Search
Feedback
About UniCat 
Help
News
| Listing 1 - 2 of 2 |
Sort by
|
Article
Abstract | Keywords | Export | Availability | Bookmark
Loading...Choose an application
- Reference Manager
- EndNote
- RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)
Animal evaluation courses have been part of animal science curricula for over 80 years in the US. A need for skills in the visual evaluation of conformation traits and the appraisal of productivity potential laid the foundation for animal judging courses. Eventually, these courses developed into competitions for students to compare their skill level.Following a similar framework, we propose that developing teams to educate young people about animal welfare, then establishing competitions to assess these skills will be a successful way to integrate animal welfare science into the mainstream of animal science curricula. Using traditional judging programs as a model, a paradigm for establishing animal welfare judging/assessment teams has been developed. Students take a background course in understanding evolutionary biology, biological needs, behavioral and physiological indicators of differing levels of welfare, and how to holistically evaluate facilities, stockmanship and management schemes. It should be noted that while the assessment of various aspects of animal welfare can be objective and quantifiable, judgment decisions of which area will be acceptable in the continuum between very poor and very good welfare still comes down to an ethics-based choice. Animal welfare assessment will teach students to integrate science-based knowledge with ethical values for an interdisciplinary approach to problem solving.The competition unfolds as follows: CD-ROM scenarios are prepared with indicators of animal welfare ranging from physiological data, video and still clips, to behavioral responses and time budgets. Students evaluate competition scenarios for each species being judged, prepare their analysis, then make an oral presentation of why they assess one scenario as demonstrating a higher level of welfare than another. The knowledge of welfare science in making the assessment, as well as the persuasion in the presentation, are key factors in scoring the students. A pil
Analysis. --- Animal welfare assessment. --- Animal welfare,welfare assessment,judging teams. --- Animal welfare. --- Animal-welfare. --- Animal. --- Area. --- Assessment. --- Behavioral-responses. --- Biology. --- Choice. --- Competition. --- Development. --- Level. --- Management. --- Model. --- Need. --- Needs. --- People. --- Physiological. --- Productivity. --- Ranging. --- Response. --- Responses. --- Student. --- Survey. --- Time budget. --- Time-budgets. --- Time. --- University. --- Us. --- Video. --- Welfare. --- Young.
Article
Year: 2002
Abstract | Keywords | Export | Availability | Bookmark
Loading...Choose an application
- Reference Manager
- EndNote
- RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)
Previous experimental work has shown modest and variable production and welfare benefits for the lactating sow and piglets when sows are allowed to separate themselves temporarily from their piglets, or when piglets have access to a communal creep area sufficiently attractive that they spend substantial time away from the sow. This experiment tested the effect of both features together. Sows from experimental litters could enter a get-away area separated from the piglets where, after 12 days of lactation, they could mingle with two other sows. Litters had access to a creep area where they could mingle with piglets from two other litters after 14 days of age. Eleven experimental cohorts consisting of three sows and their litters were tested in this way. For the 12 control cohorts, also of three litters each, sows could not get-away from their piglets, and piglets could not mingle with other litters. Experimental sows spent over 14 h per day away from their piglets by the end (day 27) of lactation. Experimental sows also nursed their litters less often than controls, decreasing to almost 30% less by the end of lactation (P < 0.01), and consumed less food during lactation (P < 0.05). There was no significant effect of treatment on sow weight loss or weaning-to-oestrus interval. Piglets from experimental litters spent over 40% of their time in the pens of other litters by the end of lactation, and spent significantly (P < 0.05) more time than control piglets in the creep area. Experimental piglets ate more creep feed before weaning (P < 0.001), but tended to gain less weight (P = 0.05). After weaning, these piglets continued to cat more (P < 0.05) and gained more weight (P < 0.05), such that the average body weights were similar for experimental and control piglets on day 42 (11.8 +/- 0.26 kg versus 11.7 +/- 0.25 kg; N.S.). We observed some agonistic behaviour between experimental sows when they were first allowed to interact and between experimental piglets when mix
Access. --- Age. --- Aggression. --- Agonistic behaviour. --- Agonistic. --- Alternative housing. --- Area. --- Behaviour. --- Body weight. --- Body-weight. --- Cat. --- Control. --- Demand. --- Experiment. --- Food. --- Group-housed sows. --- Growth. --- Housing system. --- Housing. --- Lactation. --- Level. --- Mixing. --- Nursing. --- Patterns. --- Pen. --- Performance. --- Pig-housing. --- Piglets. --- Pigs. --- Post weaning. --- Production. --- Socialisation. --- Sow. --- Sows. --- Suckling behavior. --- System. --- Systems. --- Time. --- Treatment. --- Weaning. --- Weight. --- Welfare. --- Work.
| Listing 1 - 2 of 2 |
Sort by
|