Veterinary Research Forum

Comprehensive evaluation of dairy ewe welfare in Algerian intensive farms using the BIENE protocol

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Amel Benatallah 1
Ouahiba Zenad 2
Sofiane Boudjellaba 3
Nassim Moula 4

1 Research Laboratory of Food Hygiene and Quality Insurance System, Higher National Veterinary School, Algiers, Algeria

2 Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Production, Higher National Veterinary School, Algiers, Algeria

3 Research Laboratory for Management of Local Animal Resource, Higher National Veterinary School, Algiers, Algeria

4 Department of Veterinary Management of Animal Resources, University of Veterinary Medicine, Liege, Belgium

https://doi.org/10.30466/vrf.2026.2055199.4689
Abstract
This study is the first to apply the behaviour, immunity, nutrition and environment (BIENE) protocol to assess dairy ewe welfare in intensive farms in Algeria. A total of 1,964 ewes from 50 farms in the Algiers region were evaluated between December 2022 and March 2023 using 13 animal-based indicators related to nutrition, housing, health, and behavior. Moderate tooth loss affected 54.67 ± 3.32% of ewes, and 20.38 ± 2.78% had a low body condition score (< 2). Housing problems included fleece moisture (11.28 ± 2.55%) and over 40.00% soiling of flanks and hindquarters. Health issues, such as mild anemia (23.55%), lameness (26.45%), nasal discharge (35.47 ± 4.43%), and labored breathing (8.79 ± 1.47%), were observed. In terms of behavior, most ewes appeared attentive and active, although 40.55% showed fear and 19.90% aggression. Flight time increased from 2.50 ± 0.07 sec to 3.80 ± 0.07 sec, and animals maintained greater distance from the corridor (2.79 ± 0.08 m) than from the observer (1.85 ± 0.06 m). Principal component analysis of qualitative behavior assessment identified three clusters, including well-being, discomfort, and vitality. Spearman correlation analysis showed that relaxed ewes had better body condition score (r = 0.29) and were less likely to be lame (r = – 0.32) or anemic (r = – 0.37). Vigorous ewes showed fewer signs of respiratory distress (r = – 0.32), while apathetic ones were more prone to poor conditioning (r = 0.31) and injuries (r = 0.30).The BIENE protocol proved effective in detecting major welfare issues in intensive Algerian sheep farming.

Keywords

Algeria
Animal welfare
Behavioral indicators
BIENE protocol
Dairy sheep
Subjects
 1.     Roman MNE. Welfare of dairy ewes in the Roquefort basin: overall welfare score and link with tank milk quality. PhD Thesis, National Veterinary School of Alford. France; 2022.
2.     Boussaada M, Yerou H. Sustainability’s indicators of sheep farming systems in the eastern steppe eco-system of Algeria. Genet Biodivers J 2022; 6(1): 45-49.
3.     Moula N. Sheep farming in Algeria: situation analysis [French]. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Seminar of Veterinary Medicine: Sheep sector in Algeria and in the Maghreb – challenges and strategies for the future. Constantine, Algeria; 2018. ORBi, University of Liège. Available at: https://orbi.uliege.be/ handle/2268/230218. Accessed May 08, 2026.
4.     Mormede P, Boisseau-Sowinski L, Chiron JC, et al. Animal welfare: context, definition, assessment [French]. INRAE Prod Anim 2018; 31(2): 145-162.
5.     Munoz CA, Campbell AJD, Hemsworth PH, et al. evaluating the welfare of extensively managed sheep. PLoS One 2019; 14(6): e0218603. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0218603.
6.     Munoz C, Campbell A, Barber S, et al. Using longitudinal assessment on extensively managed ewes to quantify welfare compromise and risks. Animals (Basel) 2018; 8(1): 8. doi: 10.3390/ani8010008.
7.     Gautier D, Aupiais A, Mialan MM. How to measure the welfare of ewes [French]. Available at: http:// idele.fr/no_cache/recherche/idelesolr/recommends/tech-ovin-comment-mesurer-le-bien-être-des-brebis. Accessed June 16, 2024.
8.     Zufferey R, Minnig A, Thomann B, et al. Animal-based indicators for on-farm welfare assessment in sheep. Animals (Basel) 2021; 11(10):2973. doi: 10.3390/ani11102973.
9.     Stubsjøen SM, Hektoen L, Valle PS, et al. Assessment of sheep welfare using on-farm registrations and performance data. Anim Welf 2011;20: 239-251.
10. Napolitano F, De Rosa G, Ferrante V, et al. Monitoring the welfare of sheep in organic and conventional farms using an ANI 35 L derived method. Small Rumin Res 2009; 83(1-3): 49-57.
11. IDELE (Institut de l’Élevage). BIENE: Protocol for assessing the welfare of ewes under winter grazing conditions. On-farm testing, project results [French]. Report No. 0015301041. Paris: Institut de l’Élevage; 2015.
12. M’Hamdi N, Darej C, Attia K, et al. Assessment of meat-type sheep welfare using animal-based measures. Animals (Basel) 2021; 11(7): 2120. doi: 10.3390/ ani11072120.
13. Marcone G, Carnovale F, Arney D, et al. A simple method for on-farm evaluation of sheep welfare using animal-based indicators. Small Rumin Res 2022; 208:106636. doi: 10/1016/j.smallrumres.2022. 106636.
14. MADR: Agricultural Statistics Service. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Available at: http://madrp.gov.dz/agriculture/statistiques-agricoles. Accessed November 23, 2022.
15. Russel AJF, Doney JM, Gunn RG. Subjective assessment of body fat in live sheep. J Agric Sci 1969; 72(3): 451-454.
16. Friedrich L, Krieter J, Kemper N, et al. Application of principal component analysis of sows' behavioral indicators of the Welfare Quality® protocol to determine main components of behavior. Front Anim Sci 2021; 2: 728608. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2021.728608.
17. Benchohra M. Study of permanent incisor characters in Rembi sheep [French]. LRDD 2015; 27(8): 1-12.
18. McGregor BA. Incisor development, wear and loss in sheep and their impact on ewe production, longevity and economics: a review. Small Rumin Res 2011; 95(2-3): 79-87.
19. Richmond SE, Wemelsfelder F, de Heredia IB, et al. Evaluation of animal-based indicators to be used in a welfare assessment protocol for sheep. Front Vet Sci 2017; 4: 210. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00210.
20. Jolly PA, Rouyer E, Bru L, et al. A protocol to assess the welfare of dairy ewes: from science to the field. Small Rumin Res 2024; 232: 107209.doi: 10.1016/ j.smallrumres.2024.107209.
21. Brulé-Aupiais A, Mialon MM, Gautier D, et al. Validation of a method for assessing sheep welfare on farms and comparison of two winter management systems [French]. In: Proceedings of the Rencontres Recherches Ruminants. Paris, France 2015; 179 -182.
22. Phythian CJ, Michalopoulou E, Duncan JS. Assessing the validity of animal-based indicators of sheep health and welfare: do observers agree? Agriculture 2019; 9(5): 88-102.
23. Parés R, Lionch P, Manteca X, et al. Sheep welfare assessment of meat farms from Spain in different breeds and production systems. Front Anim Sci 2023: 4: 121849795. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2023.1218495.
24. Kenyon PR, Maloney SK, Blache D. Review of sheep body condition score in relation to production characteristics. New Zeal J Agr Res 2014; 57(1): 857698. doi: 10.1080/00288233.2013.857698.
25. Yilmaz M, Altin T, Karaca O, et al. Effect of body condition score at mating on the reproductive performance of Kivircik sheep under an extensive production system. Trop Anim Health Prod 2011; 43(8): 1555-1560.
26. Rodrigues RCM, Furtado DA, Ribeiro NL, et al. Thermoneutral temperature and thermal stress of sheep creole: physiological and ingestive behaviour. J Appl Anim Res 2024; 52(1): 2404113, doi: 10.1080/09712119.2024.2404113.
27. Muñoz CA, Campbell AJD, Hemsworth PH, et al. Evaluating the welfare of extensively managed sheep. PLoS One 2019; 14(6): e0218603. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0218603.
28. Hargis AM, Myers S. The integument. In: Zachary JF (Ed). Pathologic basis of veterinary disease. 6th ed. St. Louis, USA: Elsevier 2017; 1009-1146.
29. James PJ, Bartholomaeus FW, Karlsson LJ. Temporal relationship between infestation with lice (Bovicola ovis Schrank) and the development of pruritic behaviour and fleece derangement in sheep. Vet Parasitol 2007; 149(3-4): 251-257.
30. Morgan ER, Wall R. Climate change and parasitic disease: farmer mitigation? Trends Parasitol 2009; 25(7): 308-313.
31. Kaplan RM, Burke JM, Terrill TH, et al. Validation of the FAMACHA eye color chart for detecting clinical anemia in sheep and goats on farms in the southern United States. Vet Parasitol 2004; 123(1-2): 105-120.
32. Burke JM, Kaplan RM, Miller JE, et al. Accuracy of the FAMACHA system for on-farm use by sheep and goat producers in the southeastern United States. Vet Parasitol 2007; 147(1-2): 89-95.
33. van Wyk JA, Bath GF. The FAMACHA system for managing haemonchosis in sheep and goats by clinically identifying individual animals for treatment. Vet Res 2002; 33(5): 509-529
34. Muheet M, Malik HU, Parray OR, et al. Seasonal and periodic rhythmicity of respiratory infections in small ruminants. Biol Rhythm Res 2020; 51(7): 1066-1074.
35. Navarro T, Ramos JJ, Ruíz de Arcaute M, et al. Predisposing factors inducing ovine respiratory complex in intensive-reared lambs. Small Rumin Res 2019; 180: 106-111.
36. De Las Heras M, Ortín A, Cousens C, et al. Enzootic nasal adenocarcinoma of sheep and goats. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2003; 275: 201-223.
37. Hempstead MN, Stilwell G, Plummer PJ. Overview of indicators to assess on-farm welfare of sheep and goats. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners. Ames, USA. 2019; 182-186.
38. Bertel A. Lameness in sheep. In: National Society of Veterinary Technical Groups (SNGTV) [French]. Available at: http://ovine.sngtv.pagesperso-orange.fr/ Boiteries. Accessed September 13, 2024.
39. Gelasakis AI, Oikonomou G, Bicalho RC, et al. Clinical characteristics of lameness and potential risk factors in intensive and semi-intensive dairy sheep flocks in Greece. Hellenic Vet Med Soc 2017; 64(2): 123-130.
40. Kaler J, Wassink GJ, Green LE. The inter- and intra-observer reliability of a locomotion scoring scale for sheep. Vet J 2009; 180(2): 189-194.
41. Winter A. Lameness in sheep 1. Diagnosis. In Practice 2004, 26(2): 58-63.
42. Raadsma HW, Egerton JR. A review of footrot in sheep: aetiology, risk factors and control methods. Livest Sci 2013; 156(1–3): 106-114.
43. Napolitano F, De Rosa G, Girolami A, et al. Avoidance distance in sheep: test-retest reliability and relationship with stockmen attitude. Small Rumin Res 2011; 99(2-3): 81-86
44. Muri K, Stubsjøen SM. Inter-observer reliability of Qualitative Behavioural Assessments (QBA) of housed sheep in Norway using fixed lists of descriptors. Anim Welf 2017; 26(4): 427-435.
45. Russell AL, Randall LV, Kaler J, et al. Use of qualitative behavioural assessment to investigate affective states of housed dairy cows under different environmental conditions. Front Vet Sci 2023; 10: 1099170. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1099170.
46. Diaz-Lundahl S, Hellestveit S, Stubsjøen SM, et al. Intra- and inter-observer reliability of qualitative behaviour assessments of housed sheep in Norway. Animals (Basel) 2019; 9(8): 569-583.
47. Phythian CJ, Michalopoulou E, Cripps PJ, et al. On-farm qualitative behaviour assessment in sheep: repeated measurements across time, and association with physical indicators of flock health and welfare. Applied Anim Behav Sci 2016; 175: 23-31.
48. Fleming PA, Clarke T, Wickham SL, et al. The contribution of qualitative behavioural assessment to appraisal of livestock welfare. Anim Prod Sci 2016; 56(10): 1569-1578.
Veterinary Research Forum
Volume 17, Issue 5
May 2026
Pages 297-304

  • Receive Date 08 March 2025
  • Revise Date 15 November 2025
  • Accept Date 06 January 2026

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us