GLAD Scale for Ranking Welfare of Horses on Arrival after Transport to Slaughterhouses

Author:

Padalino Barbara1ORCID,Benedetti Beatrice1,Felici Martina1ORCID,Bicout Dominique Joseph2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, 40127 Bologna, Italy

2. EPSP, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, VetAgro Sup, TIMC, 38000 Grenoble, France

Abstract

To date, there is no official method for measuring horse welfare after transport. This study aimed to develop a scale to classify horses into four categories: good shape; light affected; affected; down (GLAD) based on their welfare impairment measured at unloading. To this end, 15 animal-based measures (ABMs), previously recorded from 1019 horses, were scored. Weight and severity scores provided by welfare experts, alongside the number of welfare principles highlighted by the ABM, were assigned to each ABM. The welfare impairment (S) of each horse was then calculated as the weighted sum of the severity scores of the 15 ABMs. Three thresholds were also set to define the four GLAD categories; the ABM “down” (i.e., horses unable to stand and walk on arrival, also considered by the law as the indicator of the worst welfare) was used as the higher threshold, Sdown, (category D); the intermediate threshold, S2, was defined by the ABM “injuries”, assumed to represent highly impaired welfare (category A); the threshold, S1, was defined assuming that significant welfare impairment starts from 20% of S2 (L category). Horses with an S value below S1 were considered physically and mentally fit (G category). Out of 1019, 43% of horses fell into category G, 48% into L, 9% into A, and 0.3% into D. Our scale could be useful for veterinarians to decide whether a horse can be slaughtered immediately (G), needs rest (L), needs attention (A), or euthanasia (D), but further validation is needed.

Funder

Animals’ Angels

World Horse Welfare

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

General Veterinary,Animal Science and Zoology

Reference47 articles.

1. Alonso, M.E., González-Montaña, J.R., and Lomillos, J.M. (2020). Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals, 10.

2. The role of EFSA in assessing and promoting animal health and welfare;Berthe;EFSA J.,2012

3. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen, S.S., Alvarez, J., Bicout, D.J., Calistri, P., Canali, E., Drewe, J.A., Garin-Bastuji, B., Gonzales Rojas, J.L., and Gortázar Schmidt, C. (2022). Welfare of equidae during transport. EFSA J., 20, e07444.

4. Baker, R.M., Jenkin, G., and Mellor, D.J. (1994). Improving the Well-Being of Animals in the Research Environment, Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching.

5. The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being;Blokhuis;Acta Agric. Scand.—A Anim. Sci,2010

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3