Validity and reliability of animal-based measures of welfare protocols in finisher pigs

• The reliability and validity of the animal-based measures were low. • Animal-based measures systematically differed according to the production week. • Most measures did not differ among treatments with assumed differences in welfare. • Validity was improved when combining indicators, but remained low overall. • The animal-based measures of welfare protocols must be interpreted with care. Animal-based measures are a key part of welfare protocols, but to what extent these measures can report differences in welfare among pigs provided e.g. with different accesses to valued resources (i.e., whether the measures are valid) and whether a single measurement point is representative of the entire production period (i.e., whether the measures are reliable) is not well documented. In this study, a total of 814 finishing pigs were assigned to either 1 of 4 welfare improving treatments (increased space: 1.4 [S9] or 2.1 m 2 [S6] per pig, provision of roughage [R], extra provision of enrichments [E]) or to a control treatment (C). Animal-based measures of a refined version of the Welfare Quality® protocol were assessed weekly (Batch 1) or once during the period (Batch 2). All parameters showed poor reliability throughout the 10 weekly assessments of Batch 1. Among the clinical parameters, only few indicators showed differences between welfare improving treatments. Among the behavioural indicators, differences were recorded for manipulation of the pen ( C > S6) and of enrichment materials ( E > all other treatments). When aggregating indicators into domains (nutrition, health, environment, behaviour), the reliability did not improve, and treatment effects were recorded within the domain of nutrition ( R > all other treatments), and behaviour ( E > S9). When aggregating domains into a final welfare score, both reliability and validity, as defined for the study, were poor. These results call for attention over the interpretation of the animal-based measures obtained from a single welfare assessment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Livestock Science
Published
2025-04-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2025.105704
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.35

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Validity and reliability of animal-based measures of welfare protocols in finisher pigs

Mathilde Pauline Coutant, Mona Lilian Vestbjerg Larsen, Lene Juul Pedersen, Tine Rousing et al.
1 citations
Livestock Science
Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
2.35
article

Validity and reliability of animal-based measures of welfare protocols in finisher pigs

Mathilde Pauline Coutant, Mona Lilian Vestbjerg Larsen, Lene Juul Pedersen, Tine Rousing, Benjamin Schnack Rasmussen
article en
1 citations

Abstract

• The reliability and validity of the animal-based measures were low. • Animal-based measures systematically differed according to the production week. • Most measures did not differ among treatments with assumed differences in welfare. • Validity was improved when combining indicators, but remained low overall. • The animal-based measures of welfare protocols must be interpreted with care. Animal-based measures are a key part of welfare protocols, but to what extent these measures can report differences in welfare among pigs provided e.g. with different accesses to valued resources (i.e., whether the measures are valid) and whether a single measurement point is representative of the entire production period (i.e., whether the measures are reliable) is not well documented. In this study, a total of 814 finishing pigs were assigned to either 1 of 4 welfare improving treatments (increased space: 1.4 [S9] or 2.1 m 2 [S6] per pig, provision of roughage [R], extra provision of enrichments [E]) or to a control treatment (C). Animal-based measures of a refined version of the Welfare Quality® protocol were assessed weekly (Batch 1) or once during the period (Batch 2). All parameters showed poor reliability throughout the 10 weekly assessments of Batch 1. Among the clinical parameters, only few indicators showed differences between welfare improving treatments. Among the behavioural indicators, differences were recorded for manipulation of the pen ( C > S6) and of enrichment materials ( E > all other treatments). When aggregating indicators into domains (nutrition, health, environment, behaviour), the reliability did not improve, and treatment effects were recorded within the domain of nutrition ( R > all other treatments), and behaviour ( E > S9). When aggregating domains into a final welfare score, both reliability and validity, as defined for the study, were poor. These results call for attention over the interpretation of the animal-based measures obtained from a single welfare assessment.

Livestock ScienceVol. 296
Animal Welfare Institute (US), Aarhus University (DK)
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, Horizon 2020
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
2.35
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.