Comparative welfare assessment of sheep housing systems under cold climate conditions.
Research in veterinary science, cilt.212, ss.106427, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 212
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2026.106427
- Dergi Adı: Research in veterinary science
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, BIOSIS, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Zoological Record, Health Research Premium Collection (ProQuest)
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.106427
- Atatürk Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
This preliminary, exploratory study evaluated animal welfare in four structurally different sheep housing systems in Eastern Anatolia, Türkiye, under cold winter conditions, using the AWIN welfare protocol. A total of 1920 observations were collected across the four systems during six weekly visits, covering body condition score (BCS), fleece contamination and loss, hoof length, lesions, lameness, mucous membrane colour, eye-nasal discharge, faecal contamination, drinking-water cleanliness, behavioural tests, stocking density, and lamb mortality. Comparisons used Firth bias-reduced logistic regression with cluster-bootstrap P-values to account for the repeated-visit sampling structure. Enclosed concrete-wall housing with a wooden slatted floor (CC-WB) showed the most favourable overall welfare profile, with the highest BCS, lowest lamb mortality, and significantly better lesion scores and mucous membrane colour than the traditional stone-walled system (CS-SB); however, its BCS remained below the adequacy threshold and its water hygiene was inferior to CS-SB, so it is best regarded as the least inadequate rather than an optimal system. Enclosed concrete-wall, concrete-based housing (CC-CB) showed the most negative, statistically robust profile, with significantly higher fleece loss, lameness, and body lesions; it also had the lowest stocking density, so flooring type and space allowance could not be disentangled. Because each housing system was represented by a single commercial farm and the design was exploratory, housing type was associated with, but cannot be shown to cause, the differences observed; these findings are preliminary and hypothesis-generating, and larger, replicated, multi-farm studies are needed before they inform practical adoption of any housing design.