↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Animal-Based Indicators to Be Used in a Welfare Assessment Protocol for Sheep

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of Animal-Based Indicators to Be Used in a Welfare Assessment Protocol for Sheep
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2017.00210
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan E. Richmond, Francoise Wemelsfelder, Ina Beltran de Heredia, Roberto Ruiz, Elisabetta Canali, Cathy M. Dwyer

Abstract

Sheep are managed under a variety of different environments (continually outdoors, partially outdoors with seasonal or diurnal variation, continuously indoors) and for different purposes, which makes assessing welfare challenging. This diversity means that resource-based indicators are not particularly useful and, thus, a welfare assessment scheme for sheep, focusing on animal-based indicators, was developed. We focus specifically on ewes, as the most numerous group of sheep present on farm, although many of the indicators may also have relevance to adult male sheep. Using the Welfare Quality® framework of four Principles and 12 Criteria, we considered the validity, reliability, and feasibility of 46 putative animal-based indicators derived from the literature for these criteria. Where animal-based indicators were potentially unreliably or were not considered feasible, we also considered the resource-based indicators of access to water, stocking density, and floor slipperiness. With the exception of the criteria "Absence of prolonged thirst," we suggest at least one animal-based indicator for each welfare criterion. As a minimum, face validity was available for all indicators; however, for many, we found evidence of convergent validity and discriminant validity (e.g., lameness as measured by gait score, body condition score). The reliability of most of the physical and health measures has been tested in the field and found to be appropriate for use in welfare assessment. However, for the majority of the proposed behavioral indicators (lying synchrony, social withdrawal, postures associated with pain, vocalizations, stereotypy, vigilance, response to surprise, and human approach test), this still needs to be tested. In conclusion, the comprehensive assessment of sheep welfare through largely animal-based measures is supported by the literature through the use of indicators focusing on specific aspects of sheep biology. Further work is required for some indicators to ensure that measures are reliable when used in commercial settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 163 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 13%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Other 9 6%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 47 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 46 28%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 45 28%
Environmental Science 4 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Other 8 5%
Unknown 55 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,296,667
of 25,706,302 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#630
of 8,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,922
of 447,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#7
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,706,302 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 447,183 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.