Structural Features, Biosecurity and Animal Welfare Assessment in Sheep Farms in Yozgat Province, Türkiye

PDF
Published: Jan 15, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/jhvms.36157
Keywords:
ANI 35 L Animal Welfare Biosecurity Sheep Structural Propertie
A Aslan
Department of Animal Science, Institute of Graduate Education, Yozgat Bozok University, 66100, Yozgat, Türkiye
H Tüfekci
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Yozgat Bozok University, 66100, Yozgat, Türkiye
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2272-4088
Abstract

In this study, it was aimed to evaluate the sheep production enterprises in Yozgat province located in Central Anatolia Region of Türkiye in terms of production characteristics, general characteristics, biosecurity practices and animal welfare. The material of the study consisted of questionnaire, observation and measurement data obtained from 180 sheep production enterprises in Yozgat province. In the study, the general characteristics of the enterprises, flock management practices, shelter characteristics, feeding practices, health protection practices, biosecurity practices and welfare assessment were determined. As a result, sheep production in Yozgat province is mostly carried out with traditional methods and in the form of family enterprises. It is seen that some practices in the enterprises have deficiencies in terms of compliance with biosecurity parameters. In terms of welfare, according to the protocol developed from the ANI 35 L system, it was determined that the sheep farming enterprises in Yozgat province are mainly in the medium score categories in terms of protection from heat, protection from cold, suitable light and ventilation and number of drinkers from the parameters of shelter conditions; medium in terms of parameters other than milking parlour in terms of structure and equipment condition parameters; and high in terms of animal health parameters.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Research Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

· Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

· Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

· Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (preferably in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
AWIN (2021). Animal welfare ındicators for goats. IES-AWIN-IFD15
(euskadi.eus)
Berg L (2006). Biosecurity benefits animal welfare. The Swedish Animal
Welfare Agency, was the keynote speaker at the February, 27, Alberta
Chicken Producers Conference.
Blokhuis HJ, Veissier I, Miele M, Jones B (2010). The Welfare Quality®
project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae
Scand Section A, 60(3):129-140. doi.org/10.1080/090647
2010.523480
Blokhuis HJ, Jones RB, Veissier I, Miele M (2013). Improving farm animal
welfare. Science and society working together: the Welfare Quality
approach. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen. 232p.
Broom DM (2008). The welfare of livestock during road transport. In
Long distance transport and welfare of farm animals (pp. 157-181).
Wallingford UK: CABI.
Broom DM (1991). Animal behaviour as an indicator of animal welfare in
different housing and management systems. In Proceedings 9th Internacional
Congress in Animal Hygiene, 371-378. Helskinki.
Cappellozza B, Marques, SR (2021). Effects of pre-slaughter stress on
meat characteristics and consumer experience. In Meat and nutrition.
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/75636
Dantzer R (2001). Stress, emotions and health: where do we
stand?. Social Science Information, 40(1): 61-78. doi.
org/10.1177/053901801040001004
Dellal I, Keskin G, Dellal G (2002). GAP bölgesinde küçükbaş hayvan yetiştiren
işletmelerin ekonomik analizi ve hayvansal ürünlerin pazara
arzı. TEAE, Yayın No: 83, Ankara.
Duncan IJ (2002). Poultry welfare: science or subjectivity? British Poultry
Science, 43(5): 643-652. doi.org/10.1080/0007166021000025109
Duncan IJH (2005). Science-based assessment of animal welfare: farm
animals. Revue Scientifque Et Technique-Ofce International Des Epizooties,
(2): 483.
EFSA (2012). Statement on the use of animal-based measures to assess
the welfare of animals. EFSA J 10, 2767. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.
efsa.2012.2767
Faerevik G, Andersen IL, Bøe KE (2005). Preferences of sheep for different
types of pen flooring. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 90(3-
: 265-276. doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.010
FAO (2023). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL
FAWC (2011). Practice of education, communication and information
on farm animal welfare. Farm Animal Welfare Committee, Defra,
London. https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/farm-animal-welfare-
committee-fawc
Fraser D (2008). Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica,
(1): 1186-1751. doi:10.1186/1751-0147-50-S1-S1
Fraser D, Weary DM, Pajor EA, Milligan BN (1997). A scientific conception
of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare,
(3): 187-205. doi.org/10.1017/ S0962728600019795
Grethe H (2017). The economics of farm animal welfare. Annual Review
of Resource Economics, 9: 75-94. doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-
-053419
Hemsworth PH, Mellor DJ, Cronin GM, Tilbrook AJ (2015). Scientific assessment
of animal welfare. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 63(1):
-30.
Ingenbleek PT, Blokhuis HJ, Butterworth A, Keeling LJ (2011). A scenario analysis on the implementation of a farm animal welfare assessment
system. Animal Welfare, 20(4): 613-621.
Khalifa HH (2003). Bioclimatology and adaptation of farm animals in a
changing climate In: Lacetera N, Bernabucci U, Khalifa HH, Ronchi
B, Nordone A (eds) Interactions between climate and animal production.
Wageningen academic publishers, The Netherlands.
Köseman A, Kul S, Şeker İ (2022). Malatya ilindeki koyunculuk işletmelerinin
yapısal özellikleri ve yetiştiricilerin Sosyo-ekonomik durumu.
Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Veteriner Dergisi, 36(1): 1-9
Köseman A (2008). AB müzakere süreci ve hayvan refahı. Türktarım,
: 62-64. ISSN: 1303- 2364.
Kumar P, Ahmed MA, Abubakar AA, Hayat MN, Kaka U, Ajat Goh Y,
Sazili AQ (2023). Improving animal welfare status and meat quality
through assessment of stress biomarkers: a critical review. Meat Science,
: 109048. doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.109048
Martini A, De Almeida CC, Guilhermino MM, Lotti C (2015). Evaluation
of dairy goat welfare in different production systems in Tuscany. Organic
Agriculture, 5: 225-234. doi/10.1007/s13165-014-0089-8
Meşe M, Karakuş F (2019). Van ili Edremit ilçesi küçükbaş hayvancılık
işletmelerinin refah açısından değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Animal
Productıon, 60(2): 97-104. doi/10.29185/hayuretim.567009
Ninomiya S (2014). Satisfaction of farm animal behavioral needs in
behaviorally restricted systems: Reducing stressors and environmental
enrichment. Animal Science Journal, 85(6): 634-638. doi.
org/10.1111/asj.12213
Phythian CJ, Toft N, Cripps PJ, Michalopoulou E, Winter AC, Jones PH,
et al., (2013). Inter-Observer Agreement, Diagnostic Sensitivity and
Specificity of Animal-Based İndicators of Young Lamb Welfare. Animal,
(7): 1182-90. doi/10.1017/S1751731113000487
Rahaman I, Samanta R, Ghosh CP, Datta S (2021). Dairy cattle welfare
assessment-importance and significance: A review. The Pharma Innovation
Journal, SP-10(2): 226-231.
Sahlström L, Virtanen T, Kyyrö J, Lyytikäinen T (2014). Biosecurity on
Finnish cattle, pig and sheep farms-results from a questionnaire. Preventive
Veterinary Medicine, 117(1): 59-67. doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.
07.004
Sevi A, Casamassima D, Pulina G, Pazzona A (2009). Factors of welfare
reduction in dairy sheep and goats. Italian Journal of Animal Science,
(1): 81-101. doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.s1.81
Simitzis P, Tzanidakis C, Tzamaloukas O, Sossidou E (2021). Contribution
of precision livestock farming systems to the improvement of
welfare status and productivity of dairy animals. Dairy, 3(1): 12-28.
doi.org/10.3390/dairy3010002
SPSS (2016). IBM Corp. Released 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows,
Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp
Tiezzi F, Tomassone L, Mancin G, Cornale P, Tarantola M (2019). The Assessment
of Housing Conditions, Management, Animal- Based Measure
of Dairy Goats’ Welfare and Its Association with Productive and
Reproductive Traits. Animals, 9: 893. doi.org/10.3390/ani9110893
Vaarst M, Wemelsfelder F, Seabrook M, Boivin X, Idel A (2004). The role
of humans in the management of organic herds. Animal health and
welfare in organic agriculture (Vaarst, M. Roderick, S., Lund, V. and
Lockeretz, W., eds.), CABI Publishing, CAB International, Wallingford,
UK, 205-226.
Most read articles by the same author(s)