Search

Das Working Paper "Wohnen und innerstädtische Segregation von Migranten in Deutschland" bildet den vierten Teil der Reihe "Integrationsreport". Einleitend wird ein Überblick über die Forschungslage und die wichtigsten Datenquellen gegeben. Anschließend werden die Haushaltsgröße und -zusammensetzung und die Wohnsituation von Migranten betrachtet und anhand verschiedener Indikatoren (u. a. Wohnungsgröße, Wohnungsausstattung, Bildung von Wohneigentum, Zufriedenheit mit den Wohnverhältnissen) mit der deutschen Bevölkerung verglichen. Dabei kommen Datenquellen wie der Mikrozensus und das Sozio-Ökonomische Panel zum Einsatz. Das dritte Kapitel widmet sich dem Thema "innerstädtische Segregation", also der Frage, wie stark Zuwanderer in Deutschland in bestimmten Stadtvierteln konzentriert wohnen und welche Auswirkungen dies auf ihren Integrationsprozess hat. Hierzu werden sowohl theoretische Überlegungen als auch aktuelle empirische Resultate vorgestellt, unter anderem anhand von Daten der vom Bundesamt durchgeführten "Repräsentativbefragung ausgewählter Migrantengruppen" (RAM)., The working paper "Housing and inner-city segregation of migrants in Germany" forms the fourth part of the "integration report" series. As an introduction, there is an overview of current research and the most important sources of data. Then the sizes of the households and their composition and the housing situation of migrants are looked at and are compared with the German population based on different indicators (including size and furnishings of accommodation, accumulation of home ownership, satisfaction with living conditions). Data sources such as the micro census and the socio-economic panel are also used. The third section then concentrates on the subject of "inner-city segregation", that is, the issue of the density of immigrants in Germany living in specific areas of the city and the implications this has on their integration. Both theoretical considerations and current empirical results are presented, including data from the "Representative survey of selected migrant groups (RAM)" gathered by the Federal Office.

The present study's aim was to test a German guideline for farm's self-monitoring in sows and piglets for its feasibility as well as its interobserver and test-retest reliability. The study was performed between September 2016 and April 2018 on 13 farrowing farms in Northern Germany. Contrary to the guideline, the testing was not carried out by the farmers themselves but by 2 observers with experience in pigs representing common farmers. For the interobserver reliability study, the observers performed 20 joint farm visits independently assessing the same animals. For the test-retest reliability study, each farm was visited 5 times by 1 observer (day 0, day 3, week 7, month 5, month 10). Farm visit 1 (day 0) was used as reference and compared with the remaining farm visits. The reliability was evaluated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and limits of agreement (LoA). As results, the guideline's feasibility was limited. The indicators' reliability also presented divergent results: All indicators in piglets revealed acceptable to good interobserver reliability (RS 0.64 to 0.77 ICC 0.33 to 0.48 LoA between the intervals -0.02 to 0.13 and -0.02 to 0.00). Contrarily, interobserver reliability was low for indicators in sows (e.g., claw alterations: RS -0.41 ICC 0.00 LoA -0.97 to 0.68). Overall acceptable test-retest reliability could be assigned to all indicators although no exact agreement existed but only the pursuit of trends is indicated. On the basis of the present results, the guideline in its present form cannot be recommended for farms' self-monitoring. Given the restricted applicability, it should be reconsidered whether it might not be more appropriate to use scientifically tested and generally accepted animal welfare assessment systems such as the Welfare Quality animal welfare assessment protocols, although their application is also time-consuming.

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

This study identifies iceberg indicators for welfare assessment in sows and piglets to enhance feasibility and sustainability of available protocols. Indicators of the Welfare Quality(R) protocol and of a German protocol were collected over 65 farm visits to 13 farms in Germany between September 2016 and April 2018. Data were analysed using partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). A hierarchical component model was built (animal welfare = higher-order, Welfare Quality(R) principles = lower-order components). In sows, welfare was revealed to be most influenced by the principles good housing, good health and appropriate behaviour (path coefficients = 0.77, 0.86, 0.91). High coefficients of determination R-2 indicated a large amount of explained variance (good housing R-2 = 0.59, good health R-2 = 0.75, appropriate behaviour R-2 = 0.83). Stereotypies was the indicator most valuable to assess sow welfare. Additionally, the final model included the indicators panting, shoulder sores, metritis, mortality and an indicator assessing stereotypies in resting animals (indicator reliabilities 0.54-0.88). However, the model did not include the indicators lameness and body condition, which may be due to the farm sample. Welfare of piglets was most explained by the indicators carpal joint lesions, mortality, sneezing and undersized animals (indicator reliabilities 0.48-0.86).

Simple Summary: The EU-funded Welfare Quality (R) project generated species-specific assessment protocols to evaluate the welfare of pigs, poultry, and cattle. With the implementation to be used for certification purposes, it is important that the protocols show consistency over time, which describes the extent to which equal results are achieved if the assessment is performed repetitively. The protocols should not be sensitive to slight changes in the on-farm situation but mirror the long-term welfare situation on-farm. The present study aimed at testing this consistency over time of the indicators included in the 'Welfare Quality (R) animal welfare assessment protocol for sows and piglets'. Thereby, the study focused on the indicators to assess the welfare principle 'appropriate behavior'. As a result, the indicators applied to assess the animals' 'appropriate behavior' did not represent consistency over time. Thus, further investigation is needed before implementation on-farm. Conclusively, the present study contributes to the development of generally accepted and objective assessment protocols for animal welfare and thereby to the improvement of farm animals' welfare overall. The present study's aim was to assess the test-retest reliability (TRR) of the 'Welfare Quality (R) animal welfare assessment protocol for sows and piglets' focusing on the welfare principle 'appropriate behavior'. TRR was calculated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), smallest detectable change (SDC), and limits of agreement (LoA). Principal component analysis (PCA) was used for deeper analysis of the Qualitative Behavior Assessment (QBA). The study was conducted on thirteen farms in Northern Germany, which were visited five times by the same observer. Farm visits 1 (F1; day 0) were compared to farm visits 2 to 5 (F2-F5). The QBA indicated no TRR when applying the statistical parameters introduced above (e.g., 'playful' (F1-F4) R

The present study aimed at testing the feasibility and on-farm test-retest reliability of the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for pigs applied to sows and piglets. The study was conducted on 13 farms in Northern Germany, which were visited 5 times by the same observer, and included 2 experimental setups: first, the complete Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for sows and piglets was applied to the farms. Second, additional assessments in the gestation unit considered all sows. The complete protocol assessments were used to evaluate the feasibility of the protocol. Furthermore, the data were analyzed with regard to on-farm test-retest reliability. The present publication focuses on the Welfare Quality principles good feeding, good housing, and good health, which are based on individual indicators (IN). The second experimental setup was utilized to verify the test-retest reliability of IN in the gestation unit with an increased number of animals under assessment. The test-retest reliability was calculated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), smallest detectable change (SDC), and limits of agreement (LoA). Farm visit 1 (F1; day 0) was set as a reference and compared with farm visits 2 to 5 (F2 to 5; day 3, week 7, month 5, month 10). The IN of the above-named Welfare Quality principles achieved mostly acceptable test-retest reliability (e.g., wounds on the body F1 to F4: RS 0.34 to 0.57, ICC 0.40 to 0.41, SDC 0.02 to 0.12, LoA [-0.03; 0.02] to [-0.09; 0.14]) in terms of the on-farm test-retest reliability. Poor test-retest reliability was detected for body condition score concerning the principle good feeding, for bursitis and panting in sows and for huddling and panting in piglets within the principle good housing, and finally for vulva lesions, metritis, and local infections in sows and for scouring and lameness in piglets in the principle good health. Variations among the farm visits, which resulted in