Analysis of substantiated welfare investigations in extensive farming systems in Victoria, Australia

IF 1.3 4区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES
N Williams, L Hemsworth, S Chaplin, R Shephard, A Fisher
{"title":"Analysis of substantiated welfare investigations in extensive farming systems in Victoria, Australia","authors":"N Williams,&nbsp;L Hemsworth,&nbsp;S Chaplin,&nbsp;R Shephard,&nbsp;A Fisher","doi":"10.1111/avj.13342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Substantiated incidents of poor welfare affecting cattle, sheep and goats (livestock) in non-dairy extensive farming systems continue to occur. This study sought to describe the common causes of poor welfare of livestock and the associated circumstances, by analysing 39 years of de-identified, livestock welfare investigation records. There were a total of 2179 alleged offenders (AOff), defined as individual/s that had an incident of poor welfare affecting livestock on at least one occasion. Approximately 27% of AOff were found to have poor welfare on more than one occasion. The majority of livestock welfare incidents were associated with neglect, more specifically, inadequate nutrition (56%), treatment (65%) and management/husbandry (83%). Records of malicious acts were rare (1%). In the analysis, cases were allocated to 10 animal welfare severity categories (AWSC) based on the number of incidents and visits, whether the AOff reoffended, or if the incident was ongoing and whether the welfare issue was likely to affect the whole herd. A significantly higher proportion of cases in the most severe AWSC had a failure to shear, mark, dip/drench, draft and wean/cull, were overstocked or were not providing proper and sufficient feed, compared to the least severe AWSC (P ≤ 0.05). Reoffending was significantly more likely when animals were found to be injured/unwell, recumbent, stuck in mud/yard/pen or in poor body condition, or when there was a failure to wean/cull, mark, dip/drench and draft. Some of the issues identified here may be risk factors more commonly identified on farms with poor livestock welfare.</p>","PeriodicalId":8661,"journal":{"name":"Australian Veterinary Journal","volume":"102 9","pages":"440-452"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/avj.13342","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Veterinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/avj.13342","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Substantiated incidents of poor welfare affecting cattle, sheep and goats (livestock) in non-dairy extensive farming systems continue to occur. This study sought to describe the common causes of poor welfare of livestock and the associated circumstances, by analysing 39 years of de-identified, livestock welfare investigation records. There were a total of 2179 alleged offenders (AOff), defined as individual/s that had an incident of poor welfare affecting livestock on at least one occasion. Approximately 27% of AOff were found to have poor welfare on more than one occasion. The majority of livestock welfare incidents were associated with neglect, more specifically, inadequate nutrition (56%), treatment (65%) and management/husbandry (83%). Records of malicious acts were rare (1%). In the analysis, cases were allocated to 10 animal welfare severity categories (AWSC) based on the number of incidents and visits, whether the AOff reoffended, or if the incident was ongoing and whether the welfare issue was likely to affect the whole herd. A significantly higher proportion of cases in the most severe AWSC had a failure to shear, mark, dip/drench, draft and wean/cull, were overstocked or were not providing proper and sufficient feed, compared to the least severe AWSC (P ≤ 0.05). Reoffending was significantly more likely when animals were found to be injured/unwell, recumbent, stuck in mud/yard/pen or in poor body condition, or when there was a failure to wean/cull, mark, dip/drench and draft. Some of the issues identified here may be risk factors more commonly identified on farms with poor livestock welfare.

Abstract Image

澳大利亚维多利亚州粗放型养殖系统中经证实的福利调查分析。
在非乳畜牧业系统中,牛、绵羊和山羊(牲畜)福利不佳的确凿事件仍时有发生。本研究通过分析 39 年来去标识化的牲畜福利调查记录,试图描述牲畜福利差的常见原因和相关情况。共有 2179 名被控违规者(AOff),即至少有一次发生影响牲畜福利的不良事件的个人/团体。约有 27% 的违规者不止一次被发现福利不佳。大多数家畜福利事件与忽视有关,更具体地说,与营养不足(56%)、治疗(65%)和管理/饲养(83%)有关。恶意行为的记录很少(1%)。在分析中,根据事件和访问的次数、动物福利者是否再次犯罪、事件是否仍在继续、福利问题是否可能影响整个牛群等因素,将案例划分为 10 个动物福利严重程度类别(AWSC)。与最不严重的 AWSC 相比,在最严重的 AWSC 中,未进行剪毛、标记、浸泡/淋洗、牵引和断奶/淘汰、存栏过多或未提供适当和充足饲料的比例明显更高(P ≤ 0.05)。当发现动物受伤/不适、卧床不起、陷入泥泞/散养场/圈舍或体况不佳,或未进行断奶/宰杀、标记、浸泡/淋洗和牵引时,再次违规的可能性明显增大。这里发现的一些问题可能是牲畜福利差的农场更常见的风险因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Australian Veterinary Journal
Australian Veterinary Journal 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
85
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: Over the past 80 years, the Australian Veterinary Journal (AVJ) has been providing the veterinary profession with leading edge clinical and scientific research, case reports, reviews. news and timely coverage of industry issues. AJV is Australia''s premier veterinary science text and is distributed monthly to over 5,500 Australian Veterinary Association members and subscribers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信