Qualitative behaviour assessment as part of a welfare assessment in flocks of laying hens

Vasdal, Guro; Muri, Karianne; Stubsjøen, Solveig Marie; Moe, Randi Oppermann; Kittelsen, Käthe Elise

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105535

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Each term was considered a factor, and these were reduced to principal components allowing for each assessment to be summarised to one point. Principal components were defined as mood, arousal, and alertness, this was based on the Welfare Quality Protocol ( 8 ) and in-line with descriptions in the literature ( 17 , 39 – 42 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

V-QBA vs. QBA—How Do Video and Live Analysis Compare for Qualitative Behaviour Assessment?

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal welfare is an inextricable part of livestock production and sustainability. Assessing welfare, beyond physical indicators of health, is challenging and often relies on qualitative techniques. Behaviour is a key component of welfare to consider and Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) aims to achieve this by systematically scoring behaviour across specific terms. In recent years, numerous studies have conducted QBA by using video footage, however, the method was not originally developed using video and video QBA (V-QBA) requires validation. Forty live QBAs were conducted, by two assessors, on housed beef cattle to help fill this validation gap. Video was recorded over the assessment period and a second video assessment was conducted. Live and video scores for each term were compared for both correlation and significant difference. Principle component analysis (PCA) was then conducted and correlations and differences between QBA and V-QBA for the first two components were calculated. Of the 20 terms, three were removed due to an overwhelming majority of scores of zero. Of the remaining 17 terms, 12 correlated significantly, and a significant pairwise difference was found for one (“Bored”). QBA and V-QBA results correlated across both PC1 (defined as “arousal”) and PC2 (defined as “mood”). Whilst there was no significant difference between the techniques for PC1, there was for PC2, with V-QBA generally yielding lower scores than QBA. Furthermore, based on PC1 and PC2, corresponding QBA and V-QBA scores were significantly closer than would be expected at random. Results found broad agreement between QBA and V-QBA at both univariate and multivariate levels. However, the lack of absolute agreement and muted V-QBA results for PC2 mean that caution should be taken when implementing V-QBA and that it should ideally be treated independently from live QBA until further evidence is published. Future research should focus on a greater variety of animals, environments, and assessors to address further validation of the method.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

V-QBA vs. QBA—How Do Video and Live Analysis Compare for Qualitative Behaviour Assessment?

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A randomly or systematically selected sample of the flock, is scanned rapidly, and the number of animals performing each behaviour recorded, alongside a note of the total number of animals present in the chosen area at the time of the scan. This approach allows an estimation of behavioural frequencies, but it is not sensitive enough to quantify the occurrence of sporadic behaviours or those of very brief duration (Vasdal et al., 2022b).…”

Section: Appendix F – Measuring Welfare Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare of laying hens on farm

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2023

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of laying hens, pullets and layer breeders on farm. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal‐based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. The highly relevant welfare consequences based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence are bone lesions, group stress, inability to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour, inability to perform comfort behaviour, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, isolation stress, predation stress, resting problems, restriction of movement, skin disorders and soft tissue lesions and integument damage. The welfare consequences of non‐cage compared to cage systems for laying hens are described and minimum enclosure characteristics are described for laying hens, pullets and layer breeders. Beak trimming, which causes negative welfare consequences and is conducted to reduce the prevalence and severity of pecking, is described as well as the risks associated with rearing of non‐beak‐trimmed flocks. Alternatives to reduce sharpness of the beak without trimming are suggested. Finally, total mortality, plumage damage, wounds, keel bone fractures and carcass condemnations are the most promising ABMs for collection at slaughterhouses to monitor the level of laying hen welfare on farm. Main recommendations include housing all birds in non‐cage systems with easily accessible, elevated platforms and provision of dry and friable litter and access to a covered veranda. It is further recommended to implement protocols to define welfare trait information to encourage progress in genetic selection, implement measures to prevent injurious pecking, rear pullets with dark brooders and reduce male aggression in layer breeders.

show abstract

“…QBA results have been shown to be concurrent with some physical health indicators in different species (38)(39)(40) and other behavioural tests linked to affect (39,41). This is however not always the case, with other studies finding no correlations between QBA results and physical health indicators (42)(43)(44) or wider farm assurance assessment protocols (45). The technique has identified biologically plausible differences in behavioural expression and associated affective states in dairy cows infected with mastitis (38), in both positive and negative social situations (46) and between cows from tethered and loose housing systems (47).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Use of qualitative behavioural assessment to investigate affective states of housed dairy cows under different environmental conditions

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In addition to the reduction of suboptimal welfare, there is now a need to provide farmed animals with positive opportunities to provide confidence that they have experienced a life worth living. Diversification of the environment through environmental enrichment strategies is one suggested avenue for providing animals with opportunities for positive experiences. The provision of more stimulating environmental conditions has been widely implemented in other animal production industries, based on evidenced welfare benefits. However, the implementation of enrichment on dairy farms is limited. In addition to this, the relationship between enrichment and dairy cows' affective states is an under-researched area. One specific welfare benefit of enrichment strategies which has been observed in a number of species, is increased affective wellbeing. This study investigated whether the provision of different forms of environmental enrichment resources would impact the affective states of housed dairy cows. This was measured by Qualitative Behavioural Assessment, currently a promising positive welfare indicator. Two groups of cows experienced three treatment periods; (i) access to an indoor novel object, (ii) access to an outdoor concrete yard and (iii) simultaneous access to both resources. Principal component analysis was used to analyse qualitative behavioural assessment scores, which yielded two principal components. The first principal component was most positively associated with the terms “content/relaxed/positively occupied” and had the most negative associations with the terms ‘fearful/bored'. A second principal component was most positively associated with the terms “lively/inquisitive/playful” and was most negatively associated with the terms “apathetic/bored”. Treatment period had a significant effect on both principal components, with cows being assessed as more content, relaxed and positively occupied and less fearful and bored, during periods of access to additional environmental resources. Similarly, cows were scored as livelier, more inquisitive and less bored and apathetic, during treatment periods compared to standard housing conditions. Concurrent with research in other species, these results suggest that the provision of additional environmental resources facilitates positive experiences and therefore enhanced affective states for housed dairy cows.

show abstract

Qualitative behaviour assessment as part of a welfare assessment in flocks of laying hens

Cited by 14 publications

References 36 publications

V-QBA vs. QBA—How Do Video and Live Analysis Compare for Qualitative Behaviour Assessment?

V-QBA vs. QBA—How Do Video and Live Analysis Compare for Qualitative Behaviour Assessment?

Welfare of laying hens on farm

Use of qualitative behavioural assessment to investigate affective states of housed dairy cows under different environmental conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About