Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Hock Injury Laterality and Lameness on Lying Behaviors and Lying Laterality in Holstein Dairy Cows
Previous Article in Journal
Calves Use an Automated Brush and a Hanging Rope When Pair-Housed
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Animals 2017, 7(11), 85; doi:10.3390/ani7110085

Influence of Professional Affiliation on Expert’s View on Welfare Measures

1
Section for Animal Welfare and Disease Control, Department of Veterinary and Medical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
2
Epidemiology and Management, Department of Animal Sciences, Aarhus University, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 14 October 2017 / Revised: 5 November 2017 / Accepted: 8 November 2017 / Published: 15 November 2017
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [1119 KB, uploaded 15 November 2017]   |  

Abstract

The present study seeks to investigate the influence of expert affiliation in the weighing procedures within animal welfare assessments. Experts are often gathered with different backgrounds with differing approaches to animal welfare posing a potential pitfall if affiliation groups are not balanced in numbers of experts. At two time points (2012 and 2016), dairy cattle and swine experts from four different stakeholder groups, namely researchers (RES), production advisors (CONS), practicing veterinarians (VET) and animal welfare control officers (AWC) were asked to weigh eight different welfare criteria: Hunger, Thirst, Resting comfort, Ease of movement, Injuries, Disease, Human-animal bond and Emotional state. A total of 54 dairy cattle experts (RES = 15%, CONS = 22%, VET = 35%, AWC = 28%) and 34 swine experts (RES = 24%, CONS = 35%, AWC = 41%) participated. Between—and within—group differences in the prioritization of criteria were assessed. AWC cattle experts differed consistently from the other cattle expert groups but only significantly for the criteria Hunger (p = 0.04), and tendencies towards significance within the criteria Thirst (p = 0.06). No significant differences were found between expert groups among swine experts. Inter-expert differences were more pronounced for both species. The results highlight the challenges of using expert weightings in aggregated welfare assessment models, as the choice of expert affiliation may play a confounding role in the final aggregation due to different prioritization of criteria. View Full-Text
Keywords: animal welfare; expert opinion; stakeholders animal welfare; expert opinion; stakeholders
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Dam Otten, N.; Rousing, T.; Forkman, B. Influence of Professional Affiliation on Expert’s View on Welfare Measures. Animals 2017, 7, 85.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

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

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Animals EISSN 2076-2615 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top