在商业实践中应用的养殖物种福利评估的现有科学文献综述:优势、劣势和进一步发展的领域的识别。

IF 2.6 2区 农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Frontiers in Veterinary Science Pub Date : 2025-06-19 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fvets.2025.1589462
Ingrid C de Jong, Wijbrand Ouweltjes, Pol Llonch, Gerard E Martin Valls, Heng-Lun Ko, Hans Spoolder, Ana C Strappini
{"title":"在商业实践中应用的养殖物种福利评估的现有科学文献综述:优势、劣势和进一步发展的领域的识别。","authors":"Ingrid C de Jong, Wijbrand Ouweltjes, Pol Llonch, Gerard E Martin Valls, Heng-Lun Ko, Hans Spoolder, Ana C Strappini","doi":"10.3389/fvets.2025.1589462","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the last decades, significant progress in welfare assessment of commercially farmed species has been achieved. Since then, various initiatives applied and improved existing protocols, or developed new ones for species like farmed rabbits or fish. This has resulted in a wide range of protocols, indicators and measures potentially lacking standardization and harmonization. However, standardized protocols are crucial for generating quantitative and comparable welfare data. In this literature review we (i) provide the state-of-the-art regarding application of welfare assessment protocols under commercial conditions for farmed species, (ii) their representation of the five welfare domains, and (iii) which animal-based welfare indicators have been applied. Further, (iv) we evaluate the alignment of welfare indicators as applied in scientific publications with highly relevant welfare consequences as defined by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for dairy cattle, pigs, broilers, and laying hens. Based on this, we (v) identify strengths and weaknesses regarding the domains covered and use of animal-based indicators, and define areas for further development. Most scientific publications focused on dairy cattle, followed by broilers, pigs and sheep. No publications were found for aquatic invertebrates, insects, fish species other than salmonids, and quails, highlighting the need for welfare assessment protocols for these species. Dairy cattle, horses, and sheep accounted for the highest number of unique indicators. Protocols generally covered all five welfare domains, with health indicators dominating. Animal-based welfare indicators were most prevalent. Common indicators across species were extracted and can be a starting point for the development of assessment protocols for novel species. Highly relevant welfare consequences as defined by EFSA were addressed. In conclusion, while welfare assessment protocols have been developed and tested under commercial conditions for many farmed species, assessment protocols for small-scale farmed species need attention. The wide variety of indicators extracted shows a lack of standardization and harmonization, risking divergence in indicators assessed between protocols. Attention should be given to define standardized welfare indicators per species, enabling comparable data collection related to important welfare issues and benchmarking to improve farm animal welfare.</p>","PeriodicalId":12772,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Veterinary Science","volume":"12 ","pages":"1589462"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12225303/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A review of existing scientific literature on welfare assessment of farmed species applied in commercial practice: identification of strengths, weaknesses, and areas for further development.\",\"authors\":\"Ingrid C de Jong, Wijbrand Ouweltjes, Pol Llonch, Gerard E Martin Valls, Heng-Lun Ko, Hans Spoolder, Ana C Strappini\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fvets.2025.1589462\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In the last decades, significant progress in welfare assessment of commercially farmed species has been achieved. Since then, various initiatives applied and improved existing protocols, or developed new ones for species like farmed rabbits or fish. This has resulted in a wide range of protocols, indicators and measures potentially lacking standardization and harmonization. However, standardized protocols are crucial for generating quantitative and comparable welfare data. In this literature review we (i) provide the state-of-the-art regarding application of welfare assessment protocols under commercial conditions for farmed species, (ii) their representation of the five welfare domains, and (iii) which animal-based welfare indicators have been applied. Further, (iv) we evaluate the alignment of welfare indicators as applied in scientific publications with highly relevant welfare consequences as defined by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for dairy cattle, pigs, broilers, and laying hens. Based on this, we (v) identify strengths and weaknesses regarding the domains covered and use of animal-based indicators, and define areas for further development. Most scientific publications focused on dairy cattle, followed by broilers, pigs and sheep. No publications were found for aquatic invertebrates, insects, fish species other than salmonids, and quails, highlighting the need for welfare assessment protocols for these species. Dairy cattle, horses, and sheep accounted for the highest number of unique indicators. Protocols generally covered all five welfare domains, with health indicators dominating. Animal-based welfare indicators were most prevalent. Common indicators across species were extracted and can be a starting point for the development of assessment protocols for novel species. Highly relevant welfare consequences as defined by EFSA were addressed. In conclusion, while welfare assessment protocols have been developed and tested under commercial conditions for many farmed species, assessment protocols for small-scale farmed species need attention. The wide variety of indicators extracted shows a lack of standardization and harmonization, risking divergence in indicators assessed between protocols. Attention should be given to define standardized welfare indicators per species, enabling comparable data collection related to important welfare issues and benchmarking to improve farm animal welfare.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12772,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Veterinary Science\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"1589462\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12225303/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Veterinary Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1589462\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Veterinary Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1589462","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的几十年里,在商业养殖物种的福利评估方面取得了重大进展。从那时起,各种各样的倡议应用和改进了现有的协议,或者为养殖兔子或鱼等物种开发了新的协议。这导致各种各样的议定书、指标和措施可能缺乏标准化和协调。然而,标准化的协议对于产生定量和可比较的福利数据至关重要。在这篇文献综述中,我们(i)提供了关于商业条件下养殖物种福利评估协议应用的最新技术,(ii)它们对五个福利领域的代表,以及(iii)应用了哪些基于动物的福利指标。此外,(iv)我们评估了科学出版物中福利指标的一致性,这些指标与欧洲食品安全局(EFSA)对奶牛、猪、肉鸡和蛋鸡定义的高度相关的福利后果。在此基础上,我们(v)确定动物指标涵盖的领域和使用方面的优势和劣势,并确定进一步发展的领域。大多数科学出版物关注的是奶牛,其次是肉鸡、猪和羊。没有发现关于水生无脊椎动物、昆虫、鲑鱼以外的鱼类和鹌鹑的出版物,这突出了对这些物种的福利评估方案的必要性。奶牛、马和羊在独特指标中所占比例最高。议定书一般涵盖所有五个福利领域,以健康指标为主。以动物为基础的福利指标最为普遍。提取了跨物种的共同指标,可以作为开发新物种评估方案的起点。解决了EFSA定义的高度相关的福利后果。总之,虽然已经为许多养殖物种制定了福利评估方案并在商业条件下进行了测试,但小规模养殖物种的评估方案需要注意。提取的指标种类繁多,表明缺乏标准化和协调,有可能在各议定书之间评估的指标出现分歧。应注意确定每个物种的标准化福利指标,以便收集与重要福利问题有关的可比数据,并制定基准以改善农场动物福利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A review of existing scientific literature on welfare assessment of farmed species applied in commercial practice: identification of strengths, weaknesses, and areas for further development.

In the last decades, significant progress in welfare assessment of commercially farmed species has been achieved. Since then, various initiatives applied and improved existing protocols, or developed new ones for species like farmed rabbits or fish. This has resulted in a wide range of protocols, indicators and measures potentially lacking standardization and harmonization. However, standardized protocols are crucial for generating quantitative and comparable welfare data. In this literature review we (i) provide the state-of-the-art regarding application of welfare assessment protocols under commercial conditions for farmed species, (ii) their representation of the five welfare domains, and (iii) which animal-based welfare indicators have been applied. Further, (iv) we evaluate the alignment of welfare indicators as applied in scientific publications with highly relevant welfare consequences as defined by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for dairy cattle, pigs, broilers, and laying hens. Based on this, we (v) identify strengths and weaknesses regarding the domains covered and use of animal-based indicators, and define areas for further development. Most scientific publications focused on dairy cattle, followed by broilers, pigs and sheep. No publications were found for aquatic invertebrates, insects, fish species other than salmonids, and quails, highlighting the need for welfare assessment protocols for these species. Dairy cattle, horses, and sheep accounted for the highest number of unique indicators. Protocols generally covered all five welfare domains, with health indicators dominating. Animal-based welfare indicators were most prevalent. Common indicators across species were extracted and can be a starting point for the development of assessment protocols for novel species. Highly relevant welfare consequences as defined by EFSA were addressed. In conclusion, while welfare assessment protocols have been developed and tested under commercial conditions for many farmed species, assessment protocols for small-scale farmed species need attention. The wide variety of indicators extracted shows a lack of standardization and harmonization, risking divergence in indicators assessed between protocols. Attention should be given to define standardized welfare indicators per species, enabling comparable data collection related to important welfare issues and benchmarking to improve farm animal welfare.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Veterinary Science
Frontiers in Veterinary Science Veterinary-General Veterinary
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.40%
发文量
1870
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Veterinary Science is a global, peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that bridges animal and human health, brings a comparative approach to medical and surgical challenges, and advances innovative biotechnology and therapy. Veterinary research today is interdisciplinary, collaborative, and socially relevant, transforming how we understand and investigate animal health and disease. Fundamental research in emerging infectious diseases, predictive genomics, stem cell therapy, and translational modelling is grounded within the integrative social context of public and environmental health, wildlife conservation, novel biomarkers, societal well-being, and cutting-edge clinical practice and specialization. Frontiers in Veterinary Science brings a 21st-century approach—networked, collaborative, and Open Access—to communicate this progress and innovation to both the specialist and to the wider audience of readers in the field. Frontiers in Veterinary Science publishes articles on outstanding discoveries across a wide spectrum of translational, foundational, and clinical research. The journal''s mission is to bring all relevant veterinary sciences together on a single platform with the goal of improving animal and human health.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信