Research and Developmentrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=OF0314_2128... · Web...
Transcript of Research and Developmentrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=OF0314_2128... · Web...
Research and Development
Projecttitle
Incorporation of conventional animal welfare assessment techniques into organic certification and farming
DEFRAproject code
OF 0314
Department for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsCSG 15
Research and Development
Final Project Report
(Not to be used for LINK projects)
Two hard copies of this form should be returned to:
Research Policy and International Division, Final Reports Unit
DEFRA, Area 301
Cromwell House, Dean Stanley Street, London, SW1P 3JH.
An electronic version should be e-mailed to [email protected]
Project title
Incorporation of conventional animal welfare assessment techniques into organic certification and farming
DEFRA project code
OF 0314
Contractor organisation and location
Department of Clinical Veterinary ScienceUniversity of Bristol
LangfordBristo
Total DEFRA project costs
£ 78,782
Project start date
03/02/03
Project end date
31/03/04
Executive summary (maximum 2 sides A4)To tab in this section press the tab key and the Control key togetherPress the DOWN arrow once to move to the next question.
Providing assurances to consumers on the adherence to certain animal welfare-related standards is an important element of organic and farm assurance schemes. This project has ensured that preliminary welfare assessment protocols developed in a conventional farm assurance system (RSPCA Freedom Food scheme) are available for incorporation into organic (& conventional) certification schemes. The final system (available at www.vetschool.bris.ac.uk/animalwelfare) is an assessment tool that can provide credible (repeatable, valid & feasible) evidence for assessment of compliance with welfare standards in organic and conventional farming systems. For issues identified as causing potential concern the assessor is encouraged to conduct further investigations. This promotes a consistent thorough assessment of relevant resource standards and, where appropriate, management requirements concerning appropriate preventive and corrective action that should be contained within written health plans. Furthermore the assessment tool should enable certification bodies and relevant third parties to monitor the ability of schemes to deliver good welfare outcomes, which is useful for policymakers and consumers wishing to assess the welfare assurance associated with membership of a scheme. Finally it should provide a mechanism for assessing the farm’s own management of health and welfare parameters with their health planning systems which is now a requirement or recommendation of many welfare standards. This should enable farms to both identify their own strengths and weaknesses with respect to welfare and then to monitor any improvements resulting from husbandry changes. This is important as many of the welfare observations also have a significant influence on a farm’s profitability.
Scientific report (maximum 20 sides A4)To tab in this section press the tab key and the Control key togetherPress the DOWN arrow once to move to the next question.
1Introduction 1.1. Aim and objectives
This project aims to consolidate existing knowledge in both the conventional and organic sector. It provides a welfare assessment tool and a framework for inclusion within advisory and certification activities in the organic sector. The aims of this project are:
· To formulate welfare assessment protocols for use in organic dairy and beef cattle, pig and laying hen systems. The protocol builds on existing experience within the conventional livestock sector identified through a large research project conducted at the University of Bristol. The protocol is practical and time efficient, this is achieved by focusing on the aspects of welfare concern identified in recent consultation exercises in the organic sector (Hovi, personal communication).
· To develop a web-based database system that will produce a welfare benchmarking report for organic farmers based on information from on-farm visits by inspectors, advisors or researchers. This report is a vital advisory and training tool for motivating farmers to maintain and improve welfare standards.
· To ensure organic inspectors are appropriately trained to conduct welfare assessments
· To produce an information pack that will allow advisors and veterinary surgeons to disseminate information to farmers on the interpretation of benchmarking reports and management of the aspects causing concern. The information will include best practice knowledge currently being developed in associated studies in both the conventional and organic sector.
· To collaborate with organic sector bodies on exploring the feasibility of incorporation of welfare assessment into certification requirements of organic health and welfare programmes.
1.2Milestones
Milestone
Target date
Title
achieved
03/01
31/3/03
Phase 1 training (welfare assessment update) for inspectors completed
25/3/03
02/01
31/3/03
Basic web database infrastructure completed
31/3/03
01/01
1/5/03
Steering group formed
26/2/03
01/02
1/7/03
Initial protocols developed
1/7/03
01/03
1/9/03
Pilot testing of protocol completed
1/9/03
01/04
1/10/03
Final protocol & guidance notes produced
1/10/03
03/02
1/11/03
Training course for inspectors / advisors produced
1/11/03
02/02
1/12/03
Final version of web database completed
1/12/03
03/03
1/1/04
Phase 2 training (on-farm aspect) for inspectors completed
12/12/03
04/01
1/2/04
Presentation material farmers meeting produced
1/2/04
04/02
1/2/04
Leaflet for farmers & review article for veterinary surgeons produced
1/2/04
04/03
30/4/04
Regional meetings for advisors / veterinary surgeons completed
2/4/04
05/01
30/4/04
Final report (including agreed action with Sector bodies) completed
1.3Background
Assessing farms against compliance with certain welfare criteria is a critical component of certification schemes such as organic certification schemes that provide assurances to consumers. Welfare standards within certification schemes (or legislation) usually attempt to specify what should be provided to the animal. However, evaluation of provisions or resources is a less direct evaluation of welfare than outcomes such as direct observation of the behaviour and physical condition of the animal (Webster et al. 2004). For some husbandry provisions such as provision of a certain space allowance, welfare requirements can be very specific and directly measurable without reference to any further welfare outcomes. These “engineering-based” requirements (Mench, 2003) can be assessed objectively and are used as a statutory control measure in organic livestock production systems in Austria (Barkema, 1999). However, many requirements in organic, farm assurance and legal standards can only be assessed with reference to the animal outcomes. These have been called “performance-based” as they imply that resources provided to the animals should only be considered compliant if they result in certain minimum outcomes. For example, the provision of “adequate nutrition” requires assessment of the body condition of animals in addition to an assessment of the diet.
In addition to their use as a certification (or legislation) assessment tool, animal based assessment techniques can used for research assessments of housing systems and as a management tool to maximise productivity (see reviews by Main et al., 2003 and Johnsen et al, 2001). There has, therefore, been much scientific endeavour in developing and ensuring repeatability of animal-based assessments. For example, a frequently used technique in dairy cattle is the identification and scoring of lameness (Whay, 2002). Leeb et al. (2001) used skin lesions as welfare measures in pigs at specific points within the production system. There has been recent interest into the development of welfare assessment techniques at the group level with two international conferences (Copenhagen in 1999 & Bristol in 2002). The EU is also funding a large-scale project, Welfare Quality (Blokhuis et al, 2003) that aims to produce a European standard for welfare assessment. This research group has developed an animal-based welfare assessment protocol of conventional systems for dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens in a research study assessing the welfare impact of the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme (Whay et al., 2002, Whay et al., 2003, Main et al., 2003). This protocol as also be used for organic dairy cattle by Huxley et al. (2004). The assessment protocols used in these studies forms the basis of the Bristol Welfare Assurance Programme (BWAP).
The organic certification system is based on assuring a certain production system (Hovi et al., 2003). Whilst the system has been carefully chosen and designed over the years to deliver various outcomes, such as minimal residues, minimal environmental impact and good welfare, the certification system does not take any legal responsibility over the outcomes. The desired outcomes are, however, the reason why governments implement policies that support organic farming and consumers buy organic produce. This was highlighted in the European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming” (2004) which stated that “Organic land management is known to deliver public goods, primarily environmental, but also rural development benefits and in certain respects may also result in improved animal welfare.” The importance of animal welfare to organic farming was recognised in the recent Soil Association-commissioned report on animal welfare, “Batteries not included” (Pye-Smith, 2003). The Soil Association response to the report proposes that certification bodies should take a more proactive role in guaranteeing good animal welfare outcomes on the farm. The response states that: “”Inspections and their reporting will be extended to incorporate a more qualitative animal welfare assessment involving careful observation of temperament and physical condition…”
2Development of the welfare assessment system
2.1Definition of parameters
The animal–based parameters used in the welfare assessment protocol were developed through evaluating and, where appropriate, incorporating protocols that had been used in previous studies (Whay et al., 2002). Protocols were developed for dairy and beef cattle, pigs and laying hens. Most of the parameters were animal-based and could either be assessed on individual animals, observation of groups of animals or from records or estimations of the farmer. The animal-based parameters used in the final assessment protocol were identified and developed under the guidance of a steering group.
The steering group was established during the final meeting of the SEERAD study (26th February 2003, Edinburgh) and further invitations were sent to all UK certification bodies. The steering group consisted of the following: The recommendations of the steering committee are given in section 8 of this report.
Chris Atkinson, SOPA
Stephen Clarkson, OF&G
Sarah Hardy, Soil Association
Marilyn James, Quality Welsh Food Certification
Katy Owen, Organic Food Federation
Roger Unwin, DEFRA/UKROFS
Malla Hovi, University of Reading
Christine Leeb, University of Bristol
David C. J. Main, University of Bristol
Helen R. Whay, University of Bristol
1) First steering group meeting on 2nd July 2003
The aim of this first meeting was to introduce the project, describe other relevant work (FF results & lameness initiative, Duchy Organic study) and give an overview on achieved progress (initial training, prototype web-based database system and evaluation of potential welfare parameters).
2) Second steering group meeting on 23rd September 2003
The specific aim for this steering group meeting was to review the welfare assessment protocols and potential risk assessment procedures (animal based, health plan, qualitative assessment) including their validation and discuss the training requirements for inspectors (on farm assessment).
3) Third steering group meeting on 2nd March 2004
During this final steering group meeting the final version of ‘BWAP’ including figures for intervention guidelines was discussed. Potential mechanisms for incorporating welfare assessment into the certification systems were evaluated and short and long term review and action were planned. The recommendations of the group were formulated and agreed.
In order to ensure appropriate measures were included in the final protocol the steering group was shown a summary evaluation for each potential parameter against a variety of criteria. The steering group were asked to consider which parameters should remain in the protocol after considering the criteria discussed below. As can be seen from the example for dairy cattle (Table 1), the group used various reasons for including or excluding parameters. Even though this decision was based, where possible, on factual information, the decisions of the group should not be considered as definitive and an on-going evaluation of existing and novel parameters is important.
a) Relevance to organic standards or legal requirements. The relevant “performance-based” standards were identified within the Compendium of UK Organic Standards (DEFRA, 2004) and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 (HMSO, 2000). These were standards or requirements that should be assessed by evaluating animal-based measures. For example, a requirement to provide “appropriate nutrition” would require an assessment of the body condition of the animals within a group in addition to the assessment of the diet provided. Obviously some “engineering” standards (e.g. space allowance) that define resource requirements more precisely are important for achieving desirable outcomes (animal-based measures). However, these were not considered as part of this evaluation as the assessment of these standards requires examination of the resource only.
Some “performance-based” standards were not specific and could apply to several potential animal welfare relevant parameters. For example, the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 (HMSO, 2000) requires that “Owners and keepers of animals shall take all reasonable steps (a) to ensure the welfare of the animals under their care; and (b) to ensure that the animals are not caused any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury”. The Compendium of UK Standards (DEFRA, 2004) also requires that “8.1.1 Housing conditions for livestock must meet the livestock’s biological and ethological needs”. Hence, if there is no specific standard designed to address a particular welfare concern such as mastitis and lameness then the occurrence of these conditions is relevant for assessing these general requirements.
b) Prevalence of the condition. The relative prevalence of various welfare concerns was considered to be a relevant criteria as a relatively uncommon problem should have less priority than a more common condition. Although of course severity of the condition should also be considered. For dairy cows the prevalence of most parameters was known from previous work (Whay et al, 2003), the equivalent data for pigs and laying hens was not available fully at the time of the study.
c) Reliability. The evaluation of reliability of potential parameters was based on scientific studies, where available, and previous practical experience of the measures. Various studies have examined the repeatability of specific animal-based measures. These have included lameness in dairy cattle (Winkler et al, 2000) and pigs (Main et al., 2000). In a review of several animal-based measures, Winckler et al. (2003) used a subjective assessment of reliability to compare different parameters. The evaluations used in our study have been presented as both within observer (e.g. different times of the day/year) and between observers. Repeatability was assessed on a scale of 0-3, where 0 was considered not repeatable, 1 was poor repeatability (i.e. intensive training/instructions necessary or no scientific evidence for repeatability), 2 was good repeatability (i.e. some training/instructions necessary) and 3 was excellent repeatability (i.e. established/published method)
d) Feasibility. The feasibility in terms of time necessary to assess per animal/group of animals was known from previous work.
e) Importance. The importance of a parameter to a farm’s profitability and the animal were subjectively assessed on a scale from 0-10 (0: not important at all – 10: extremely important). Profitability was based on evaluations of knowledge of conditions and published costs of clinical disease (Kossaibati and Esslemont, 1997 and Bennett et al., 1999). Importance to the animal was based on previous knowledge and published work, such as consultation exercises (Whay et al, 2002). The estimation of importance for the animal was influenced by the likely subjective experience of the animal. For example, reduced milk yield is of minimal importance to the cow as she is unlikely to perceive such an event, even though reduced milk yield may be as a result of another welfare concern.
Table 1 Evaluation of the relevance to standards, occurrence of the condition, repeatability, time taken and importance to the farmer and the animal of 7 potential animal-based parameters prior to inclusion within the final protocol.
Examples of potential dairy cow parameters
Specific “performance” based standards that could be assessed by quantification of the relevant parameter
Average UK occurrence
(Whay, et al, 2003)
Subjective assessment of reliability
(Minimum 0 – Maximum 3)
Estimate of time taken
Subjective assessment of importance
(Minimum 0 – Maximum 10)
Inclusion within final protocol plus reasons
Compendium of UK organic standards (2004)
Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Schedule 1 (2000)
Within observer
Between observers
Importance for farm profitability
Importance for the animal
Thin cows
(% of cows with less than Body condition score 2
“ 4.1 Feed is intended to ensure quality production rather than maximising production, while
meeting the nutritional requirements of the livestock at various stages of their
development. “
“ 22. Animals shall be fed a wholesome diet which is appropriate to their age and species and which is fed to them in sufficient quantity to maintain them in good health, to satisfy their nutritional needs and to promote a positive state of well-being. “
17 %
2.5
2.5
6 minutes / sample of 20 cows
8
8.5
Yes – important for specific standards
Swollen hocks
(% of cows with any swollen hocks)
“ 8.3.6 The housing must be provided with a comfortable, clean and dry laying/rest area …. “
“ 11. Materials used for the construction of accommodation ….. shall not be harmful to them… “
33 %
2.5
2.5
6 minutes / sample of 20 cows
7.5
8.5
Yes – important for specific standards
Dirty udder
(% of cows with any evidence of dirty udders)
“ 8.2.5 Housing, pens, equipment and utensils must be properly cleaned and disinfected to
prevent cross-infection and the build-up of disease-carrying organisms. “
“ 4. Where any animals …. are kept in a building they shall be kept on, or have access at all times to, a lying area which either has well-maintained dry bedding or is well-drained. “
21 %
2.5
2.5
4 minutes / sample of 20 cows
7.5
4
Yes – important for specific standards
Mastitis
(Number of recorded cases / 100 cows / year)
No specific standards but general requirements, such as ensuring “welfare of animals under their care”, meeting “biological and ethological needs”, recording medicinal treatments and providing appropriate care if ill or injured, may be relevant.
29 cases/100 cows/year
2.5
3
10 minutes to examine records
9
5
Yes – important for farm & quick to assess
Milk yield
(Average annual milk production in litres)
7300 l
2.5
3
0.5 minutes for verbal question
9.5
3
No – minimal direct importance to animal
Locomotion scoring
(% of cows with a detectable lameness)
22 %
1.5
1.5
3 hours / 100 cow herd
9
9.5
Yes – but may not be sufficient time to estimate whole herd prevalence
Dull coat
(% of cows with a dull / non-shiny coat)
7 %
2.5
2
4 minutes / sample of 20 cows
4
4.5
No – minimal importance to farm and animal
2. 2Development of assessment system
The outcome of this evaluation process was that the steering group selected and approved a list of parameters for each species (Table 2).
Table 2 List of the animal-based parameters that were included in the final version of the Bristol Welfare Assessment Protocol
Cattle
Pigs
Laying hens
Thin cows
Fat cows
Dirty side
Dirty hind limb
Dirty udder
Skin lesions
Swollen hocks
Claw overgrowth
Flight distance
Rising restriction
Animal appears obviously sick/dull
Rumen bloated
Eye abnormalities/nasal discharge
Coughing
Skin irritation (hairloss, scratching,)
Abraded/ulcerated hock
Lameness
Thin animal
Fat sow
Dirty side/hindquarter/
Ocular/nasal discharge
Head/neck/side lesion
Genital and hindquarter lesions
Tail lesion
Bursas on limb
Time to return to observer
Animal appears obviously sick/dull
Signs of scouring
Coughing/sneezing/dyspnoea
Lameness
Sunburn
Skin irritation (mange, lice, scratching)
Abnormal oral behaviour (other than straw, eat, drink)
Playing (running/toy/straw)
Other (e.g. abscesses, udder, shoulder sore, haematoma, rectal prolepses)
Poor comb colour
Poor beak condition
Thin birds
Fractures
Red mites/lice
Soiling of feathers
Feather damage
Feather loss
Trauma/injury
Limb problems/toes
Flight distance
Animal appears obviously sick/dull
Thermal discomfort
Respiratory problems
Poor quality of litter
Uneven grass wear in range
Evidence of calcium deposits in eggs
The format of the assessment system was carefully designed so that it was easy to use on a farm (e.g. include paper versions), could be consistently applied (e.g. full guidance notes) and that the assessment could integrate with various certification systems. Each parameter was included on either the animal observation or record data collection forms. The forms were formatted so that once printed they printed onto single A4 pages that could be used on a farm. An assessor manual was produced for each species (cattle, pigs and laying hens). The manual contained an appropriate definition of the parameter with pictures as required and a description of how to assess the parameter. Guidance notes also gave an indication of the appropriate number of animals that should be examined. The assessment forms included conversion of the observations and records into standard units, i.e. prevalence % observed and incidence no of cases / 100 animals / year. A separate “farmer significance” report gave a short explanation of the significance (both welfare and profitability) of the parameters.
All the protocols, assessment forms and examples of completed forms are available from the following website : http://www.vetschool.bris.ac.uk/animalwelfare.
2. 3Intervention guidelines
Initial intervention guidelines were also proposed for each parameter. These guidelines, which could be modified by a scheme, were designed to guide further investigations by the assessor. If a welfare parameter would exceed the pre-defined guideline, the assessor would be encouraged to further investigate the issue. Exceeding an intervention guideline would not necessarily mean that the farm was non-compliant with organic, farm assurance or legal standards. However, it would provide evidence that certain resources provided to the animal might not be adequate. Hence, further investigations would include both a detailed assessment of compliance with the relevant “performance” based standard and an assessment of the management action being taken by the farm.
The guidelines used in the provisional cattle protocols were derived from another study (Whay et al, 2003). In this study dairy cattle welfare experts and veterinary surgeons were asked to consider for each parameter at what herd incidence level “action should be taken to improve the situation”. An initial arbitrary herd incidence level at which 75% of experts agreed was defined as the intervention guideline. These intervention guidelines were slightly adapted for dairy cows and beef animals and were discussed and agreed during the steering group meetings. Intervention guidelines for pigs and laying hens were based on a series of visits to farms (Whay, personal observations) and relevant literature. It is important to note that different schemes might choose to set their own intervention guidelines in accordance with their own scheme goals. The authors would recommend that the guidelines are periodically reviewed in the light of assessment results.
2. 4Further investigations: Compliance checklist
For measures above the intervention guideline, the assessor would be encouraged to re-examine specific resources defined within a “compliance checklist”. This compliance checklist was generated from the Compendium of UK Organic Standards (DEFRA, 2004) and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 (HMSO, 2000). Compliance with specific standards is particularly important for those welfare measures that are associated with specific outcomes (e.g. body condition with diet or injuries with damaged fittings). A checklist gives a short series of relevant questions, such as “Does feed meet legal requirements ?” for each parameter that relate to a specific organic or legal requirement. If the assessor then identifies non-compliance with the specific standard, the assessor would be able to report a non-compliance in line with the certifier’s existing procedures. The results of the animal-based assessment would be included as part of the certification body’s normal reporting systems.
2. 5Further investigations: Health plan assessment
An assessment of action taken by the farmer in response to a particular concern is detailed on the “health plan form”. Again, for measures that are above the intervention guideline, the assessor would be asked to conduct further investigations. In particular, the assessor would examine the farmer’s awareness of the issue and whether appropriate investigations and actions have been taken. The health plan form also allows the assessor to record information on the normal management system for common welfare concerns. For instance, for issues like lameness in dairy cows, the assessor would examine the prevention and treatment protocols present on the farm and examine the farm’s monitoring / recording systems. The assessor would also be encouraged to examine general aspects of farm management, such as use of advice and the regular review of management practices. If the assessor identified concerns with the routine management or a farm’s response to a particular welfare concern, the evidence collated in the health plan form would also be used to generate appropriate non-compliance. As with the standards compliance, this evidence would be included with the assessors normal reporting systems. An example of a completed health plan is shown in BWAP web site.
2.6Reporting system
An optional, but potentially valuable, component of the system is the capability to benchmark results between farms. Providing information to the farmer of their own performance with respect to their peers is a powerful motivational tool that is an important benefit from welfare assessment (see later). The bench-marking system operates via a web-linked database of assessment results enabling establishment of “norms” for systems being examined. For each farm assessed a report would be generated in printable, web page or email version. The report would give the summary of the results and provide information on their performance with respect to their peers.
A model web-based database was developed for the first steering group meeting. This was further refined in line with the developed protocols. The web design was subcontracted to Dr. Neil Ambrose of Smart Tuna.
2.7Pilot testing of the system
The parameters were pilot tested for each species on a total of 25 farms (6 beef, 13, dairy, 2 pig, 4 laying hen) in England, Scotland and Wales in order to assess the repeatability and feasibility of the assessments during normal inspections or independently from that. At the same time photographs were taken for defining the parameters in the assessment manual.
Table 3 : Summary of pilot testing
Species
Number of farms visited in :
England Wales Scotland
During organic CB inspections
Including data collection
Total
Dairy cows
4
2
0
3
4
6
Beef cattle
5
1
7
3
8
13
Pigs
2
0
0
0
1
2
Laying hens
2
1
1
0
2
4
Total
13
4
8
6
15
25
2.8Repeatability exercise
A model for evaluation of the repeatability of parameters and/or the consistency of individual assessors was developed. After initial training (theoretical and practical) of 10 assessors in the morning and afternoon, all of them assessed the same 10 animals (dairy cows and finishing pigs) independently. The repeatability results were used to identify poor repeatability of some parameters and poor performance of individual assessors. Data were described as percentage of correct assessments compared to most common finding (mode) (Figure 1 and 2). Since the parameters are assessed as being either present or absent, a 50% agreement would be expected by random chance. For those parameters showing lower agreement, the definition and illustration of parameters within the guidance notes was improved.
Figure 1 The proportion of assessments agreeing with the mode (i.e. most common) response for 8 parameters assessed in dairy cattle conducted on 10 cattle by 10 assessors (due to some missing data the number of assessments ranged between 94 and 100).
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Thin
Fat
Dirty side
Dirty hindlimb
Dirty udder
Skin lesion
Swollen hocks
Overgrown claws
Figure 2 The proportion of assessments agreeing with the mode (i.e. most common) response for 7 parameters assessed in finishing pigs conducted on 10 pigs by 10 assessors (due to some missing data the number of assessments ranged between 96 and 100).
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Thin pigs
Dirty side
Nasal discharge
Head/neck lesions
Hindquarter lesions
Tail lesion
Swollen hock / bursae
Further analysis of kappa values for individual assessors was used as an indicator of reduced repeatability by individual assessors. An example of this process is shown in table 4 for the parameter “Dirty Sides”. For this parameter, which had relatively low overall repeatability (78%), certain assessors 1, 5, 2, 6 and 7 demonstrated significant (p < 0.05 & kappa > 0.6) agreement with the mode response. However the poor repeatability within the remaining assessors indicated a need for further training. The authors recommend that this procedure is used as an ongoing system for the training and monitoring of assessors.
Table 4 : Repeatability for the parameter “Dirty side” observed on 10 dairy cattle by 10 assessors.
Assessor identification
Agreement with mode response
Kappa value (measure of repeatability)
P value
1
100%
1.000
0.001
5
91%
0.621
0.026
2
91%
0.621
0.026
6
90%
0.615
0.035
7
89%
0.609
0.047
4
78%
0.526
0.073
8
70%
0.400
0.114
9
64%
0.313
0.154
3
60%
0.200
0.292
10
50%
0.138
0.389
Total (± s.d.)
78 %(± 17%)
0.504 (± 0.252)
3Dissemination
3.1Training
Training was conducted in 2 phases as planned in the original proposal and offered to all organic certification bodies.
Workshop 1: The objective of this workshop was to discuss the animal welfare assessment requirements within current legislation and codes of practice and introduce the principles of animal-based welfare assessment within certification systems. These workshops were held on three dates : 20th, 24th, and 25th March 2003. There were 27 participants (18 SA, 3 DEFRA, 2 DARD, 2 Biodynamic, 1 OF&G, 1 Independent).
Workshop 2: The second phase (one 5 day course) covered the detailed aspects of animal-based assessment and its application to a dairy farm, laying hen and pig unit). This workshop was held over 5 days (8th -12th December) and was delivered to 9 participants (4 SA, 2 OF&G, 1 SOPA, 1 QWFC, 1 OFF).
3.2Regional meetings
Five regional meetings were organised to disseminate information about the project to organic farmers advisors and policy makers. In particular the meetings were designed to explain animal based assessment techniques and discuss its application to organic certification. The meetings were held at the following locations : Dorchester 25th February, Aberystwyth 10th March, Dumfries and Galloway 30th March, Perth 31st March and Langford 2nd April
3.3 Web-site
A web-site (http://www.vetschool.bris.ac.uk/animalwelfare) was constructed that contained the assessment protocol, guidance notes and assessment forms. It includes all the supporting information such as explanations for farmers, examples of completed forms and example of compliance checklists. This information is freely available to anybody. A registration system enables the University of Bristol to record the people and organisations that wish to use the protocols. This is slightly different format to the original intended dissemination mechanism (leaflets) but this was seen as a much more powerful tool.
3.4Other communicated outputs
· Final Meeting of SEERAD study (26th February 2003, Edinburgh)
· ADAS Workshop on Health and welfare in organic beef and sheep production. (10th April 2003 Redesdale) “Frameworks for improving the welfare of organic stocks”
· ‘The good life of calves in organic dairy herds’ Workshop (8. -9th May, 2003 Foulum, Denmark)
· Organic farming magazine
· SAFO conference, 25th-27th March 2003, Witzenhausen, Germany
4Discussion
4.1 Credibility of the assessment system
The development of the welfare assessment system was guided by the goal of producing a valid, reliable and feasible assessment tool that could be used within existing organic or conventional certification schemes. It is important to consider the extent to which the system achieves this objective.
Validity
This system aimed to be valid in as much as it should include welfare-relevant parameters. Since welfare can be considered to be influenced by many components (Webster et al., 2004), it would be inappropriate to consider each parameter as an “indicator” of an animal’s overall welfare state. No single parameter or “indicator” is ever likely to reflect all of these components (Mason & Mendl, 1993). Furthermore the BWAP does not integrate different parameters into a single score. This avoids the inevitable value judgements in weighting different components (Spoolder et al. 2003). For assessment of compliance with either certification or legislative requirements, the critical concept is one of compliance or not. The authors advocate that the level of a certain parameter is not used directly to determine compliance or not. Assessors using the BWAP would be encouraged to further investigate compliance with either the relevant resource standards or the management / health plan requirements once the measure exceeds the intervention guideline.
The parameters were based on those that experts considered to be valid welfare-relevant parameters (Whay et al., 2002). This approach is obviously likely to be limited as it relies upon a subjective interpretation using existing (and often limited) knowledge. However, it is important to recognise that this need not be the definitive list of parameters. The measures should be added to or amended as new knowledge becomes available. Indeed research work into assessing the welfare significance of these parameters should be encouraged. In particular, the parameters tend to concentrate on welfare in terms of the lack of a certain condition such as presence of injuries or dirty coat condition rather than directly observing positive aspects. The facility to record subjective general impressions was considered by the steering group as a mechanism for assessors to include (and report back to farmers) comments on more general positive aspects such as integrity and mood. Further work in defining positive parameters should be encouraged.
It is important to recognise that animal-based parameters should not replace more precisely defined and valid resource standards. For example, this system does not directly assess water provision as more obvious methodology is to assess the availability of water rather than to construct an animal-based parameter of thirst. Similarly enabling behavioural choice may be better assessed by the diversity of the environment. However, the actual use of the elements of the diverse environment is an animal-based parameter that could be used to verify that the animals have been provided with an environment that they value.
Reliability
The reliability of parameters is an important consideration as most measures inevitably involve some degree of subjectivity. The most critical aspect of assessment is the degree of consistency of assessment between and within assessors. Some degree of assessment error is inevitable. The critical issues are how much error is acceptable for certification purposes and the extent to which the repeatability of such assessments is monitored throughout its application. One should consider the consequences of an assessment error. As previously discussed the authors would not advocate that a certain level of a parameter should constitute a non-compliance in itself rather it would instigate further investigation. Since further steps are required to demonstrate a non-compliance it seems reasonable to allow a certain amount of assessment error. Indeed one could argue that the risk of some farmers having to institute corrective action even though their animal-based result could be an overestimate is a price worth paying to ensure those farms that are underestimated also take corrective action. However, it is important to strive for consistency for the credibility of the system so the authors would advocate some sort of monitoring exercise along the lines of the exercise presented in this paper (table 4). This should be instigated at training (until a minimum is achieved) and at regular (e.g. annual) intervals.
Feasibility
As already stated the system was designed to be feasible within existing certification system. So for example the system needs to operate both as paper-based on a farm and electronically for inclusion within a database. The duration of current certification visits varies between schemes but is usually between 2 and 8 hours. The authors believe that the system could replace some elements of existing assessments and extend others so it is difficult to predict the additional time required but it is likely to be between a 30 minute to 2 hour extension for most UK beef, dairy, pig or laying hen systems. Obviously research exercises (e.g. evaluating novel husbandry systems) would not be limited by these constraints, as the assessments would be able to assess the animals in greater detail.
4.2 Incorporation of the assessment system into certification systems
This system could generate three key benefits (certification of individual farms, monitoring the effectiveness of certification bodies and to provide benchmarking information to individual farmers) when incorporated into part of a certification (or enforcement) system:
a) Certification benefits. The assessment system provides credible objective evidence for certification bodies or enforcement agencies wishing to assess compliance with animal welfare related standards or legislation. A formal assessment of outcomes is relevant when assessing “goal orientated” or “performance based” standards that define the provision such as diet or housing in terms of what is “adequate”, “necessary”, “sufficient” or “appropriate”.
Inspectors for organic or conventional certification schemes can be very experienced and skilful stockpeople that have a significant knowledge of appropriate welfare standards. This system formalises this assessment and encourages them to report animal-based observations. Seppanen and Helenius, 2004 argued that organic inspectors should go beyond assessing compliance and had a valuable role to play in providing advice. However, it is important to recognise that assessors working within an accredited certification body that complies with the European standard, EN 45011, must not provide “prescriptive advice or consultancy as part of an evaluation” (EA, 1999). The author’s believe that a BWAP assessment does not constitute advice as it aims to identify problems (e.g. failure to comply with standards) rather than provide advice on potential farm specific husbandry solutions. This could and should be provided by existing advisory systems such as the attending veterinary surgeon. Furthermore failure to promote the recording and reporting of perceived/observed welfare problems to the certification bodies, may actually encourage advisory activities during inspection.
b) Monitoring / Surveillance tool benefits. The assessment tool can also be used on a sampling basis to monitor the effectiveness of the assurance process . For example third party / monitoring organisations could assess the overall effectiveness of the certification system in delivering an assurance on welfare to consumers. It could also be used as a management tool by certification bodies to improve their own performance by identifying strengths and weaknesses in existing procedures. The results from welfare assessment could also enable schemes to identify particular areas of concern, this would enables the standard setting bodies to modify and generate new standards for dealing with specific problems areas.
c) Benchmarking / Management benefits. By providing information on animal health and welfare performance with respect their peers, farmers and their advisors would be able to identify farm specific strengths and weaknesses. The attitudes and motivations of stockpersons and farmers have a critical influence on animal welfare. The benchmarking report is a mechanism for educating and encouraging staff with respect to welfare performance and it is a powerful motivation for improved welfare. For example, a recent assessment of cattle welfare (Whay et al., 2003) has shown that a mean of 22% of dairy cattle are lame at any one time. However, when asked how many cattle are lame the stockmen were only aware of 6%. Informing stockpersons on the actual levels and showing them how to assess lameness accurately is an essential first step for herd control measures. It is also established that benchmarking of welfare assessment results can have a very positive encouragement effect. (Huxley et al., 2003).
However, the extent to which each potential benefit is achieved depends upon the number and type of farms assessed (see table 5). For example if all farms are assessed by the certification body at initial and surveillance visits then the full benefits would be received. If members were assessed on their initial visit prior to joining a scheme then the results would not be useful for monitoring the “welfare performance” of members within a scheme. However, the certification and benchmarking benefits would still be of benefit to the new members. If farms were assessed after some form of risk assessment (e.g. after a history of certification problems) then the assessment would be useful for certification and benchmarking but of limited value for monitoring performance of the scheme. However, a random sample would generate information about the scheme “welfare performance” but it may not be equitable for it to be used as a certification tool as only sampled farms would be monitored in this way. Hence the 3 benefits (certification, monitoring and benchmarking) that would be generated would depend on which farms are assessed.
Table 5. : Potential benefits of Bristol Welfare Assurance Programme associated with different types of visit.
Visit type
Potential benefits ( - minimal, + some, ++ medium, +++ maximum )
Certification tool
Monitoring tool
Benchmarking tool
Results used to inform certification decisions
Results used to monitor (internally or externally) performance of certification body
Report identifying strengths and weaknesses given to farmer
All farms at initial & surveillance visit
+++
Complement existing assessment
+++
Complete assessment of performance
+++
All farms receive report
All farms at initial visit only
++
Additional threshold for new members
-
Results do not reflect farms in the scheme
+
Limited to first visit only
Farms identified as higher risk
e.g. history of previous problems
++
Useful for higher risk population
-
Only data from high risk farms
++
Useful for higher risk population
Sample of farms in scheme
-
Not usable as only sample
++
Useful assessment of performance
+
Only sampled farms
5Conclusions
The aims of the Bristol Welfare Assurance Programme are to deliver :
· Standardised assessment of welfare outcomes that is valid (relevant to welfare), feasible (can be incorporated into existing assessments) and repeatable (generates consistent results).
Standardised assessment of health and welfare planning provides evidence of farm specific preventive and corrective action
This system achieves this using the following elements :
· Assessor manual providing guidance on assessment
· Data collection system that can be used on farm
· Optional web-based data entry system that produces a benchmark report
· Farmer significance manual providing an interpretation of the results for the farmer
· Compliance checklist outlining the links with welfare standards and legislation
This system can generate three key benefits when incorporated into a certification system:
· Certification benefits. The assessment system provides credible objective evidence for certification bodies or enforcement agencies wishing to assess compliance with animal welfare related standards or legislation. A formal assessment of outcomes is relevant when assessing “goal orientated” or “performance based” standards that define the provision such as diet or housing in terms of what is “adequate”, “necessary”, “sufficient” or “appropriate”.
· Monitoring / Surveillance tool benefits. The assessment tool can also be used on a sampling basis to monitor the effectiveness of the assurance process. For example it can be used as a management tool by certification bodies to improve their own performance by identifying strengths and weaknesses in existing procedures. The data collected could also guide future development of the organic standards by quantifying the impact of organic standards & inspection on animal welfare.
· Benchmarking / Management benefits. By providing information on animal health and welfare performance with respect their peers, farmers and their advisors would be able to identify farm specific strengths and weaknesses.
The extent to which each potential benefit is achieved depends upon the level of application (i.e. the number and type of farms assessed. For example if all farms are assessed by the certification body at initial and surveillance visits then all 3 benefits would be received. Conversely if the assessment were used on a sampling basis by the certification body to monitor their own performance then the benchmarking would be limited to the sampled farms.
The certification and monitoring benefits of this system are the most important issues for ACOS, DEFRA & certification bodies. The benchmarking / management benefits are important for promoting the system to farmers. The system as proposed helps certification bodies and DEFRA collect objective evidence of compliance with existing organic standards and welfare legislation. This is line with DEFRA responsibilities as outlined in the Compendium of UK Organic standards Provision 9 paragraph 6 : “…DEFRA shall (a) ensure that the inspections carried out by the inspection body are objective [and] (b) verify the effectiveness of its inspection”(DEFRA, 2004). Furthermore, collation of evidence during a farm visit is an important element of compliance within EN 45011.
Most inspectors do already make some evaluation of the animals during visits to livestock units. For example a good assessor assessing compliance with adequacy of an organic diet would observe the animals and record a sample of body condition scores. This system, however, allows the assessor to also use other standardised assessments of welfare-relevant conditions such as injuries or lameness. The goal, however, of this system is to achieve a more repeatable and transparent assessment. In essence this system reflects how animal welfare standards could (and arguably should) have been evaluated in the past.
The system has been fully developed and is freely available on the web (www.vetschool.bris.ac.uk/animalwelfare) . Several organic certification bodies were positively involved in the development phase (see Steering committee recommendations) and Soil Association have starting using the system. After a meeting between University of Bristol, RSPCA & DEFRA it was decided to investigate the establishment of a Bristol Welfare Assessment User Club. This club would maintain the system and provide training and technical resources to users. Although the methodology and the forms will be freely available on the web potential users would be encouraged to contribute to & receive certain benefits from the Club.
6Recommendations of the Steering Committee
These recommendations were formulated by the following individuals on the project Steering Committee (they do not necessarily reflect the views of their relevant organisations) :
Sarah Hardy
Soil Association
Chris Atkinson
SOPA
Christine Leeb
University of Bristol
Barbara Messenger
Soil Association
Katie Owen
Organic Food Federation
Becky Whay
University of Bristol
Stephen Clarkson
OF&G
Roger Unwin
DEFRA
David Main
University of Bristol
Marilyn James
QWFC
Malla Hovi
University of Reading
Background
1. The Steering Committee (SC) recognises that an important goal of organic farming is to deliver high animal welfare standards. “The development and management of organic livestock systems requires special care in nurturing positive health and vitality, ensuring the proper control of disease and the encouragement of positive animal welfare.” (ACOS, 2003). A transparent system that could demonstrate that these goals have been achieved would be highly desirable.
2. The Bristol Welfare Assurance Programme (BWAP), which has been funded by DEFRA & RSPCA, has built upon the animal based welfare assessment protocols used for the evaluation of the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme (Whay et al, 2003). It has addressed a desire for quantifiable animal welfare assessment in organic certification and farming as highlighted by the recent SEERAD funded project (Hovi et al, 2003).
3. Animal welfare assessment schemes are also being developed in other European countries. For example, the “Animal Needs Index” is an additional legal requirement for organic farms in Austria. The importance of animal-based assessment schemes has been recognised by the recent approval of a €14 million EU funded integrated project, which will further develop such systems in Europe.
4. The critical components of the BWAP have been fully developed and pilot tested but the SC believe that some additional resources will be required to fully implement the system. In addition to the basic infrastructure (i.e. a user group, training resources and web database) there are resource (time) implications for certification bodies.
Relevance to Organic Certification Bodies
5. The SC believes that the BWAP is a credible, repeatable and valid assessment system that can be used by certification bodies to assess compliance with both animal welfare-related and health / management plan-related organic standards. The SC would like to see the development of protocols for sheep, broilers and calves.
6. Several organic CBs have demonstrated a significant commitment to the goals of this project by investing their time into the project by attending meetings, training courses and organising regional meetings for farmers.
Implementation of BWAP
7. The SC commends the approach to ACOS and recommends they seek to ensure the application of the system to organic certification and the long term goal that the assessment system be fully implemented by all certification bodies for both initial and surveillance inspections.
8. The SC recognise, however, that implementation of this system should be in a staged approach that neither reduces the competitiveness of individual certification bodies nor provides a regulatory burden for UK organic producers. The staged implementation of the assessment system should ensure that increasing levels of application (i.e. types of farms assessed) are applied by all certification bodies at the same time.
Maximising benefits from the system
9. ACOS, DEFRA & the organic farming bodies have a responsibility to advocate the health and productivity benefits of welfare assessment and benchmarking to farmers. In particular the assessment system should be incorporated into advisory visits during the conversion process.
10. The SC recognise that this evidence based system can be used to generate marketing claims concerning high animal welfare standards on UK organic farms which ACOS and other organic bodies should use to promote UK organic farming once the system has been successfully implemented.
11. In addition to certification and management benefits the SC believe that DEFRA could also use the system as a measurable outcome of a public good that might be relevant for future aid / single farm payment schemes.
Acknowledgement
This project would not have been possible without the funding by DEFRA and the previous study funded by RSPCA. Furthermore we are particularly grateful for all contributions by the certification bodies (SA, SOPA, OF&G, QWFC, OFF), farmers
References
Bartussek, H. (1999) A review of the animal needs index ANI for the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science, 61(2-3) 179-192.
Bennett RM, Christiansen K, Clifton-Hadley RS (1999) Direct costs of endemic diseases of farm animals in Great Britain VETERINARY RECORD 145 (13): 376-377
Blokhuis HJ, Jones RB, Geers R, Miele M, Veissier I (2003) Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: Transparency in the food product quality chain ANIMAL WELFARE 12 (4): 445-455
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
(2004) European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming
{SEC(2004)739} COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
DEFRA (2004) COMPENDIUM OF UK ORGANIC
STANDARDS
EA, European co-operation for accreditation(1999) Guidelines on the Application of EN 45011, EA-6/01 (rev.00)
HMSO (2000) The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 1870
Hovi M, Sundrum A, Thamsborg SM (2003) Animal health and welfare in organic livestock production in Europe: current state and future challenges LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SCIENCE
80 (1-2): 41-53
Huxley JN, Burke J, Roderick S, Main DCJ, Whay HR (2003) Herd health and welfare benchmarking on organic dairy farms in South-West England CATTLE PRACTICE 11: 331-333
Huxley JN, Burke J, Roderick S, Main DCJ, Whay HR (2004) Animal welfare assessment benchmarking as a tool for health and welfare planning in organic dairy herds Veterinary Record 155 237-239
Johnsen, P. F., Johannesson, T., and Sandøe, P. (2001) Assessment of Farm Animal Welfare at Herd Level: Many Goals , Many Methods. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica. Sect A, Abinal Science: Suppl. 30, 26-33
Kossaibati MA, Esslemont RJ (1997) The costs of production diseases in dairy herds in England VETERINARY JOURNAL
154 (1): 41-51
Leeb B, Leeb C, Troxler J, Schuh M Skin lesions and callosities in group-housed pregnant sows: Animal-related welfare indicators (2001) ACTA AGRICULTURAE SCANDINAVICA SECTION A-ANIMAL SCIENCE
: 82-87 Suppl. 30
Main D.C.J., J. Clegg, A. Spatz and L.E. Green (2000) The repeatability of a lameness Scoring System for Finishing Pigs Veterinary Record, 147: 574-576
Main D.C.J., J. Kent, F. Wemelsfelder, E. Ofner, F. Tuyttens Applications for methods of on-farm welfare assessment (2003) Animal Welfare 12: 523 - 529
Main D C J, H R Whay, L E Green and A J F Webster (2003) Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme on Dairy Cattle welfare Veterinary Record 153 : 227-231
Mason GJ & Mendl M (1993) Why is there no simple way of measuring welfare ? Animal Welfare 2 : 301-319
Mench JA (2003) Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: A United States perspective ANIMAL WELFARE 12 (4): 493-503
Pye-Smith, C. (2003) “Batteries not included :organic farming and animal welfare” Soil Association
Seppanen L, Helenius J (2004) Do inspection practices in organic agriculture serve organic values? - A case study from Finland AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES
21 (1): 1-13
Spoolder H, De Rosa G, Horning B, Waiblinger S, Wemelsfelder F (2003) Integrating parameters to assess on-farm welfare ANIMAL WELFARE 12 (4): 529-534
Webster AJF, Main DCJ, Whay HR (2004) Welfare assessment: indices from clinical observation ANIMAL WELFARE 13: S93-S98
Whay H R (2002) Locomotion scoring and lameness detection in dairy cattle IN PRACTICE 24 (8): 444-449
Whay H R, D C J Main, L E Green and A J F Webster (2002)Animal Based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinion Animal Welfare 12: 205-219
Whay H R, D C J Main, L E Green and A J F Webster (2003) Assessment of dairy cattle welfare using animal-based measurements Veterinary Record 153 : 197-202
Winckler C, Capdeville J, Gebresenbet G, Horning B, Roiha U, Tosi M, Waiblinger S (2003) Selection of parameters for on-farm welfare-assessment protocols in cattle and buffaloANIMAL WELFARE 12 (4): 619-624
Winckler C, Willen S The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle (2001) ACTA AGRICULTURAE SCANDINAVICA SECTION A-ANIMAL SCIENCE : 103-107 Suppl. 30
To move from one fill-in location (field) to another, press TAB, RETURN, UP or DOWN arrow keys unless instructed to do otherwise. Locations may also be selected by clicking on them.
�Discussion/conclusions?
�I would shift this into discussion and conclusions
�Perhaps this should go in the discussion/conclusions as well.
�Discussion, conclusions, recommendatiosn?
CSG 15 (Rev. 6/02)1
CSG 15 (Rev. 6/02)2
Chart1
Thin
Fat
Dirty side
Dirty hindlimb
Dirty udder
Skin lesion
Swollen hocks
Overgrown claws
rawdatasortedandcomplete
55209245375383397417678786796797
tcil00000010000
fcil00000000000
dsil11111011011
dhil11111111111
duil11111111111
slil10100111010
swil10111111010
clil11111111011
55209245375383379417678786796797
tckn
fckn
dskn0001111000
dhkn1111111111
dukn1111111011
slkn1000101111
swkn111111010
clkn111111111
55209245375383397417678786796797
tcir0000000000
fcir00000000000
dsir11111111011
dhir11111111111
duir11110111111
slir110011101
swir111011010
clir11111111011
55209245375383397417678786796797
tcds0000010000
fcds0000100000
dsds1111111011
dhds1111111111
duds1111111111
slds100101110
swds111111010
clds10101000
55209245375383397417678786796797
tcsh000001000
fcsh000010000
dssh111111101
dhsh111111111
dush111111111
slsh010001110
swsh110101111
clsh011011101
55209245375383397417678786796797
tcmj000001001
fcmj0000000000
dsmj1011001001
dhmj1111111111
dumj1111111111
slmj1100111
swmj1111010
clmj111011111
55209245375383397417678786796797
tcko0000001000
fcko0000010000
dsko0111001100
dhko1111111111
duko1111101111
slko10011111
swko11011101
clko1111111101
55209245375383397417678786796797
tcca00000010000
fcca00000000000
dsca01110011000
dhca11111111111
duca11111111011
slca100111110
swca11111111110
clca1111111011
55209245375383397417678786796797
tcsc0000001100
fcsc00000000000
dssc11111111011
dhsc11111111111
dusc11111111111
slsc11101111110
swsc11111111110
clsc11110111101
55209245375383397417678786796797
tcbm0000000000
fcbm0000100000
dsbm011101100
dhbm1111111111
dubm1111111001
slbm101010100
swbm111000111
clbm111110101
Sheet1
Thin cowskappa ValueAppr.Sign.Fat cowskappa ValueDirty sidekappa ValueAppr.Sign.Dirty hindlimbkappa ValueDirty udderkappa ValueSkin lesionskappa ValueAppr.Sign.Swollen hockskappa ValueAppr.Sign.Overgrown clawskappa ValueAppr.Sign.total correcttotal assessed%kappa Value
il11.001.0000.001100%na1.001.0000.001100%na100%na91%0.8140.00691%0.7440.011100%1.0000.001868898%0.9116
ir30.90100%na0.910.6210.026100%na91%na89%0.7270.02389%0.7270.023100%1.0000.001788394%0.76875
ds40.901.0000.00290%na0.900.6150.035100%na100%na67%0.3080.343100%1.0000.00350%0.1580.408667687%0.6165
sh51.001.0000.00389%na0.890.6090.047100%na100%na78%0.5710.05867%-0.1740.57178%0.4000.134637288%0.4812
mj60.78100%na0.600.2000.292100%na100%na71%0.3000.427100%1.0000.00878%-0.1250.708627286%0.34375
ko71.001.0000.00290%na0.700.4000.114100%na90%na75%0.3330.34688%0.6000.064100%1.0000.002687689%0.6666
ca81.001.0000.001100%na0.640.3130.154100%na91%na89%0.7270.02391%0.6210.026100%1.0000.002788592%0.7322
sc90.900.6150.035100%na0.910.6210.026100%na100%na82%0.5600.03991%0.6210.02673%-0.1380.621798791%0.4558
bm100.9090%na0.780.5260.073100%na80%na67%0.3720.15156%-0.2000.45389%0.6090.047627682%0.32675
0.930.940.81
%kappa
thin
fat
dirty side
dirty hindlimb
dirty udder
skin lesion
swollen hocks
overgrown
Sheet1
thinthin
fatfat
dirty sidedirty side
dirty hindlimbdirty hindlimb
dirty udderdirty udder
skin lesionskin lesion
swollen hocksswollen hocks
overgrownovergrown
resultsfinal
Thin cowskappa ValueAppr.Sign.Fat cowskappa ValueDirty sidekappa ValueAppr.Sign.Dirty hindlimbkappa ValueDirty udderkappa ValueSkin lesionskappa ValueAppr.Sign.Swollen hockskappa ValueAppr.Sign.Overgrown clawskappa ValueAppr.Sign.total correcttotal assessed%kappa Value
il1100%1.0000.001100%na100%1.0000.001100%na100%na91%0.8140.00691%0.7440.011100%1.0000.001868898%0.9116
kn291%100%na50%0.1380.389100%na90%na60%0.1670.598100%1.0000.00389%688085%0.435
ir390%100%na91%0.6210.026100%na91%na89%0.7270.02389%0.7270.023100%1.0000.001788394%0.76875
ds490%1.0000.00290%na90%0.6150.035100%na100%na67%0.3080.343100%1.0000.00350%0.1580.408667687%0.6165
sh5100%1.0000.00389%na89%0.6090.047100%na100%na78%0.5710.05867%-0.1740.57178%0.4000.134637288%0.4812
mj678%100%na60%0.2000.292100%na100%na71%0.3000.427100%1.0000.00878%-0.1250.708627286%0.34375
ko7100%1.0000.00290%na70%0.4000.114100%na90%na75%0.3330.34688%0.6000.064100%1.0000.002687689%0.6666
ca8100%1.0000.001100%na64%0.3130.154100%na91%na89%0.7270.02391%0.6210.026100%1.0000.002788592%0.7322
sc990%0.6150.035100%na91%0.6210.026100%na100%na82%0.5600.03991%0.6210.02673%-0.1380.621798791%0.4558
bm1090%90%na78%0.5260.073100%na80%na67%0.3720.15156%-0.2000.45389%0.6090.047627682%0.32675
correct940.936100na800.504103na97na710.488810.594840.54571079589%
assessed101104102103103929397
total93%96%78%100%94%77%87%87%
%Kappa value
Thin93.000%0.936
Fat96.000%
Dirty side78.000%0.504
Dirty hindlimb100.000%
Dirty udder94.000%
Skin lesion77.000%0.488
Swollen hocks87.000%0.594
Overgrown claws87.000%0.545
resultsfinal
ThinThin
FatFat
Dirty sideDirty side
Dirty hindlimbDirty hindlimb
Dirty udderDirty udder
Skin lesionSkin lesion
Swollen hocksSwollen hocks
Overgrown clawsOvergrown claws
alldatafinal
55209245375383397417678786796797total assessed5520924537538339741767878679679755209245375383397417678786796797tot corr% corrtot corrtot asstot corrtot ass
tcil0000001000011000000000001111111111111100%il868898%il868898%
tckn000000000001100000000000111111011111091%kn688085%ir788394%
tcir000000000010000000010001111110-9111990%ir788394%ca788592%
tcds000001000010000010000001111-9101111990%ds667687%sc798791%
tcsh000001000910000000001-9111111111-99100%sh637288%ko687689%
tcmj00000100190000011000011111-9-100110778%mj627286%sh637288%
tcko000000100010000000000011111111111-910100%ko687689%ds667687%
tcca0000001000011000000000001111111111111100%ca788592%mj627286%
tcsc000000110010000000000011111111011-9990%sc798791%kn688085%
tcbm000000000010000010000001111-9101111990%bm627682%bm627682%
tot 09101010893710106910101089571010694
tot1000000620019101010899910107101
tot ass9101010899910107
mode00000010000100%100%100%100%100%100%56%78%100%100%86%93%
correct9101010896710106
% correct100%100%100%100%100%100%67%78%100%100%86%94%
fcil0000000000011000000000001111111111111100%
fckn0000000000011000000000001111111111111100%
fcir0000000000011000000000001111111111111100%
fcds000010000010000010000001111-9011111990%
fcsh000010000910000000001-9111101111-9889%
fcmj0000000000100000010000011111-91111110100%
fcko000001000010000000000011111101111-9990%
fcca0000000000011000000000001111111111111100%
fcsc0000000000011000000000001111111111111100%
fcbm000010000010000010000001111-9011111990%
tot 0910101085101010108910101085101010108100
tot100000400000910101089101010108104
tot ass910101089101010108
mode00000000000100%100%100%100%100%56%100%100%100%100%100%96%
correct910101085101010108
% correct100%100%100%100%100%56%100%100%100%100%100%96%
dsil1111101101111000000000001111111111111100%
dskn0001111000100000010000000011-911100550%
dsir111111110111100000000000111110111111091%
dsds111111101110000010000001111-10011111990%
dssh111111101910000000001-10111101111-10889%
dsmj1011001001100000010000010110-901101660%
dsko011100110010000000000010111011110-10770%
dsca01110011000110000000000001110111100764%
dssc111111110111100000000000111110111111091%
dsbm0111011009000010000010111-1011110-10778%
tot 04210341010525891054910105580
tot15891054910055910101088101010107102
tot ass910101088101010107
mode1111101101156%80%90%100%63%50%90%100%100%50%71%78%
correct58910549101055
% correct56%80%90%100%63%50%90%100%100%50%71%78%
dhil1111111111111000000000001111111111111100%
dhkn1111111111100000010000011111-101111110100%
dhir1111111111111000000000001111111111111100%
dhds111111111110000010000001111-1011111110100%
dhsh111111111910000000001-10111111111-109100%
dhmj1111111111100000010000011111-101111110100%
dhko111111111110000000000011111111111-1010100%
dhca1111111111111000000000001111111111111100%
dhsc1111111111111000000000001111111111111100%
dhbm111111111110000010000001111-1011111110100%
tot 000000000000910101088101010108103
tot1910101088101010108910101088101010108103
tot ass910101088101010108
mode11111111111100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
correct910101088101010108
% correct100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
duil1111111111111000000000001111111111111100%
dukn1111111011100000010000011111-1011011990%
duir111101111111100000000000111101111111091%
duds111111111110000010000001111-1011111110100%
dush111111111910000000001-10111111111-109100%
dumj1111111111100000010000011111-101111110100%
duko111110111110000000000011111101111-10990%
duca111111110111100000000000111111110111091%
dusc1111111111111000000000001111111111111100%
dubm111111100110000010000001111-10111001880%
tot 000001100310910101077101079897
tot19101010771010798910101088101010108103
tot ass910101088101010108
mode11111111111100%100%100%100%88%88%100%100%70%90%100%94%
correct9101010771010798
% correct100%100%100%100%88%88%100%100%70%90%100%94%
slil101001110101100000000000111111110111091%
slkn1000101111100000010000011010-1001110660%
slir1100111019010000000011-911111101-9889%
slds100101110910001000000-10001-9101111667%
slsh010001110910000000001-10111101110-9778%
slmj11001117010011001001-911-9-1001-1010571%
slko100111118010000100011-90101-10111-9675%
slca1001111109010100000001-90-91111111889%
slsc11101111110110000000000010110111111982%
slbm1010101009000010000011111-910100-9667%
tot 00449414032484694751068471
tot18260375106828610978910910692
tot ass86109789109106
mode10100111110100%67%60%100%57%88%56%100%67%80%67%77%
correct846947510684
% correct100%67%60%100%57%88%56%100%67%80%67%77%
swil101111110101100000000000101111111111091%
swkn11111101090000010100011111-101-101119100%
swir1110110109000010010001110-1011-10111889%
swds1111110109000010010001111-1011-101119100%
swsh110101111910000000001-10110101101-9667%
swmj11110107010101010001-101-101-101-101117100%
swko11011101810000001001-10110111-1011-9788%
swca111111111101100000000000111111110111091%
swsc111111111101100000000000111111110111091%
swbm1110001119000010000011110-1000101-9556%
tot 001040210607881057695610781
tot1881057695410089109781051010793
tot ass891097810510107
mode11111111010100%89%100%56%100%75%90%100%60%100%100%87%
correct8810576956107
% correct100%89%100%56%100%75%90%100%60%100%100%87%
clil1111111101111000000000001111111111111100%
clkn11111111190000010000111111-101101-10889%
clir1111111101111000000000001111111111111100%
clds101010008010010010001-1001-1001-10100450%
clsh011011101910000000001-10011011111-10778%
clmj11101111190000010001011101-10110-101778%
clko111111110110000000000011111111111-1010100%
clca111111101110010000000001-1011111111110100%
clsc11110111101110000000000011110111001873%
clbm1111101019000010000011111-1010111-10889%
tot 0011121107219799679977584
tot19799679937598101088109109697
tot ass981010881091096
mode11111111011100%88%90%90%75%88%90%100%70%78%83%87%
correct97996799775
% correct100%88%90%90%75%88%90%100%70%78%83%87%
thincow
ilknirdsshmjkocascbmtot 0tot1tot assmodecorrect% correct
55000000000909091
2090000000000100100101
2450000000000100100101
3750000000000100100101
38300000000808081
397000000000909091
417100111110369160.6666666667
678000010010729070.7777777778
7860000000000100100101
7960000000000100100101
7970000100617060.8571428571
1111101099101110100.9405940594
fat cow
ilknirdsshmjkocascbmtot 0tot1tot assmodecorrect% correct
000000000909091
0000000000100100101
0000000000100100101
0000000000100100101
00000000808081
000111001549050.5555555556
0000000000100100101
0000000000100100101
0000000000100100101
0000000000100100101
00000000808081
0.9615384615
dirty side
ilknirdsshmjkocascbmtot 0tot1tot assmodecorrect% correct
101110010459150.5555555556
10111011112810180.8
10111111111910190.9
1111111111010101101
11110001358150.625
01110010448040.5
11111011111910190.9
1111111111010101101
0000000000100100101
10111000105510150.5
1011101257150.7142857143
1110111091010111190.7843137255
dirty hindlimb
ilknirdsshmjkocascbmtot 0tot1tot assmodecorrect% correct
111111111099191
1111111111010101101
1111111111010101101
1111111111010101101
11111111088181
11111111088181
1111111111010101101
1111111111010101101
1111111111010101101
1111111111010101101
11111111088181
11101110910101111101
dirty udder
ilknirdsshmjkocascbmtot 0tot1tot assmodecorrect% correct
111111111099191
1111111111010101101
1111111111010101101
1111111111010101101
11011111178170.875
11110111178170.875
1111111111010101101
1111111111010101101
10111110103710170.7
11111111101910190.9
11111111088181
11101110910101111100.9417475728
skin lesion
ilknirdsshmjkocascbmtot 0tot1tot assmodecorrect% correct
11111111088181
001010426040.6666666667
10101100114610160.6
000000000909091
0100101437040.5714285714
11101111178170.875
101010110459150.5555555556
1111111111010101101
010111110369160.6666666667
11110111102810180.8
010100426040.6666666667
11109997891190.7717391304
swollen hock
ilknirdsshmjkocascbmtot 0tot1tot assmodecorrect% correct
11111111088181
011111111189180.8888888889
1111111111010101101
110100110459150.5555555556
1111111077171
11101110268160.75
11111111101910190.9
11111055151
00001001116410060.6
1111111111010101101
0000000707071
11999978111190.8709677419
claw overgrown
ilknirdsshmjkocascbmtot 0tot1tot assmodecorrect% correct
111111111099191
11101111178170.875
11101111111910190.9
11111011111910190.9
11101110268160.75
11011111178170.875
11111111101910190.9
111111111099191
01000100107310070.7
111011101279170.7777777778
110111156150.8333333333
1191189910101190.8659793814
raw dataDAvid
79739779638355678209417375245786
tcil00000001000
fcil00000000000
dsil10111111110
dhil11111111111
duil11111111111
slil01101101010
swil01111101110
clil11111111110
79738319624578637541755678209
tckn
fckn
dskn0100011010
dhkn1111111111
dukn1111011111
slkn1110100110
swkn011101111
clkn111111111
38379779639737541720967855245786
tcir0000000000
fcir00000000000
dsir11111111110
dhir11111111111
duir01111111111
slir011011110
swir011011110
clir11111111110
78624555678209417375196797397
tcds0000010000
fcds0000000001
dsds0111111111
dhds1111111111
duds1111111111
slds101100101
swds011111101
clds00111000
245678375417209786397383196
tcsh000100000
fcsh000000100
dssh111110111
dhsh111111111
dush111111111
slsh110101000
swsh110111011
clsh111100101
79738379679767820955417537786245
tcmj100100000
fcmj00000000000
dsmj10011010101
dhmj11111111111
dumj11111111111
slmj11111001
swmj01101101
clmj1111111011
24555678209417375786383796387
tcko0000100000
fcko0000000001
dsko1011110000
dhko1111111111
duko1111111110
slko01101111
swko11100111
clko1111110111
89479679773938341753720967855786245
tcca000001000000
fcca000000000000
dsca100001111001
dhca111111111111
duca111111111101
slca1101011110
swca010111111111
clca01111111101
79778641720967837524555397383196
tcsc0101000000
fcsc00000000000
dssc10111111111
dhsc11111111111
dusc11111111111
slsc01111011111
swsc01111111111
clsc11111111100
41767820413724555786796797397
tcbm0000000000
fcbm0000000001
dsbm111110000
dhbm1111111111
dubm1111110011
slbm010011001
swbm011011110
clbm011111011
Sheet2DAVID
clawdirt hinddirt sidedirt udderfat cowskin lesionswollen hockthin cowtotal correcttotal assess
ca1100%100%70%90%100%89%90%100%727892%
ds256%100%100%100%100%67%100%91%738190%
il3100%100%82%100%91%91%91%100%838894%
ir4100%100%92%92%92%90%80%91%849192%
kn578%100%50%90%60%100%465879%
ko6100%100%73%91%100%78%89%100%778492%
mj788%100%67%100%100%67%100%75%576588%
sc883%100%100%100%92%83%83%91%879592%
sh967%100%100%100%100%78%67%100%647289%
correct7894789082677777
assessed9094959485858782
total87%100%82%96%96%79%89%94%64371290%
all dataDAVID
55196209245375383397417678786796797tot asses5519620924537538339741767878679679755196209245375383397417678786796797tot corr% corrtot corrtot ass
cacl1111101180110101000001-9-101-101-10111118100%ca647091%
bscl
dscl10010100800100100101011-1001-1001-101-100563%ds707692%
ilcl11111111011110100000000001-9111111111111100%il838894%
ircl11111111011110100000000001-9111111111111100%ir778393%
kncl1111111119000000100011101111-10110-10-10778%kn465879%
kocl1111111101100100000000011-9111111111-1010100%ko697691%
mjcl1111111180100101000101-911-101-10110-101788%mj576588%
sccl10111011111110000000000101111101110-101982%sc808792%
shcl1011011109100000000011-10001101111-10-10667%sh647289%
tot 0cl02110210060161067590%
tot1cl82687659834582687659864574
tot ass84797869894684797869894685
modecl101111111011
correctcl826876598645
% correct100%50%86%89%100%75%83%100%100%67%100%83%90%100%50%86%89%100%75%83%100%100%67%100%83%87%
cadh11111111190100101000001-1011-101-10111119100%
dsdh11111111111000000100001011111-101111-10110100%
ildh11111111111110100000000001-10111111111111100%
irdh11111111111110100000000001-10111111111111100%
kndh111111111110000000100010111111-10111-10110100%
kodh1111111111100100000000011-10111111111-1010100%
mjdh11111111190100101000001-1011-101-10111119100%
scdh11111111111110000000000101111111111-10111100%
shdh1111111119100000000011-10111111111-10-109100%
tot 0cl000000000000
tot1cl84997869995784997869995790
tot ass84997869995784997869995790
modecl111111111111
correctcl849978699957
% correct100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%91%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
cads01101100090100101000000-1011-100-1011110667%
dsds11111111011000000100001011111-101111-9110100%
ilds11111011011110100000000001-101111011101982%
irds11111111011110100000000001-1011111111011091%
knds000011110010000000100010000011-10111-90550%
kods0111001100100100000000010-10111001111-10770%
mjds10100100190100101000001-1001-100-1001111667%
scds11111111101110000000000101111111111-9111100%
shds1111111109100000000011-10111111111-9-109100%
tot 0cl312103210932
tot1cl53787548902553787548993573
tot ass84997869995784997869995790
modecl111111111001
correctcl537875489935
% correct63%75%78%89%100%63%67%89%100%100%60%71%74%63%75%78%89%100%63%67%89%100%100%60%71%81%
cadu11111101190100101000001-1011-101-1011011889%
dsdu11111111111000000100001011111-101111-10110100%
ildu11111111111110100000000001-10111111111111100%
irdu11110111111110100000000001-1011101111111091%
kndu111111110110000000100010111111-10110-101990%
kodu1111101111100100000000011-10111101111-10990%
mjdu11111111190100101000001-1011-101-10111119100%
scdu11111111111110000000000101111111111-10111100%
shdu1111111119100000000011-10111111111-10-109100%
tot 0cl000001100200
tot1cl84997759975784997759975786
tot ass84997869995784997869995790
modecl111111111111
correctcl849977599757
% correct100%100%100%100%100%88%83%100%100%78%100%100%87%100%100%100%100%100%88%83%100%100%78%100%100%96%
cafc00000000090100101000001-911-91-10111119100%
dsfc00000100001000000100001011111-91111-9110100%
ilfc00000000000110100000000001-911110111111091%
irfc00000000000110100000000001-911110111111091%
knfc0111111111111-9-9-9-9-9-9-10-9-9-9-9-900%
kofc0000010000100100000000011-9111111111-910100%
mjfc00000000090100101000001-911-91-10111119100%
scfc00000000000110000000000101111110111-911091%
shfc0000010009100000000011-9111111111-9-99100%
tot 0cl738867388856
tot1cl00000030000073886738885677
tot ass73886768885673886768885680
modecl000000100000
correctcl738867388856
% correct100%100%100%100%100%100%50%100%100%100%100%100%87%100%100%100%100%100%100%50%100%100%100%100%100%96%
casl1001111080110101000001-10-90-91-1011111788%
dssl1100101109100001000010-101001-91011-101667%
ilsl10100111010110100000000001-1011111110111091%
irsl11001110190110000000011-10-911111101-9889%
knsl110001011110000000100010111010-10011-100660%
kosl1001111180110000100011-10-90101-10111-9675%
mjsl11011160110111001001-10-91-9-9-1001-1010467%
scsl11110111110110000000000101101101111-101982%
shsl0010001119100000000011-10011110111-10-9778%
tot 0cl013474130204
tot1cl73250355965273357455965463
tot ass74597768985674597768985681
modecl110100111110
correctcl733574559654
% correct100%75%60%56%100%57%83%63%100%75%100%67%70%100%75%60%56%100%57%83%63%100%75%100%67%78%
casw11111111090100101000001-1011-101-1011011889%
dssw111111100900000100101011111-1011-101-1019100%
ilsw10111111010110100000000001-1001111111111091%
irsw11101101090100010010001-10110-1011-10111889%
knsw1111111009000000101010111111-101-101-1019100%
kosw110111018110000001001-10-10110111-1011-9788%
mjsw111101070110101010001-10-101-101-101-101117100%
scsw11111111110110000000000101111111110-1011091%
shsw1110101119100000000011-10111010110-10-9667%
tot 0cl001030100607
tot1cl74794759435074794759465774
tot ass74897769495774897769495782
modecl111111111010
correctcl747947594657
% correct100%100%88%100%57%100%83%100%100%67%100%100%81%100%100%88%100%57%100%83%100%100%67%100%100%90%
catc00001000090100101000001-911-91-9111119100%
dstc00000010001000000100001011111-91111-9110100%
iltc00000010000110100000000001-9111111111111100%
irtc0000000000100100000010001-9111110-9111990%
kntc0111111111111-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-10-9-9-9-90
kotc0000001000100100000000011-9111111111-910100%
mjtc0000100180100101100001-911-91-9-100110675%
sctc0000000110100000000000111111111101-9-9990%
shtc0000001009100000000011-9111111111-9-99100%
tot 0cl738867615854
tot1cl00000006200173886766585473
tot ass73886767785573886767785577
modecl000000010000
correctcl738867665854
% correct100%100%100%100%100%100%100%86%71%100%100%80%85%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%86%71%100%100%80%95%
Chart1
Thin pigs
Dirty side
Nasal discharge
Head/neck lesions
Hindquarter lesions
Tail lesion
Swollen hock / bursae
rawdatasortedandcomplete
12345678910
tpca0000000000
dsca0100000000
onca1111100010
hnfca0101001000
ghca0000000000
tlca0000010000
blca0010000001
tpkn0000000000
dskn0101011111
onkn110101010
hnfkn0100000000
ghkn0000000001
tlkn0000000000
blkn1110011111
tpko0000000000
dsko1000111101
onko0101111010
hnfko0000111000
ghko0000010000
tlko0000010000
blko0000000000
tpsh0000000000
dssh0100110111
onsh1111111011
hnfsh0001111000
ghsh0000010000
tlsh0000010000
blsh0000011000
tpir0000000000
dsir1110111111
onir1111111000
hnfir1100011011
ghir0000010000
tlir0000000000
blir0000000000
tpsc0000000000
dssc1111111111
onsc0001000000
hnfsc1101011100
ghsc0000000000
tlsc0000000000
blsc110011101
tpds0000000000
dsds1100111111
onds0000001010
hnfds1010010010
ghds0000010000
tlds0000010000
blds0110001101
tpbm0000000000
dsbm0100011111
onbm0111111011
hnfbm1110111010
ghbm0010011010
tlbm0000010000
blbm0010000001
tpmj0000000000
dsmj0100011101
onmj100111011
hnfmj011101010
ghmj000001
tlmj0000111
blmj1110001001
tpil0000000000
dsil0110011111
onil1111111011
hnfil0001110000
g