Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures

Simple item page
dc.citation.issue2
dc.citation.volume11
dc.contributor.authorKaurivi YB
dc.contributor.authorLaven R
dc.contributor.authorHickson R
dc.contributor.authorParkinson T
dc.contributor.authorStafford K
dc.coverage.spatialSwitzerland
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-01T20:54:21Z
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-25T06:49:48Z
dc.date.available2021-01-20
dc.date.available2024-02-01T20:54:21Z
dc.date.available2024-07-25T06:49:48Z
dc.date.issued2021-01-20
dc.description.abstractThis paper aims to develop standards for a welfare assessment protocol by validating potential categorisation thresholds for assessing beef farms in various beef cow-calf production systems in Namibia. Forty measures, combined from a New Zealand-based protocol plus Namibia-specific measures, are applied to 55 beef farms (17 commercial farms, 20 semi-commercial and 18 communal village farms) during pregnancy testing, and a questionnaire guided interview. The categorised measures on a 3-point welfare score (0: good, 1: marginal, and 2: poor/unacceptable welfare) are subsequently compared with the derivation of thresholds based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of herds for each measure. The overall combined thresholds of continuous measures across the three farm types show 10/22 measures that posed welfare compromise across Namibia, whereas commercial farms have 4/22 measures, and semi-commercial and communal village farms have 12/22 and 11/22, respectively, with high thresholds. Most measures-imposed thresholds are retained because of significant importance to the welfare of animals and preventiveness of the traits, while leniency was given to adjust good feeding and mortality measures to signify periods of drought. Handling measures (fearful, falling/lying) and abrasions thresholds are adjusted to reflect the temporary stress caused by infrequent cattle handling, and faulty yard designs/design and possible cattle breed influence on handling. Hence, Namibia needs prioritised investigation of underlying contributing factors and remediation to reduce the high thresholds.
dc.description.confidentialfalse
dc.edition.editionFebruary 2021
dc.format.pagination1-23
dc.identifier.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33498420
dc.identifier.citationKaurivi YB, Laven R, Hickson R, Parkinson T, Stafford K. (2021). Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures.. Animals (Basel). 11. 2. (pp. 1-23).
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/ani11020250
dc.identifier.eissn2076-2615
dc.identifier.elements-typejournal-article
dc.identifier.issn2076-2615
dc.identifier.numberARTN 250
dc.identifier.piiani11020250
dc.identifier.urihttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/70967
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherMDPI (Basel, Switzerland)
dc.publisher.urihttps://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/2/250
dc.relation.isPartOfAnimals (Basel)
dc.rights(c) The author/sen
dc.rights.licenseCC BY 4.0en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.subjectNamibia
dc.subjectanimal welfare assessment
dc.subjectbeef cow systems
dc.subjectcategorisation
dc.subjectsemi-arid rangelands
dc.titleAssessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.elements-id438920
pubs.organisational-groupOther
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Published
Size:
1.96 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Collections
Journal Articles