Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jan 8;8(1):8.
doi: 10.3390/ani8010008.

Using Longitudinal Assessment on Extensively Managed Ewes to Quantify Welfare Compromise and Risks

Affiliations

Using Longitudinal Assessment on Extensively Managed Ewes to Quantify Welfare Compromise and Risks

Carolina Munoz et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

This study examined variation in the welfare of extensively managed ewes and potential welfare risks. A total of 100 Merino ewes (aged 2-4 years) were individually identified and examined at three key stages: pregnancy, lactation and weaning. Eight animal-based welfare measures were used to assess welfare: flight distance, body condition score (BCS), fleece condition, skin lesions, tail length, dag score, lameness and mastitis. Data were analysed by ANOVA and McNemar's statistics. Overall, the average BCS of the group was in agreement with industry recommendations. However, a number of animals were classified with inadequate condition (either too thin or too fat) across the three observation periods. The presence of heavy dags was greatest at mid-lactation (87%, P < 0.0001), lameness was greatest at weaning (14%, P = 0.01), clinical mastitis was 1% annually, and five ewes were lost from the study. Ewes had better health at mid-pregnancy compared to mid-lactation and weaning. The main welfare issues identified were under and over feeding, ewe mortality, lameness, ecto-parasites (flystrike) and mastitis, all of which have the potential to be reduced with improved management practices. Future welfare assessment programs must consider that significant variation in on-farm welfare will occur in extensively managed systems and this needs to be accounted for when evaluating farms.

Keywords: animal welfare; animal-based indicators; on-farm welfare assessment; sheep.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Median, minimum and maximum flight distance (FD) observed at mid-pregnancy, mid-lactation and weaning. Different letters indicate statistical difference (P < 0.05).

References

    1. Stubsjøen S.M., Hektoen L., Valle P.S., Janczak A.M., Zanella A.J. Assessment of sheep welfare using on-farm registrations and performance data. Anim. Welf. 2011;20:239–251.
    1. Turner S.P., Dwyer C.M. Welfare assessment in extensive animal production systems: Challenges and opportunities. Anim. Welf. 2007;16:189–192. doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2016.07.026. - DOI
    1. Goddard P. Welfare assessment in sheep. Practice. 2011;33:508–516. doi: 10.1136/inp.d7316. - DOI
    1. Doughty A.K., Coleman G.J., Hinch G.N., Doyle R.E. Stakeholder perceptions of welfare issues and indicators for extensively managed sheep in Australia. Animals. 2017;7:28. doi: 10.3390/ani7040028. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dwyer C., Bornett H. Chronic stress in sheep: Assessment tools and their use in different management conditions. Anim. Welf. 2004;13:293–304.

LinkOut - more resources