway
PS Valle
Affiliation:
Kontali Analyse AS, Industriveien 18, 6517 Kristiansund, Norway Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Food Safety and Infectious Biology, PO Box 8146 Dep, 0033 Oslo, Norway
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: karianne.muri@nvh.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To ensure that farm animal welfare issues are identified and addressed appropriately, there is a need for robust on-farm welfare assessment protocols. This paper describes the development of a comprehensive welfare assessment protocol for dairy goats (Capra hircus) and its testing on 30 commercial dairy goat farms in Norway. The protocol combines animal-based welfare indicators with measures of husbandry provisions to enable the identification of welfare problems and challenges inherent to the production system. The study also includes a first report of group level qualitative behavioural assessments (QBA) of goats. Due to reliability and validity issues related to behavioural assessments of human-animal interactions, indices of stockperson attitudes were incorporated as a complementary assessment of stockmanship. The most prevalent physical conditions observed were ocular discharge, skin lesions, udder asymmetry, calluses on knees and hocks, and overgrown claws. Moreover, fear levels appeared to be of particular concern in some herds. Significant associations were found between qualitative behavioural assessments and measures of health and stockmanship. Floor type was associated with four animal-based welfare outcomes. Reliability and validity of goat welfare indicators need to be further tested, and intervention plans and thresholds need to be determined so that advice can be tailored to the specific problems identified on each farm. We conclude that the protocol can work as a tool to identify welfare issues in dairy goat herds, and that this study may be a valuable contribution to the development of a much-needed welfare assessment protocol for dairy goats.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourdairy goatshealthhuman-animal relationshipsstockmanship

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , August 2013 , pp. 385 - 400
Copyright
© 2013 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alawa, JP, Ngele, MB and Ogwu, D 2000 Chronic caprine mastitis in Nigerian goat breeds: microbiological flora and histopathological findings. Small Ruminant Research 35: 203–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488(99)00099-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, L and Gutiérrez, J 2010 A first description of the physiological and behavioural responses to disbudding in goat kids. Animal Welfare 19: 55–59Google Scholar
Alvarez, L, Nava, RA, Ramírez, A, Ramírez, E and Gutiérrez, J 2009 Physiological and behavioural alterations in disbudded goat kids with and without local anaesthesia. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117: 190–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anzuino, K, Bell, KJ, Bazeley, KJ and Nicol, CJ 2010 Assessment of welfare on 24 commercial UK dairy goat farms based on direct observations. Veterinary Record 167: 774–780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.c5892CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergonier, D, de Crémoux, R, Rupp, R, Lagriffoul, G and Berthelot, X 2003 Mastitis of dairy small ruminants. Veterinary Research 34: 689–716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/vetres:2003030CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertenshaw, C and Rowlinson, P 2009 Exploring stock managers’ perceptions of the human-animal relationships on dairy farms and an association with milk production. Anthrozoös 22: 59–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303708X390473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Veissier, I, Miele, M and Jones, B 2010 The welfare Quality® project and beyond: safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science 60: 129–140Google Scholar
Bøe, KE, Andersen, IL, Buisson, L, Simensen, E and Jeksrud, WK 2007 Flooring preferences in dairy goats at moderate and low ambient temperature. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 108: 45–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A, Fisher, AD, Bouix, J, Hinch, GN and Le Neindre, P 2005 Genetics of fear in ruminant livestock. Livestock Production Science 93: 23–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livprod-sci.2004.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X and Braastad, BO 1996 Effects of handling during temporary isolation after early weaning on goat kids’ later response to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48: 61–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)01019-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brant, R 1990 Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics 46: 1171–1178. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2532457CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burn, CC, Pritchard, JC and Whay, HR 2009 Observer reliability for working equine welfare assessment: problems with high prevalences of certain results. Animal Welfare 18: 177–187Google Scholar
Canali, E and Keeling, L 2009 Welfare Quality® project: from scientific research to on farm assessment of animal welfare. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8(S2): 900–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caroprese, M, Casamassima, D, Rassu, SPG, Napolitano, F and Sevi, A 2009 Monitoring the on-farm welfare of sheep and goats. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8: 343–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christodoulopoulos, G 2009 Foot lameness in dairy goats. Research in Veterinary Science 86: 281–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2008.07.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Contreras, A, Luengo, C, Sánchez, A and Corrales, JC 2003 The role of intramammary pathogens in dairy goats. Livestock Production Science 79: 273–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00172-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, MJ 1986 The effects of temperature and humidity on some animal diseases: a review. British Veterinary Journal 142: 472–485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0007-1935(86)90051-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Passillé, AM and Rushen, J 2005 Can we measure human-animal interactions in on-farm welfare assessment? Some unresolved issues. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92: 193–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dohoo, I, Martin, W and Stryhn, H 2009 Veterinary Epidemiologic Research, 2nd Edition. VER Inc: Prince Edward Island, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Edwards, DS and Johnston, AM 1999 Welfare implications of sheep ear tags. Veterinary Record 144: 603–606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.144.22.603CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehrlenbruch, R, Pollen, T, Andersen, IL and Bøe, KE 2010 Competition for water at feeding time: the effect of increasing number of individuals per water dispenser. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 126: 105–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2010.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eik, LO 1991 Performance of goat kids raised in a non-insulated barn at low temperatures. Small Ruminant Research 4: 95–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0921-4488(91)90056-VCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fajt, VR, Wagner, SA and Norby, B 2011 Analgesic drug administration and attitudes about analgesia in cattle among bovine practitioners in the United States. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 238: 755–767. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.238.6.755CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1993 Report on priorities for research and development in farm animal welfare. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, JL, Young, FJ, Eckersall, D, Logue, DN, Knight, CJ and Nolan, A 1998 Recognising and controlling pain and inflammation in mastitis. Proceedings of the British Mastitis Conference 1998 pp 36–44. British Mastitis Conference, Stoneleigh, UKGoogle Scholar
Flower, FC and Weary, DM 2008 Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3: 87–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S17517311 08003194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, PL and Shutt, DA 1990 Effects of management practices on cortisol, β-endorphin and behaviour in young goats. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 18: 224–227Google Scholar
Harwood, D 2006 Goat Health and Welfare. A Veterinary Guide, 1st Edition. The Crowood Press Ltd: Wiltshire, UKGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Coleman, GJ 2009 The integration of human-animal relations into animal welfare monitoring schemes. Animal Welfare 18: 335–345Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL and Borg, S 2000 Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 78: 2821–2831CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, NP, Murphy, PE, Nelson, AJ, Mouttotou, N, Green, LE and Morgan, KL 1997 Lameness and foot lesions in adult British dairy goats. Veterinary Record 141: 412–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.141.16.412CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillerton, JE 1998 Mastitis treatment, a welfare issue. Proceedings of the British Mastitis Conference 1998 pp 3–8. British Mastitis Conference, Stoneleigh, UK.Google Scholar
Houzha, R, Rastogi, SK, Korde, JP and Madan, AK 2011 Electroencephalographic changes during experimental pain induction in goats. Veterinarski Arhiv 81: 359–368Google Scholar
Jackson, KMA and Hackett, D 2007 A note: the effects of human handling on heart girth, behaviour and milk quality in dairy goats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 108: 332–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.01.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, GHM, Andersen, IL and Bøe, KE 2007 Feed intake and social interactions in dairy goats: the effects of feeding space and type of roughage. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107: 239–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.10.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2009 On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future perspectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach. Animal Welfare 18: 451–458Google Scholar
Leine, N, Sølverød, L, Kulberg, S and Djønne, B 2005 Friskere geiter: målsetting og resultat. In: Kaurstad, E (ed) Proceedings Husdyrforsøksmøtet 2005. Norwegian University of Life Sciences: Ås, Norway. [Title translation: Healthier goats: goals and results]Google Scholar
Lensink, BJ, Boissy, A and Veissier, I 2000 The relationship between farmers’ attitude and behaviour towards calves, and productivity of veal units. Annual Zootechnology 49: 313–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/animres:2000122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loretz, C, Wechsler, B, Hauser, R and Rüsch, P 2004 A comparison of space requirements of horned and hornless goats at the feed barrier and in the lying area. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87: 275–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2004.01.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, DM 1989 Individual differences in temperament of dairy goats and the inhibition of milk ejection. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 269–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(89)90022-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, DM and Price, EO 1987 Relationships between heart rates and behavior of goats in encounters with people. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 363–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(87)90230-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, DM, Price, EO and Moberg, GP 1988 Individual differences in temperament of domestic dairy goats: consistancy and change. Animal Behaviour 36: 1323–1333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(88)80201-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Leeb, C, Whay, HR, Hovi, M and Webster, J 2004 Bristol Welfare Assurance Programme: animal based assessment tool for farm animal welfare certification. http://www.vetschool.bristol.ac.uk/animalwelfare/images/BWAPweboverview.pdfGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Whay, HR, Leeb, C and Webster, AJF 2007 Formal animal-based welfare assessment in UK certification schemes. Animal Welfare 16: 233–236Google Scholar
Mattiello, S, Battini, M, Andreoli, E, Minero, M, Barbieri, S and Canali, E 2010 Avoidance distance test in goats: A comparison with its application in cows. Small Ruminant Research 91: 215–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2010.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mavrogianni, VS, Alexopoulos, C and Fthenakis, GC 2004 Field evaluation of flunixin meglumine in the supportive treatment of caprine mastitis. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 27: 373–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2885.2004.00590.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mavrogianni, VS, Menzies, PI, Fragkou, IA and Fthenakis, GC 2011 Principles of mastitis treatment in sheep and goats. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 27: 115–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2010.10.010Google ScholarPubMed
Meagher, RK 2009 Observer ratings: validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119: 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muri, K, Leine, L and Valle, PS Welfare effects of an eradication programme against caprine arthritis encephalitis, caseous lymphadenitis and paratuberculosis in Norwegian dairy goat herds. Livestock Science, submittedGoogle Scholar
Muri, K, Tufte, PA, Skjerve, E and Valle, PS 2012 Human-animal relationships in the Norwegian dairy goat industry: attitudes and empathy towards goats (Part I). Animal Welfare 21: 535–545. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.4.535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muri, K and Valle, PS 2012 Human-animal relationships in the Norwegian dairy goat industry: assessment of pain and provision of veterinary treatment (Part II). Animal Welfare 21: 547–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.4.547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture and Food 2005 FOR 2005–02-18 nr 160: Forskrift om velferd for småfe. The Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture and Food: Oslo, Norway. http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/ldles?doc=/sf/sf/sf-20050218-0160.html. [Title translation: Regulation 2005-02-18 nr 160 Regarding welfare for small ruminants]Google Scholar
Norwegian Parliament 2009 LOV 2009-06-19 nr 97: Lov om dyrevelferd. Norwegian Parliament: Oslo, Norway. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/laws/Acts/animal-welfare-act.html?id=571188. [Title translation: Animal Welfare Act]Google Scholar
Phillips, CJ, Pines, MK, Latter, M, Petherick, JC, Norman, ST and Gaughan, JB 2011 Physiological and behavioral responses of sheep to gaseous ammonia. Journal of Animal Science 90: 1562–1569. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4575CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phythian, CJ, Wemelsfelder, F, Michaelopoulou, E and Duncan, JS 2011 Qualitative behaviour assessment in sheep: consistency across time and association with health indicators. In: Widowski, T, Lawlis, P and Sheppard, K (eds) Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level WAFL 2011 p 14. Wageningen Academic Publishers: The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Rousing, T and Wemelsfelder, F 2006 Qualitative assessment of social behaviour of dairy cows housed in loose housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 40–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.12.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RSPCA 2010 RSPCA Welfare Standards for Sheep. RSPCA: West Sussex, UK. http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232719854371&mode=prdGoogle Scholar
Sevi, A, Casamassima, D, Pulina, G and Pazzona, A 2009 Factors of welfare reduction in dairy sheep and goats. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8: 81–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, MS and Sherman, DM 2009 Goat Medicine, Second Edition. Wiley-Blackwell: Ames, Iowa, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics Norway 2012 Livestock husbandry. Preliminary figures, as of 1 January 2012. http://www.ssb.no/jordhus_en/Google Scholar
The Norwegian Meteorological Institute 2010 Været i Norge, Klimatologisk månedsoversikt: November 2010. http://met.no/Klima/Klimastatistikk/Vare_i_Norge/2010/Novemb er 2010/filestore/2010-114.pdf. [Title translation: The weather in Norway: monthly climatological account: November 2010]Google Scholar
TINE, Rådgivning, TINE, SA 2011 Tilslutning til Geitekontrollen og middel buskapsstørrelse 2010. https://medlem.tine.no/trm/tp/page?id=58&key=9202. [Title translation: TINE Advisory Services 2011 Enrolment in the Goat Milk Recording System and average herd size 2010]Google Scholar
Toussaint, G 1997 The housing of milk goats. Livestock Production Science 49: 151–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(97)00011-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villaquiran, M, Gipson, T, Merkel, RC, Goetsch, A and Sahlu, T 2007 Body condition scores in goats. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Goat Field Day pp 125–131. 28 April 2007, Langston University, Langston, Oklahoma, USAGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Niel, L, Flower, FC and Fraser, D 2006 Identifying and preventing pain in animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100: 64–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2006.04.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF 2003 Assessment of welfare at farm and group level: introduction and overview. Animal Welfare 12: 429–431Google Scholar
Webster, AJF, Main, DCJ and Whay, H 2004 Welfare assessment: indices from clinical observation. Animal Welfare 13: S93–S98Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Farish, M 2004 Qualitative categories for the interpretation of sheep welfare: a review. Animal Welfare 13: 261–268Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, EA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2000 The spontaneous qualitative assesment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 193–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00093-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Lawrence, AB 2001 Qualitative assessment of animal behaviour as an on-farm welfare-monitoring tool. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 51: 21–25Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Veterinary Record 153: 197–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.153.7.197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfe, R and Gould, W 1998 An approximate likelihood-ratio test for ordinal response models. Stata Technical Bulletin 42: 24–27Google Scholar