Dataset Information

New animal-based measures to assess welfare in dromedary camels

ABSTRACT: Reliable and measurable animal-based measures (ABMs) are essential for assessing animal welfare. This study aimed at proposing ABMs for dromedary camels identifying their possible associations with management. Data were collected at a permanent camel market; a total of 76 pens and 528 camels were evaluated. ABMs were collected for each welfare principle (i.e., good feeding, good housing, good health, appropriate behavior), while resources or management-based measures were collected at three levels of investigations (animal, herd, or caretakers). Associations were calculated by generalized linear models. Body condition score and thirst index (ABMs of good feeding) resulted negatively associated with short caretaker’s experience, dirty bedding, limited shaded space, feeding and water space, and space allowance (P < 0.05). Resting behaviors and restricted movements (ABMs of good housing) were associated with short caretaker’s experience, dirty bedding and water, rationed water distribution, water points in the sun, and presence of hobbles (P < 0.05). Disease, injury, and pain induced by management procedures (ABMs of good health) were negatively associated with short caretaker’s experience, presence of hobbles, limited space allowance and shaded space, dirty bedding, and feeding and watering practices (e.g., frequency of distribution, resource quality, location of the troughs; P < 0.05). Response to approaching test and aggressivity (ABMs of Appropriate behavior) were negatively associated with limited space allowance, shaded, feeding and water space, and rationed water distribution (P < 0.05). Overall, the proposed ABMs seems to be appropriate indicators of welfare consequences in camels being able to identify factors related to housing and management practices that may impair or improve camel welfare.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11250-021-02978-8.

SUBMITTER: Menchetti L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8568688 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The approach to farm animal welfare evaluation has changed and animal-based measures (ABM), defined as the responses of an animal or effects on an animal, were introduced to assess animal welfare. Animal-based measures can be taken directly on the animal or indirectly and include the use of animal records. They can result from a specific event or be the cumulative outcome of many days, weeks, or months. The objective of the current study was to analyze the use of general ABM codified terms in the scientific literature, the presence of their definitions, and the gap mapping of their use across animal species, categories, years of publication, and geographical areas of the corresponding author's institution. The ultimate aim was to propose a common standard terminology to improve communication among stakeholders. In this study, data models were populated by collecting information coming from scientific papers extracted through a transparent and reproducible protocol using Web of ScienceTM and filtering for the general ABM codified terms (or synonyms/equivalents). A total of 199 papers were retained, and their full texts were assessed. The frequency of general codified ABM terms was analyzed according to the classification factors listed in the objectives. These papers were prevalently European (159 documents), and the most represented species was cattle. Fifty percent of the papers did not provide a definition of the general ABM terms, and 54% cited other sources as reference for their definition. The results of the study showed a very low penetration of the general codified ABM term in the literature on farm animal welfare, with only 1.5% of the papers including the term ABM. This does not mean that specific ABM are not studied, but rather that these specific ABM are not defined as such under a common umbrella, and there is no consensus on the use of terminology, not even among scientists. Thus, we cannot expect the stakeholders to use a common language and a standardized terminology. The recognition and the inclusion of ABM in the lists of commonly accepted abbreviations of scientific journals could be a first step to harmonize the terminology in the scientific literature.

Dataset Information

New animal-based measures to assess welfare in dromedary camels

Supplementary Information

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets