Next Article in Journal
Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Resilience to COVID-19 Crisis: An Empirical Study of Chinese Firms
Next Article in Special Issue
Reinterpreting the SDGs: Taking Animals into Direct Consideration
Previous Article in Journal
Social Entrepreneurship on Its Way to Significance: The Case of Germany
 
 
Article

Iceberg Indicators for Sow and Piglet Welfare

1
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr. 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany
2
Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(21), 8967; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218967
Received: 30 September 2020 / Revised: 25 October 2020 / Accepted: 26 October 2020 / Published: 28 October 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Animal Welfare and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals)
This study identifies iceberg indicators for welfare assessment in sows and piglets to enhance feasibility and sustainability of available protocols. Indicators of the Welfare Quality® protocol and of a German protocol were collected over 65 farm visits to 13 farms in Germany between September 2016 and April 2018. Data were analysed using partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). A hierarchical component model was built (animal welfare = higher-order, Welfare Quality® principles = lower-order components). In sows, welfare was revealed to be most influenced by the principles good housing, good health and appropriate behaviour (path coefficients = 0.77, 0.86, 0.91). High coefficients of determination R2 indicated a large amount of explained variance (good housing R2 = 0.59, good health R2 = 0.75, appropriate behaviour R2 = 0.83). Stereotypies was the indicator most valuable to assess sow welfare. Additionally, the final model included the indicators panting, shoulder sores, metritis, mortality and an indicator assessing stereotypies in resting animals (indicator reliabilities 0.54–0.88). However, the model did not include the indicators lameness and body condition, which may be due to the farm sample. Welfare of piglets was most explained by the indicators carpal joint lesions, mortality, sneezing and undersized animals (indicator reliabilities 0.48–0.86). View Full-Text
Keywords: animal welfare; hierarchical component model; iceberg indicators; pigs; sustainability; structural equation modelling animal welfare; hierarchical component model; iceberg indicators; pigs; sustainability; structural equation modelling
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Friedrich, L.; Krieter, J.; Kemper, N.; Czycholl, I. Iceberg Indicators for Sow and Piglet Welfare. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8967. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218967

AMA Style

Friedrich L, Krieter J, Kemper N, Czycholl I. Iceberg Indicators for Sow and Piglet Welfare. Sustainability. 2020; 12(21):8967. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218967

Chicago/Turabian Style

Friedrich, Lena, Joachim Krieter, Nicole Kemper, and Irena Czycholl. 2020. "Iceberg Indicators for Sow and Piglet Welfare" Sustainability 12, no. 21: 8967. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218967

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop