An expert opinion elicitation, based on a modified Delphi technique, was organized to collect the opinion of 14 Italian veterinarians with the aim of conducting a hazard and a welfare promoter characterization for defining and weighing a list of management and housing factors potentially associated with negative or positive welfare outcomes in buffalo kept in loose housing systems. In addition, the 14 experts judged a set of animal-based measures (ABMs), rating their appropriateness and the level of animal pain and suffering due to the welfare consequences they measure. Experts were asked to score 52 hazards, 45 welfare promoters and 14 ABMs. Management and housing hazards, that were determined to be associated with a very high negative impact on the welfare of buffalo, were: lack of water availability, uncorrected animal grouping strategy, dirty and unmanaged lying area, incorrect milking routine, poor maintenance of the milking system, lack of litter for calves, insufficient shaded lying area and/or lack of any cooling system and presence of inadequate or slippery floor in walking areas. Management and housing welfare promoters dealing with optimal buffalo comfort around resting obtained the highest ratings, in particular: housing free for all animals and the possibility for adult buffaloes to access a loafing area of at least 7 m²and/or to a pasture for at least 60 days a year; cleanleness of the calf boxes, a hospital pen of at least 8 m²/parturient animal. In addition, high scores were given to appropriate grouping, adequate temperature, humidity and ventilation, presence of experienced and trained stockpersons. As to ABMs, the highest rankings were given to mortality of calves and adult buffaloes, percentage of animals showing vaginal and/or uterine prolapses, body condition scoring and percentage of deformed claws in adult buffaloes. Our results represent the starting point for the development of the first protocol for the assessment of the welfare of buffalo farmed in loose housing systems.
Welfare assessment of buffalo cows: use of expert opinion elicitation for the characterization of hazards, welfare promoters and animal-based measures / Vecchio, D.; Rossi, P.; Grassi, C.; Russo, P.; Iemma, L.; Coronati, D.; Palladio, M. CONSALVO F.; DE ROSA, Giuseppe; Napolitano, F.; Neglia, Gianluca; DE CARLO, E.; Lorenzi, V.; Fusi, Francesca; Bolzoni, L.; Pongolin, S.; Galiero, G.; Alboral, G. L.; Bertocch, L.. - (2019), pp. 191-191. ( 12th Buffalo World Congress "Efficient production for the World" Istanbul - Turchia 18-20 September 2019).
Welfare assessment of buffalo cows: use of expert opinion elicitation for the characterization of hazards, welfare promoters and animal-based measures.
DE ROSA Giuseppe;NEGLIA Gianluca;
2019
Abstract
An expert opinion elicitation, based on a modified Delphi technique, was organized to collect the opinion of 14 Italian veterinarians with the aim of conducting a hazard and a welfare promoter characterization for defining and weighing a list of management and housing factors potentially associated with negative or positive welfare outcomes in buffalo kept in loose housing systems. In addition, the 14 experts judged a set of animal-based measures (ABMs), rating their appropriateness and the level of animal pain and suffering due to the welfare consequences they measure. Experts were asked to score 52 hazards, 45 welfare promoters and 14 ABMs. Management and housing hazards, that were determined to be associated with a very high negative impact on the welfare of buffalo, were: lack of water availability, uncorrected animal grouping strategy, dirty and unmanaged lying area, incorrect milking routine, poor maintenance of the milking system, lack of litter for calves, insufficient shaded lying area and/or lack of any cooling system and presence of inadequate or slippery floor in walking areas. Management and housing welfare promoters dealing with optimal buffalo comfort around resting obtained the highest ratings, in particular: housing free for all animals and the possibility for adult buffaloes to access a loafing area of at least 7 m²and/or to a pasture for at least 60 days a year; cleanleness of the calf boxes, a hospital pen of at least 8 m²/parturient animal. In addition, high scores were given to appropriate grouping, adequate temperature, humidity and ventilation, presence of experienced and trained stockpersons. As to ABMs, the highest rankings were given to mortality of calves and adult buffaloes, percentage of animals showing vaginal and/or uterine prolapses, body condition scoring and percentage of deformed claws in adult buffaloes. Our results represent the starting point for the development of the first protocol for the assessment of the welfare of buffalo farmed in loose housing systems.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
