PLANT BIOLOGY
ANIMAL BIOLOGY
SUBSCRIPTION
E-SUBSCRIPTION
 
MAP
MAIN PAGE

 

 

 

 

Zhuchaev K.V., Kochneva M.L., Borisenko E.A. Welfare of productive animals (review). Sel'skokhozyaistvennaya Biologiya [Agricultural Biology], 2024, Vol. 59, № 6, p. 1025-1038.
(how to cite this article)

doi: 10.15389/agrobiology.2024.6.1025eng

UDC: 636.083

 

WELFARE OF PRODUCTIVE ANIMALS (review)

K.V. Zhuchaev ✉, M.L. Kochneva, E.A. Borisenko

Novosibirsk State Agrarian University, 160, ul. Dobrolubova, Novosibirsk, 630039 Russia, e-mail zhuchaev-kv@mail.ru (✉ corresponding author), mlkochneva@edubiotech.ru, katebor1977@gmail.com

ORCID:
Zhuchaev K.V. orcid.org/0000-0002-5748-1525
Borisenko E.A. orcid.org/0009-0000-0711-7613
Kochneva M.L. orcid.org/0000-0002-5214-2401

Final revision received March 14, 2024
Accepted June 13, 2024

 

Modern industrial livestock farming is characterized by a high degree of animal use intensity, which causes problems of animal health and welfare. Animal welfare can be defined as the ability to successfully adapt to environmental conditions without suffering (B.O. Hughes, 1976; D.M. Broom et al., 2019; K. Carlstead et al., 2013). The criteria for assessing a high level of animal welfare are good feeding (absence of prolonged hunger and thirst), proper maintenance (temperature comfort and free movement), health (absence of wounds, illnesses and pain during operations), animal behavior (absence of fear, behavioral disorders and good interaction with a person) (R. Botreau et al., 2007). The ability to engage in normal behavior supports the animal's emotional state and includes both general husbandry requirements (social interactions, type of diet, adequate housing space to turn, stand and lie down) and the performance of species-specific behaviors (use of nesting boxes, material for digging for pigs, etc.). Welfare is complex. Good health does not mean a high level of well-being, although it is a necessary condition for it. It is impossible to focus only on individual components of well-being, although in different conditions they may have different significance (T. Grandin, 2010). The ability of animals to adapt and, accordingly, their well-being is influenced by age and physiological state. Features of metabolism, reactivity of the immune system, hormonal status, and behavior determine the possibility of maintaining acceptable well-being and the special requirements of animals to technological conditions. The homeostatic systems of the body that ensure adaptation are controlled by the genotype (T. Grandin et al., 1998). The components of a welfare assessment are, firstly, an assessment of technology factors affecting animals (housing, microclimate, feeding, mode of use, handling methods, etc.) and, secondly, an assessment of the condition of animals: behavior, fatness, hygiene, problems with limbs, wounds on the skin (Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs, 2009), indicators of physiological status (heart rate, breathing, body temperature) (M. Serra et al., 2018). To deeply assess the condition of animals and verify welfare assessment protocols, more complex invasive methods that require laboratory equipment are used (studying the level of stress hormones, blood composition, morphological characteristics) (K.V. Zhuchaev et al., 2019). In intensive livestock farming environments, it is important to ensure a basic level of welfare where the animal is healthy, free of stress, growing, reproducing and producing. Achieving a higher level of well-being, implying the ability to carry out species-specific animal behavior, is obviously possible in biologized production systems.

Keywords: animal welfare, animal husbandry technology, welfare assessment methods.

 

REFERENCES

  1. Grandin T. Improving animal welfare: a practical approach (2nd edition). T. Grandin (ed.). CAB International, Boston, MA, USA, 2010.
  2. Kirchhelle C. From author to adviser: Ruth Harrison and the Animal Machines Moment. In: Bearing Witness: Ruth Harrison and British Farm Animal Welfare (1920-2000).  Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2021 CrossRef
  3. Brambell F.W.R. Report of the technical committee of enquiry into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. HMSO, London, 1965.
  4. Hughes B.O. Behaviour as an index of welfare. Proc. Fifth European Poultry Conference. Malta, 1976: 1005-1018.
  5. Carlstead K., Mench J.A., Meehan C., Brown J.L. An epidemiological approach to welfare research in zoos: the Elephant Welfare Project. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2013, 16(4): 319-337 CrossRef
  6. Broom D.M. Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal, 1986, 142(6): 524-526 CrossRef
  7. Broom D.M., Johnson K.G. Stress and animal welfare. 2nd edition. Springer, 2019 CrossRef
  8. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, the Netherlands, 2009.
  9. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, the Netherlands, 2009.
  10. Dawkins M.S. Animal welfare and efficient farming: is conflict inevitable? Animal Production Science, 2017, 57(2): 201-208 CrossRef
  11. Temple D., Manteca X., Velarde A., Dalmau A. Assessment of animal welfare through behavioural parameters in Iberian pigs in intensive and extensive conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2011, 131(1-2): 29-39 CrossRef
  12. Botreau R., Veissier I., Butterwork A., Bracke M.B.M., Keeling L.J. Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 2007, 16(2): 225-228 CrossRef
  13. Fraser D. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 2008, 50(1): 1-7 CrossRef
  14. Farm animal welfare in Great Britain: past, present and future. Farm Animal Welfare Council Area, London, 2009. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fawc-report-on-farm-animal-welfare-in-great-britain-past-present-and-future. No date.
  15. Edwards-Callaway L.N., Widowski T.M. Animal behavior and emotions-on-farm considerations. In: Improving animal welfare: a practical approach. CABI,2021: 160-180 CrossRef
  16. Zhuchaev K.V., Eylert A.I., Rep’yuk D.V., Ivanova O.A., Kochneva M.L., Pobegaylo I.M. Innovatsii i prodovol’stvennaya bezopasnost’, 2017, 4(18): 32-38 (in Russ.).
  17. Forkman B., Boissy A., Meunier-Salaün M.C., Canali E., Jones R.B. A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiology & Behavior, 2007, 92(3): 340-374 CrossRef
  18. Waiblinger S., Boivin X., Pedersen V., Tosi M. V., Janczak A. M., Visser E. K., Jones R. B. Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2006, 101(3-4): 185-242 CrossRef
  19. Pascual-Alonso M., Miranda-de la Lama G.C., Aguayo-Ulloa L., Ezquerro, L. Villarroel M., Marín R.H., Maria G.A. Effect of postweaning handling strategies on welfare and productive traits in lambs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2015, 18(1): 42-56 CrossRef
  20. Hemsworth P.H., Sherwen S.L., Coleman G.J. Human contact. In: Animal welfare (3rd edition) /M.C. Appleby, I.A.S. Olsson, F. Galindo (eds.)CAB International, Wallingford, 2018: 294-314 CrossRef
  21. Baxter E.M., Rutherford K.M.D., D’eath R.B., Arnott G., Turner S.P., Sandøe P., Moustsen V.A., Thorup F., Edwards S.A., Lawrence A.B. The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig II: management factors. Animal Welfare, 2013, 22(2): 219-238 CrossRef
  22. Delsart M., Pol F., Dufour B., Rose N., Fablet C. Pig farming in alternative systems: strengths and challenges in terms of animal welfare, biosecurity, animal health and pork safety. Agriculture, 2020, 10(7): 261 CrossRef
  23. Breuer K., Hemsworth P.H., Barnett J.L., Matthews L.R., Coleman G.J., Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2000, 66(4): 273-288 CrossRef
  24. Hemsworth P.H., Coleman G.J., Barnett J.L., Borg S. Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science, 2000, 78(11): 2821-2831 CrossRef
  25. Hemsworth P.H., Barnett J.L., Coleman G.J., Hansen C. A study of the relationships between the attitudinal and behavioural profiles of stockpersons and the level of fear of humans and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 1989, 23(4): 301-314 CrossRef
  26. Zhuchaev K.V., Kochneva M.L., Borisenko E.A., Barsukova M.A., Orlov D.A., Petukhov V.L., Kunts E.V., Ryavkin O.V. Blagopoluchie i potentsial prisposoblennosti lokal’nykh porod sviney Sibiri [Welfare and fitness potential of local pig breeds in Siberia]. Novosibirsk, 2022 (in Russ.).
  27. Tikhonov V.N., Zhuchaev K.V. Mikroevolyutsionnaya teoriya i praktika porodoobrazovaniya sviney [Microevolution theory and practice of breeding pigs]. Novosibirsk, 2008 (in Russ.).
  28. Pain management in animals. P.A. Flecknell, A. Waterman-Pearson (eds.). WB Saunders, London, 2000 CrossRef
  29. Gregory N.S., Harris A.L., Robinson C.R., Dougherty P.M., Fuchs P.N., Sluka K.A. An overview of animal models of pain: disease models and outcome measures. The Journal of Pain, 2013, 14(11): 1255-1269 CrossRef
  30. Hernández-Avalos I., Mota-Rojas D., Mendoza-Flores J.E., Casas-Alvarado A., Flores-Padilla K., Miranda-Cortes A.E., Torres-Bernal F., Gómez-Prado J., Mora-Medina P. Nociceptive pain and anxiety in equines: Physiological and behavioral alterations. Veterinary World, 2021, 14(11): 2984-2995 CrossRef
  31. Bell A. The neurobiology of acute pain. The Veterinary Journal, 2018, 237: 55-62 CrossRef
  32. McCracken L., Waran N., Mitchinson S., Johnson C.B. Effect of age at castration on behavioural response to subsequent tail docking in lambs. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia, 2010, 37(4): 375-381 CrossRef
  33. Sandercock D.A., Barnett M.W., Coe J.E., Downing A.C., Nirmal A.J., Di Giminiani P., Edwards S.A., Freeman T.C. Transcriptomics analysis of porcine caudal dorsal root ganglia in tail amputated pigs shows long-term effects on many pain-associated genes. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2019, 6: 314 CrossRef
  34. Efanova N.V., Gart V.V., Zhuchaev K.V., Osina L.M., Batalova S.V. Innovatsii i prodovol’stvennaya bezopasnost’, 2021, 1(31): 98-105 CrossRef (in Russ.).
  35. Grandin T. Deesing M.J. Genetics and animal welfare. In: Genetics and the behaviour of domestic animals. T. Grandin (ed.). Academic Press, San Diego, California, 1998: 319-341.
  36. Sulimova L.I., Zhuchaev K.V., Kochneva M.L. Poultry behavior reactions and welfare (review).Sel'skokhozyaistvennaya Biologiya [Agricultural Biology], 2020, 55(2): 209-224 CrossRef
  37. Jiang Q., Zhu L., Zeng H., Basang Z., Suolang Q., Huang J., Cai Y. Evolutionary adaptations generally reverse phenotypic plasticity to restore ancestral phenotypes during new environment adaptation in cattle. Ecology and Evolution, 2024, 14(6): e11489 CrossRef
  38. Knyazev S.P., Nikitin S.V., Ermolaev V.I. Innovatsii i prodovol’stvennaya bezopasnost’, 2021, 3: 80-94 CrossRef (in Russ.).
  39. Zhuchaev K.V., Kochneva M.L., Borisenko E.A., Bogdanova O.V., Rep’yuk D.V., Semenov A.A., Eylert A.I., Chubarova I.M. Vestnik NGAU (Novosibirskiy gosudarstvennyy agrarnyy universitet), 2016, 4 (41): 118-124 (in Russ.).
  40. Bekenev V.A. Productive longevity of animals, methods of its prediction and extension (review). Sel'skokhozyaistvennaya Biologiya [Agricultural Biology], 2019, 54(4): 655-666 CrossRef
  41. Rep’yuk D.V., Zhuchaev K.V., Tokarev V.S. Innovatsii i prodovol’stvennaya bezopasnost’, 2019, 1(23): 112-117 CrossRef (in Russ.).
  42. López-Gatius F. Advances in dairy cattle reproduction — a foreword. Animals, 2024, 14(18): 2650 CrossRef
  43. Stolpovskiy Yu.A., Zakharov-Gezekhus I.A. Vavilovskiy zhurnal genetiki i selektsii, 2017, 21(4): 477-486 CrossRef (in Russ.).
  44. Knyazev S.P., Zhuchaev K.V., Gart V.V. Genetika, 1998, 34(12): 1648-1654 (in Russ.).
  45. Kambadur R., Sharma M., Smith T.P., Bass J.J. Mutations in myostatin (GDF8) in double-muscled Belgian Blue and Piedmontese cattle. Genome Research, 1997, 7(9): 910-916 CrossRef
  46. Menissier F. General survey of the effect of double muscling on cattle performance. In: Muscle hypertrophy of genetic origin and its use to improve beef production. Current topics in veterinary medicine and animal science, vol. 16. J.W.B. King, F. Ménissier (eds.).Springer, Dordrecht, 1982: 23-53 CrossRef
  47. Konovalova E., Romanenkova O., Zimina A., Volkova V., Sermyagin A. Genetic variations and haplotypic diversity in the myostatin gene of different cattle breeds in Russia. Animals, 2021, 11(10): 2810 CrossRef
  48. Fernyhough M., Nicol C.J., van de Braak T., Toscano M.J., Tønnessen M. The ethics of laying hen genetics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2020, 33: 15-36 CrossRef
  49. Rodenburg T.B., Bijma P., Ellen E.D., Bergsma R., De Vries S., Bolhuis J.E., van Arendonk J.A.M. Breeding amiable animals? Improving farm animal welfare by including social effects in breeding programmes. Animal Welfare, 2010, 19(S1): 77-82 CrossRef
  50. Demir E., Bilginer U., Balcioglu M.S., Karsli T. Direct and indirect contributions of molecular genetics to farm animal welfare: a review. Animal Health Research Reviews, 2021, 22(2): 177-186 CrossRef
  51. Cheng H., Muir W.M. The effects of genetic selection for survivability and productivity on chicken physiological homeostasis. World's Poultry Science Journal, 2005, 61(3): 383-397.
  52. Pryce J.E., Egger-Danner C., Simm G. Strategies and tools for genetic selection in dairy cattle and their application to improving animal welfare. In: Cattle welfare in dairy and beef systems — a new approach to global issues. M. Haskell (ed.). Springer, Cham, 2023: 323-348 CrossRef
  53. Korhonen H.T. Perspectives on the welfare of farmed fur animals. Agricultural and Biological Sciences Journal, 2019, 5(1): 7-12.
  54. Ksenofontova A.A., Ivanov A.A., Zudkova O.A., Voynova O.A., Ksenofontov D.A. Izvestiya Timiryazevskoy sel’skokhozyaystvennoy akademii, 2020, 2: 99-115 CrossRef (in Russ.).
  55. Dawkins M.S. The role of behaviour in the assessment of poultry welfare. World's Poultry Science Journal, 1999, 55(3): 295-303 CrossRef
  56. Zhuchaev K.V., Sulimova L.I., Kochneva M.L., Savel’ev A.A., Novikov E.A., Kondratyuk E.Yu., Lisunova L.I. Genetika i razvedenie zhivotnykh, 2019, 2: 121-128 CrossRef (in Russ.).
  57. Radkowska I., Godyń D., Fic K. Stereotypic behaviour in cattle, pigs and horses-a review. Animal Science Papers and Reports, 2020, 38: 303-319.
  58. Beattie V.E., Walker N., Sneddon I.A. An investigation of the effect of environmental enrichment and space allowance on the behaviour and production of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 1996, 48(3-4), 151-158 CrossRef
  59. Charlton G.L., Rutter S.M. The behaviour of housed dairy cattle with and without pasture access: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2017, 192: 2-9 CrossRef
  60. Beauchemin K.A. Invited review: Current perspectives on eating and rumination activity in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2018, 101(6): 4762-4784 CrossRef
  61. Johnson A.K., Colpoys J.D., Edwards‐Callaway L.N., Calvo‐Lorenzo M., McGlone J.J., Millman S.T., Phillips C.E., Ritter M.J., Sutherland M.A., Tucker A.L., Webb S.R. Behavior and welfare. In: Diseases of swine. J.J. Zimmerman, L.A. Karriker, A. Ramirez, K.J. Schwartz, G.W. Stevenson, J. Zhang (eds.). Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, 2019 CrossRef
  62. Brown S.M., Klaffenböck M., Nevison I.M., Lawrence A.B. Evidence for litter differences in play behaviour in pre-weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,2015, 172: 17-25 CrossRef
  63. Ross J.W., Hale B.J., Gabler N.K., Rhoads R.P., Keating A.F., Baumgard L.H. Physiological consequences of heat stress in pigs. Animal Production Science, 2015, 55(12): 1381-1390 CrossRef
  64. Hemsworth P.H., Barnett J.L., Coleman G.J. The human-animal relationship in agriculture and its consequences for the animal. Animal Welfare, 1993, 2(1): 33-51 CrossRef
  65. Barsukova M.A., Lankin V.S., Zhuchaev K.V. Vestnik NGAU (Novosibirskiy gosudarstvennyy agrarnyy universitet), 2010, 1(13): 22-25 (in Russ.).
  66. Lankin V., Bouissou M.-F. Factors of diversity of domestication-related behavior in farm animals of different species. Russian Journal of Genetics, 2001, 37: 783-795 CrossRef
  67. Jones R.B. The tonic immobility reaction of the domestic fowl: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal, 1986, 42(1): 82-96 CrossRef
  68. Suarez S.D., Gallup G.G. Open-field behaviour in chickens: the experimenter is a predator. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1982, 96(3): 432-439 CrossRef
  69. Zhuchaev K.V., Suetov N.V., Kaufmann O., Osadchuk L.V., Borisenko E.A. Doklady Rossiyskoy akademii sel’skokhozyaystvennykh nauk, 2014, 5: 64-66 (in Russ.).
  70. Bewley J.M., Schutz M.M. An interdisciplinary review of body condition scoring for dairy cattle. The Professional Animal Scientist, 2008, 24: 507-529 CrossRef
  71. Mashalji P., Siddiqui M.F., Channa G.R., Ingle V.S., Kankarne Y.G. Correlation of body condition score, weight, measurements and effect of parity and stage of lactation on milk parameters of Gir cows. Indian Journal of Animal Research, 2016, 50(2): 255-259 CrossRef
  72. Laksmi D.N.D.I., Trilaksana I.G.N.B., Darmanta R.J., Darwan M., Bebas I.W., Agustina K.K. Correlation between body condition score and hormone level of Bali cattle with postpartum anestrus. Indian Journal of Animal Research, 2019, 53(12): 1599-1603 CrossRef
  73. Orlov D.A., Jungbluth T., Zhuchaev K.V., Kochneva M.L., Bogdanova O.V., Hammer N., Threm J. The influence of cooling system on the fattening pig welfare parameters. Biosciences Biotechnology Research Asia, 2016, 13(2): 725-732 CrossRef
  74. Hauge S.J., Kielland C., Ringdal G., Skjerve E., Nafstad O. Factors associated with cattle cleanliness on Norwegian dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science, 2012, 95(5): 2485-2496 CrossRef
  75. Sulayeman M., Fromsa A. Lameness in dairy cattle: prevalence, risk factors and impact on milk production. Global Veterinaria, 2012, 8(1): 1-7.
  76. Guàrdia M.D., Estany J., Balasch S., Oliver M.A., Gispert M., Diestre A. Risk assessment of skin damage due to pre-slaughter conditions and RYR1 gene in pigs. Meat Science, 2009, 81(4): 745-751 CrossRef
  77. Wascher C.A.F. Heart rate as a measure of emotional arousal in evolutionary biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 2021, 376(1831): 20200479 CrossRef
  78. Serra M., Wolkers C.P.B., Urbiniti E.C. Physiological indicators of animal welfare. Revista Brasileira de Zoociencias, 2018, 19(2): 70-96 CrossRef
  79. Campo J.L., García Gil M.G., Muñoz I., Alonso M. Relationships between bilateral asymmetry and tonic immobility reaction or heterophil to lymphocyte ratio in five breeds of chickens. Poultry Science, 2000, 79(4): 453-459 CrossRef
  80. Ibrahim R.R., Azeem N.M.A., Emeash H., Abdelghany A.K. Performance, behavior, and welfare of turkey poults reared under different housing conditions. Journal of Advanced Veterinary Research, 2024, 14(1): 30-36.
  81. Van Nuffel A., Tuyttens F.A.M., Van Dongen S., Talloen W., Van Poucke E., Sonck B., Lens L. Fluctuating asymmetry in broiler chickens: a decision protocol for trait selection in seven measuring methods. Poultry Science, 2007, 86(12): 2555-2568 CrossRef
  82. Buijs S., Van Poucke E., Van Dongen S., Lens L., Baert J., Tuyttens F.A.M. The influence of stocking density on broiler chicken bone quality and fluctuating asymmetry. Poultry Science, 2012, 91(8): 1759-1767 CrossRef
  83. Nemets V.V., Shmurak V.I., Sobolev V.E., Garnyuk V.V., Rovan E.D., Vinogradova E.P. Rossiyskiy fiziologicheskiy zhurnal im. I.M. Sechenova, 2019, 105(5): 608-618 CrossRef (in Russ.).
  84. Kryachko O.V., Budnik A.O. Mezhdunarodnyy vestnik veterinarii, 2020, 2: 155-161 CrossRef (in Russ.).
  85. Von Eugen K., Nordquist R.E., Zeinstra E., van der Staay F.J. Stocking density affects stress and anxious behavior in the laying hen chick during rearing. Animals,2019, 9(2): 53 CrossRef
  86. Cockrem J.F., Barrett D.P., Candy E.J., Potter M.A. Corticosterone responses in birds: individual variation and repeatability in Adelie penguins (Pygoscelisadeliae) and other species, and the use of power analysis to determine sample sizes. General and Comparative Endocrinology, 2009, 163(1-2): 158-168 CrossRef
  87. Möstl E., Palme R. Hormones as indicators of stress. Domestic Animal Endocrinology, 2002, 23(1-2): 67-74 CrossRef
  88. Zhuchaev K., Suetov N. Zhivotnovodstvo Rossii, 2009, 5: 39-40 (in Russ.).
  89. Blokhuis H., Veissier, I. Jones B., Miele M. The Welfare Quality® vision. In: Improving farm animal welfare. H. Blokhuis, M. Miele, I. Veissier, B. Jones (eds.). Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, 2013: 71-89 CrossRef
  90. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle (fattening cattle, dairy cows, veal calves). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, the Netherlands, 2009.
  91. Babington S., Tilbrook A.J., Maloney S.K., Fernandes J.N., Crowley T.M., Ding L., Fox A.Y., Zhang S., Kho E.A., Cozzolino D., Mahony T.J., Blache D. Finding biomarkers of experience in animals. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 2024, 15(1): 28 CrossRef
  92. Miller L.J., Vicino G.A., Sheftel J., Lauderdale L.K. Behavioral diversity as a potential indicator of positive animal welfare. Animals, 2020, 10(7): 1211 CrossRef
  93. Muiño R., Martínez E. N., Hernandez J., Benedito J.L., Castillo C. New challenges in animal welfare, volume II. Frontiers in Veterinary Science., 2024, 11: 1520099 CrossRef

 

back