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
Review
. 2021 Oct 15;11(10):2973.
doi: 10.3390/ani11102973.

Animal-Based Indicators for On-Farm Welfare Assessment in Sheep

Romane Zufferey  1 , Adrian Minnig  1 , Beat Thomann  2 , Sibylle Zwygart  1 , Nina Keil  3 , Gertraud Schüpbach  2 , Raymond Miserez  4 , Patrik Zanolari  1 , Dimitri Stucki  1
Affiliations
Review

Animal-Based Indicators for On-Farm Welfare Assessment in Sheep

Romane Zufferey et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

The value society assigns to animal welfare in agricultural productions is increasing, resulting in ever-enhancing methods to assess the well-being of farm animals. The aim of this study was to review the scientific literature to obtain an overview of the current knowledge on welfare assessments for sheep and to extract animal-based welfare indicators as well as welfare protocols with animal-based indicators. By title and abstract screening, we identified five protocols and 53 potential indicators from 55 references. Three out of the five protocols include animal-based as well as resource-based indicators. All of them were assessed as being practicable on-farm but lacking reliability. Some of the single indicators are endorsed by the literature and widely used in the field like assessment of behaviour, lameness or body condition score. Others (e.g., Faffa Malan Chart FAMACHA©, dag score or pain assessment) are regularly mentioned in the literature, but their reliability and usefulness are still subject of discussion. Several indicators, such as pruritic behaviour, eye condition, lying time or tooth loss are relatively new in the literature and still lack evidence for their validity and usefulness. This literature review serves as a starting point for the development of valid and practicable welfare protocols for sheep.

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

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Broom D.M. A History of Animal Welfare Science. Acta Biotheor. 2011;59:121–137. doi: 10.1007/s10441-011-9123-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Webster A., Main D., Whay H. Welfare assessment: Indices from clinical observation. Anim. Welf. 2004;13:93–98.
    1. Capdeville J., Veissier I. A method of assessing welfare in loose housed dairy cows at farm level, Focusing on animal observations. Acta Agric. Scand. A Anim. Sci. 2001;51:62–68. doi: 10.1080/090647001316923081. - DOI
    1. Richmond S.E., Wemelsfelder F., de Heredia I.B., Ruiz R., Canali E., Dwyer C.M. Evaluation of Animal-Based Indicators to Be Used in a Welfare Assessment Protocol for Sheep. Front. Vet. Sci. 2017;4:210. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00210. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Munoz C., Campbell A., Barber S., Hemsworth P., Doyle R. Using longitudinal assessment on extensively managed ewes to quantify welfare compromise and risks. Animals. 2018;8:8. doi: 10.3390/ani8010008. - DOI - PMC - PubMed