Acknowledgements Book of abstracts - Publicaties - Vlaanderen.be

Marc Bracke presents Poster 39 during the poster sessions in the Aula.
Session theme 5: Development and improvement of welfare assessment protocols
111
Poster 39
RISK ANALYSIS OF ANIMAL WELFARE CAN BENEFIT FROM
SEMANTIC MODELLING APPROACH: THE CALF WELFARE CASE
M.B.M. Bracke 1 , S.A. Edwards 2 , B. Algers 3
1 Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University, Research Centre, Lelystad, The Netherlands
2 School of Agriculture, Food, Rural Development, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
3 Department of Animal Environment, Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences, Skara, Sweden
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is developing risk assessment of animal welfare. A
first EFSA report on this subject concerned risk analysis of calf welfare. This report was analysed
from a semantic modelling perspective in order to formulate points for improvement. In addition, a
survey was conducted eliciting expert opinion on calf welfare in order to ‘validate’ (some points
from) the analysis.
Based on a structural similarity between concepts used in risk assessment and in semantic
modelling points for improvement were formulated related to the specification of definitions,
methodological procedures, underlying values and the translation of scientific information into the
Risk Assessment output. In particular, a need was identified to include positive (behavioural)
aspects of welfare and overall welfare assessments. The survey subsequently revealed (partial)
support for the suggested points, especially for the latter recommendations.
The experts gave the lowest scores to veal calves kept individually in so-called "baby boxes" or in
small groups, and to feedlots, while a suckler herd on pasture was rated as best for calf welfare.
According to the experts main hazards were related to underfeeding and to deficiencies in
colostrum intake, stockperson education, space, roughage, iron intake, ventilation, flooring and
bedding. More importantly, only a low concordance was found among experts on overall calf
welfare in different housing systems and on the importance of different hazards (Kendall’s W 0.18-
0.29, p