| Summary: | We compare the Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL)<br />protocol, a German protocol for sows and piglets developed for farm’s self‐inspection, to the<br />Welfare Quality® protocol for sows and piglets (WQ). The KTBL protocol introduces new indicators<br />for piglets to be assessed at pen level (face lesions, carpal joint lesions, undersized animals). The<br />reliability of their assessment at pen level was analysed by comparison to assessments at individual<br />level. Both protocols were applied by one observer in 65 farm visits. The protocols are highly similar,<br />although the composition varies (WQ protocol: focus on animal‐based, KTBL protocol: focus on<br />management‐based indicators). Consequently, the WQ protocol detected more welfare issues (e.g.,<br />welfare issues related to appropriate behaviour: 62.9% (WQ) vs. 21.0% (KTBL protocol)). The<br />comparison between pen and individual level of piglets’ indicators was determined using<br />Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and limits of<br />agreement (LoA). Carpal joint lesions and undersized animals (RS 0.73/0.80 ICC 0.55/0.57 LoA −0.12<br />to 0.03/−0.01 to 0.01) are reliably assessed at pen level but face lesions (RS 0.19 ICC 0.18 LoA −0.42<br />to 0.03) are not. Concluding, we present advantages and disadvantages of the KTBL protocol and<br />introduce indicators for piglets which may enhance existing protocols.animal welfare assessment; piglets; pen level; sows; Welfare Quality®
|
|---|
