Qualitative behavioural assessment and quantitative physiological measurement of cattle naïve and habituated to road transport

Stockman, C.; Collins, Teresa; Barnes, Anne; Miller, David; Wickham, Sarah L.; Beatty, D.T.; Blache, Dominique; Wemelsfelder, Françoise; Fleming, Patricia A.

doi:10.1071/an10122

Cited by 104 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…QBA terms showed significant correlations with animal based welfare parameters, such as physiological parameters (Stockman et al 2011) and quantitative ethograms (Rutherford et al 2012;Rousing and Wemelsfelder 2006). QBA is thereby increasingly applied to assess animal welfare (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Originally, QBA has been designed to assess animal welfare, and has as such been applied to a wide range of species (pigs: Wemelsfelder et al 2000;Wemelsfelder et al 2001;Rutherford et al 2012; dairy and beef cattle: Rousing and Wemelsfelder 2006;Stockman et al 2011;sheep: Phythian et al 2013;horses: Napolitano et al 2008;and dogs: Walker et al 2010). QBA terms showed significant correlations with animal based welfare parameters, such as physiological parameters (Stockman et al 2011) and quantitative ethograms (Rutherford et al 2012;Rousing and Wemelsfelder 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Same Pig, Different Conclusions: Stakeholders Differ in Qualitative Behaviour Assessment

Duijvesteijn

Benard

Reimert

et al. 2014

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal welfare in pig production is frequently a topic of debate and is sensitive in nature. This debate is partly due to differences in values, forms, convictions, interests and knowledge among the stakeholders that constitute differences among their frames of reference with respect to pigs and their welfare. Differences in frames of reference by stakeholder groups are studied widely, but not specifically with respect to animal behaviour or welfare. We explored this phenomenon using a qualitative behaviour assessment (QBA). Participating stakeholders were classified into two expert groups consisting of pig farmers (N = 11) and animal scientists (N = 18) and a lay-group consisting of urban citizens (N = 15). The stakeholders were asked to observe the behaviour of a specific pig in each of the nine videos and to assign a score for each video using 21 predefined terms describing the mood, such as 'happy' or 'irritated'. They were asked to complete two additional questionnaires to obtain information on their frames of reference. Results from the QBA showed -014-9513-z that the pig farmers observed the behaviour of pigs more positively than the urban citizens and the animal scientists. This was evident from the consistently higher scores on the positive terms to assess pig behaviour. The questionnaires revealed that the farmers had a different frames of reference regarding pigs and different understanding of welfare, which might explain the differences in assessment. In a follow-up stakeholder workshop, which focussed on differences in observation, QBA showed to be an effective tool to stimulate mutual learning among stakeholders, which is necessary to find shared solutions.123 J Agric Environ Ethics (2014) 27:1019-1047 DOI 10.1007/s10806

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Same Pig, Different Conclusions: Stakeholders Differ in Qualitative Behaviour Assessment

Duijvesteijn

Benard

Reimert

et al. 2014

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…QBA can take one of two forms, the free-choice profiling format where descriptive terms are elicited from the assessors themselves, or the fixed term format where designated terms are rated by assessors according to what they find, and is the form found in the Welfare Quality ® protocols. Compared to the free-choice profiling format, where QBA has been associated with physiological welfare indicators in cattle and steers (Stockman et al, 2011 and, and induced emotional states in pigs (Rutherford et al, 2012), QBA as part of the Welfare Quality ® protocol has not been found to be associated with other measures in veal calves (Brscic et al, 2009), or beef cattle (Kirchner et al, 2012). In terms of inter-assessor agreement, the evidence is also mixed for the fixed term format with high levels of inter-observer agreement having been reported in sheep (Phythian et al, 2013), but only 'slight to moderate' agreement for Welfare Quality ® QBA in dairy cows (Bokkers et al, 2012).…”

Section: Heath Browne Mullan and Mainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating the iceberg: reducing the number of parameters within the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for dairy cows

Heath

Browne

Mullan

et al. 2014

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Welfare Quality ® protocols provide a multidimensional assessment of welfare, which is lengthy, and hence limited in terms of practicality. The aim of this study was to investigate potential 'iceberg indicators' which could reliably predict the overall classification as a means of reducing the length of time for an assessment and so increase the feasibility of the Welfare Quality ® protocol as a multidimensional assessment of welfare. Full Welfare Quality ® assessments were carried out on 92 dairy farms in England and Wales. The farms were all classified as Acceptable or Enhanced. Logistic regression models with cross validation were used to compare model fit for the overall classification on farms. 'Absence of prolonged thirst', on its own, was found to correctly classify farms 88% of the time. More generally, the inclusion of more measures in the models was not associated with greater predictive ability for the overall classification. Absence of prolonged thirst could thus, in theory, be considered to be an iceberg indicator for the Welfare Quality ® protocol, and could reduce the length of time for a farm assessment to 15 min. Previous work has shown that the parameters within the Welfare Quality ® protocol are important and relevant for welfare assessment. However, it is argued that the credibility of the published aggregation system is compromised by the finding that one resource measure (Absence of prolonged thirst) is a major driver for the overall classification. It is therefore suggested that the prominence of Absence of prolonged thirst in this role may be better understood as an unintended consequence of the published measure aggregation system rather than as reflecting a realistic iceberg indicator.

show abstract

“…These data are analysed by Generalised Procrustes Analysis (GPA), which identifies common patterns in the use of descriptive terms, followed by a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) to simplify the data into two or three main dimensions. QBA scores generated through the FCP methodology have been validated against physiological parameters (Stockman et al, 2011;2012;Wickham et al, 2012; as well as quantitative behavioural measurements (Napolitano et al, 2008;Stockman et al, 2014). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are observer ratings influenced by prescription? A comparison of Free Choice Profiling and Fixed List methods of Qualitative Behavioural Assessment

Clarke

Pluske

Fleming

2016

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tel: +61 8 93606577Running head: comparing two methods of rater scales for behaviour assessment Word count: 5,300 words Highlights: Reliability of rater assessments depends on understanding how observers apply descriptive terms. We compared two methodologies, Fixed List (FL) and Free Choice Profiling. Observers reached consensus using either FL or FCP methods. There were correlations in scores attributed to groups of sows between FL and FCP. Training is an important aspect of reliability of rater assessments.Abstract. Qualitative methods of behavioural assessment use observer rating scales to score the overall demeanour or body language of animals. Establishing the reliability of such holistic approaches requires test and validation of the methods used. Here, we compare two methodologies used in Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA): Fixed-Lists (FL) and Free-Choice Profiling (FCP). A laboratory class of 27 students was separated into two groups of 17 and 10 students (FL and FCP respectively). The FL group were given a list of 20 descriptive terms (used by the European Union's Welfare Quality ® program), shown videos of group-housed sows, and as a group discussed how they would apply the descriptive terms in an assessment. The FCP group were shown the same footage but individually generated their own descriptive terms to describe body language of the animals. Both groups were then shown 18 video clips of group-housed sows and scored each clip using a visual analogue scale (VAS) system. We analysed the VAS scores using Generalised Procrustes Analysis (GPA) for each observer group separately, which indicated high inter-observer reliability for both groups (FL: 71.1% of scoring variation explained, and FCP: 63.5%). There were significant correlations between FL and FCP scores (GPA dimension 1: r 16 =0.946, P<0.001, GPA dimension 2: r 16 =0.477, P=0.045). Additional analysis of the raw VAS scores for the FL group by Principal Component Analysis (PCA) produced four factors; PC1 scores were correlated with GPA1 (r 16 =0.984, P<0.001) and PC3 scores correlated with GPA2 (r 16 =0.880, P<0.001).Kendall's coefficient of concordance (a measure of observer agreement) of the VAS scores indicated statistically significant agreement in use of the 20 descriptive terms (W range 0.37-0.64; all significant at P<0.001, although a value of W >0.7 is usually accepted to show strong agreement). This study demonstrates that, regardless of whether they are given their terms or are allowed to generate their own, observers score sow body language in a similar way. Strengths and weaknesses within the two methods were identified, which highlight the importance of providing thorough and consistent training of observers, including providing good quality training footage so that the full repertoire of demeanours can be identified.

show abstract

Qualitative behavioural assessment and quantitative physiological measurement of cattle naïve and habituated to road transport

Abstract: The present study examined whether observers could distinguish between cattle that are naïve to road transport and the same cattle after becoming more habituated to transport. The behavioural expression of cattle was assessed through the method of qualitative behavioural assessment (QBA)

Cited by 104 publications

References 34 publications

Same Pig, Different Conclusions: Stakeholders Differ in Qualitative Behaviour Assessment

Same Pig, Different Conclusions: Stakeholders Differ in Qualitative Behaviour Assessment

Navigating the iceberg: reducing the number of parameters within the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for dairy cows

Are observer ratings influenced by prescription? A comparison of Free Choice Profiling and Fixed List methods of Qualitative Behavioural Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About