Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T08:48:04.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intra-day variation of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment outcomes in dairy cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2023

AK Gutmann ,
B Schwed ,
L Tremetsberger  and
C Winckler
AK Gutmann*
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel-Str 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
B Schwed
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel-Str 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
L Tremetsberger
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel-Str 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
C Winckler
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel-Str 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: anke.gutmann@boku.ac.at
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Qualitative Behaviour Assessment of cattle expression using a fixed rating scale of 20 descriptors is one of the measures of the Welfare Quality® (WQ) assessment protocol for dairy cattle. As for other on-farm measures of welfare, reliability is an important issue especially if farms are to be certified. This study investigated the repeatability of QBA results across three different observation times during the day (early morning, late morning, early afternoon). For this purpose, 13 observers assessed a total of 30 video clips from ten commercial dairy farms using visual analogue scales to score the 20 QBA terms. QBA scores for ‘emotional state’ were computed according to the Welfare Quality® protocol (WQ_QBA) and, additionally, a Principal Component Analysis was carried out. The latter revealed two main dimensions which may be described as ‘mood’ and ‘activity’, the former thus corresponding to the ‘emotional state’ score of the WQ protocol. Both for scores derived from the WQ protocol and from PCA, mixed model analysis for repeated measures revealed a significant effect of observation time depending on the farm. Mixed model analysis for repeated measures revealed a significant effect of observation time for three farms out of ten on both the WQ_QBA score and the PCA ‘mood’ dimension; a similar effect was found for eight out of ten farms for the PCA ‘activity’ dimension. These results indicate that observation time potentially affects WQ (and other QBA) outcomes on a proportion of farms. However, given that outcomes for WQ_QBA and PCA ‘mood’ were consistent for the majority of farms, procedures suggested in the Welfare Quality® protocol may constitute a reasonable compromise between reliability and feasibility. If the QBA assessment should reflect the ‘mean mood’, multiple assessments throughout the day may be carried out.

Keywords

animal welfaredairy cattleobservation timeQualitative Behaviour AssessmentreliabilityWelfare Quality®
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , August 2015 , pp. 319 - 326
Copyright
© 2015 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Andreasen, SN, Wemelsfelder, F, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2013 The correlation of Qualitative Behaviour Assessments with Welfare Quality®protocol outcomes in on-farm welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 143: 9–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Keeling, LJ, Gavinelli, A and Serratosa, J 2008 Animal welfare's impact on the food chain. Trends in Food Science and Technology 19: 79–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2008.09.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokkers, EAM, de Vries, M, Antonissen, ICMA and de Boer, IJM 2012 Inter-and intra-observer reliability of experienced and inexperienced observers for the Qualitative Behaviour Assessment in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 21: 307–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.3.307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVries, TJ and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2005 Time of feed delivery affects the feeding and lying patterns of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88: 625–631. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72726-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeVries, TJ, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Beauchemin, KA 2003 Short communication: Diurnal feeding pattern of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86: 4079–4082. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)74020-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Commission 2007 Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fleming, PA, Paisley, CL, Barnes, AL and Wemelsfelder, F 2013 Application of Qualitative Behavioural Assessment to hors-es during an endurance ride. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144:80–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houpt, KA 2011 Domestic Animal Behaviour for Veterinarians & Animal Scientists. Wiley-Blackwell: Ames, USAGoogle Scholar
Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2009 On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future per-spectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality®approach. Animal Welfare 18: 451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 2007 Measuring Behaviour. An Introductory Guide. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meagher, RK 2009 Observer ratings: Validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119:1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minero, M, Tosi, MV, Canali, E and Wemelsfelder, F 2009 Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the response of foals to the presence of an unfamiliar human. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116: 74–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napolitano, F, De Rosa, G, Grasso, F and Wemelsfelder, F 2012 Qualitative behaviour assessment of dairy buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 141: 91–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phythian, C, Michalopoulou, E, Duncan, J and Wemelsfelder, F 2013 Inter-observer reliability of Qualitative Behavioural Assessments of sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144: 73–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousing, T and Wemelsfelder, F 2006 Qualitative assessment of social behaviour of dairy cows housed in loose housing sys-tems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 40–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.12.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, KMD, Donald, RD, Lawrence, AB and Wemelsfelder, F 2012 Qualitative Behaviour Assessment of emotionality in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 139: 218–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.04.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stockman, CA, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, DW, Wickham, SL, Beatty, DT, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2011 Qualitative behavioural assessment and quantitative physiologi-cal measurement of cattle naïve and habituated to road transport. Animal Production Science 51: 240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AN10122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockman, CA, McGilchrist, P, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, D, Wickham, SL, Greenwood, PL, Cafe, LM, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2012 Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of Angus steers during pre-slaughter han-dling and relationship with temperament and physiological responses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 142: 125–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.10.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temple, D, Manteca, X, Dalmau, A and Velarde, A 2013 Assessment of test–retest reliability of animal-based measures on growing pig farms. Livestock Science 151: 35–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.10.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uher, J and Asendorpf, JB 2008 Personality assessment in Great Apes: Comparing ecologically valid behavior measures, behavior ratings, and adjective ratings. Journal of Research in Personality 42:821–838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009a Welfare Quality®Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009b Welfare Quality®Assessment Protocol for Pigs. Welfare Quality Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, TEA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2000 The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 193–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00093-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, TEA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2001 Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62: 209–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Knierim, U, Schulze Westerath, H, Lentfer, T, Staack, M and Sandilands, V 2009a Qualitative behaviour assessment. In: Forkman, B and Keeling, L (eds) Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Layers and Broilers pp 113–119. Welfare Quality Reports no 9, Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Millard, F 2009b Qualitative behaviour assessment. In: Forkman, B and Keeling, L (eds) Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Sows, Piglets and Fattening Pigs pp 213–219. Welfare Quality Reports no 10, Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Millard, F, De Rosa, G and Napolitano, F 2009c Qualitative Behaviour Assessment. In: Forkman, B and Keeling, L (eds) Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves pp 215–224. Welfare Quality Reports no11, Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Nevison, I and Lawrence, AB 2009d The effect of perceived environmental background on qualitative assessments of pig behaviour. Animal Behaviour 78: 477–484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winckler, C 2009 Verhalten der Rinder. In: Hoy, S (ed) Nutztierethologie. Ulmer: Stuttgart, Germany. [Title translation: Cattle Ethology]Google Scholar
Winckler, C, Bühnemann, A and Seidel, K 2002 Social behaviour of commercial dairy herds as a parameter for on-farm welfare assess-ment. In: Koene, P (ed) Proceedings of the 36th International Congress of the ISAE p 86. 6-10 August 2002, Egmond aan Zee, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar