Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T04:15:17.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inter-observer reliability of Qualitative Behavioural Assessments (QBA) of housed sheep in Norway using fixed lists of descriptors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

K Muri  and
SM Stubsjøen
K Muri
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 8146 Dep, N-0033 Oslo, Norway
SM Stubsjøen*
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 8146 Dep, N-0033 Oslo, Norway Norwegian Veterinary Institute, Department of Animal Health and Food Safety, Section for Terrestrial Animal Health and Welfare, PO Box 750 Sentrum, N-0106 Oslo, Norway
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Solveig-Marie.Stubsjoen@vetinst.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA) is a whole-animal approach used to quantify the expressive style of animals’ behaviour. The aim of this study was to evaluate the inter-observer reliability of principal components and individual descriptors from QBA of housed sheep in Norway using a fixed list of descriptors. In part 1, eight animal welfare inspectors from the Norwegian Food Safety Authority scored 12 two-minute video clips, using 12 pre-defined terms. In the second part, three of these observers visited ten sheep farms and scored the behaviour using a modified list of eight terms. The scores for all assessors within each part were analysed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The level of agreement for the first two components and for individual terms was assessed using Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W). In part 1, only seven observers were assessed for reliability of principal components due to missing data, and for these observers the agreement was high for PC1 and moderate for PC2. For the sub-group of three inspectors that also participated in part 2, the reliability was high for both components. In the on-farm assessments in part 2, these three observers obtained only moderate agreement for PC1 and low agreement for PC2. Results illustrate that good reliability can be achieved with QBA for housed sheep using videos, but that equally satisfactory reliability is more difficult to obtain using the method on-farm. The result in part 2 may be related to less-controlled circumstances concerning exactly what the observers see when sheep are kept indoors with high stocking densities, observer drift, and limited between-farm variation, which is a challenge for many types of reliability studies in field conditions.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourfixed list of descriptorsinter-observer reliabilityqualitative behavioural assessmentssheep
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , November 2017 , pp. 427 - 435
Copyright
© 2017 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreasen, SN, Wemelsfelder, F, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2013 The correlation of Qualitative Behavior Assessments with Welfare Quality® protocol outcomes in on-farm welfare assess-ment of dairy cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 143: 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Animalia 2016 Sauekontrollen 2015 årsmelding. Animalia: Oslo, Norway. [Title translation: Norwegian Sheep Recording System 2015 annual report]Google Scholar
AWIN 2015 AWIN welfare assessment protocol for sheep. https://doi.org/10.13130/AWIN_sheep_2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bøe, KE and Simensen, E 2003 Simple buildings for sheep - with emphasis on health and welfare. Proceedings of the Low-Cost Housing for Ruminants Seminar. 13-14 October 2003, Sørmarka, NorwayGoogle 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. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.3.307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brscic, M, Wemelsfelder, F, Tessitore, E, Gottardo, F, Cozzi, G and Van Reenen, CG 2009 Welfare assessment: Correlations and integration between a Qualitative Behavioural Assessment and a clinical/health protocol applied in veal calves farms. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8 (Supplement 2): 601-603. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.s2.601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, PA, Wickham, SL, Stockman, C, Verbeek, E, Matthews, L and Wemelsfelder, F 2015 The sensitivity of QBA assessments of sheep behavioural expressions in visual or verbal information provided to observers. Animal 9: 878–887. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114003164CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grosso, L, Battini, M, Wemelsfelder, F, Barbieri, S, Minero, M, Dalla, E and Silvana, C 2016 On-farm qualitative behaviour assessment of dairy goats in different housing conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 180: 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.04.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, PPG 1993 Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minero, M, Dalla Costa, E, Dai, F, Murray, LAM, Canali, E and Wemelsfelder, F 2016 Use of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment as an indicator of welfare in donkeys. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 174: 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2015.10.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muri, K, Stubsjøen, SM and Valle, PS 2013 Development and testing of an on-farm welfare assessment protocol for dairy goats. Animal Welfare 22: 385–400. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.3.385CrossRefGoogle 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: 73–79https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phythian, CJ, Michaelopoulou, E, Cripps, PJ, Duncan, JS and Wemelsfelder, F 2016 On-farm qualitative behaviour assess-ment in sheep: Repeated measurements across time, and association with physical indicators of flock health and welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 175: 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.11.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockman, CA, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, D, Wickham, SL, Verbeek, E, Matthews, L, Ferguson, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2014 Qualitative behavioural assessment of the motivation for feed in sheep in response to altered body condition score. Animal Production Science 54: 922–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubsjøen, SM, Hektoen, L, Valle, PS, Janczak, AM and Zanella, AJ 2011 Assessment of sheep welfare using on-farm reg-istrations and performance data. Animal Welfare 20: 239–252Google Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, De Graaf, S, Heerkens, JLT, Jacobs, L, Nalon, E, Ott, S, Stadig, L, Van Laer, E and Ampe, B 2014 Observer bias in animal behaviour research: can we believe what we score, if we score what we believe? Animal Behaviour 90: 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WelfareQuality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, AE, Paul, ES and Lawrence, AB 2012 Assessing pig body language: agreement and consistency between pig farmers, veterinarians, and animal activists. Journal of Animal Science 90: 3652–3665. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4691CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 for Layers and Broilers, Welfare Quality Reports No 9 pp 113–119. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Lawrence, AB 2001 Qualitative assess-ment of animal behaviour as an on-farm welfare-monitoring tool. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science 51: 21–25Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Millard, F 2009 Qualitative Behaviour Assessment. In: Forkman, B and Keeling, L (eds) Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Sows, Piglets and Fattening Pigs, Welfare Quality Reports No 10 pp 213–219. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Millard, F, De Rosa, G and Napolitano, F 2009b Qualitative Behaviour Assessment. In: Forkman, B and Keeling, L (eds) Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves, Welfare Quality Reports No 11 pp 215–224. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Mullan, S 2014 Applying ethological and health indicators to practical animal welfare assessment. Revue Scientifique et Technique - Office International des Epizooties 33: 111–120. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.33.1.2259CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wickham, SL, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, DW, Beatty, DT, Stockman, C, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2012 Qualitative behavioural assessment of transport-naïve and transport-habituated sheep. Journal of Animal Science 90: 4523–4535. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3451CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wickham, SL, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, DW, Beatty, DT, Stockman, C, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2015 Validating the use of qualitative behavioral assessment as a measure of welfare og sheep during transport. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 18: 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2015.1005302CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed