Reliability of qualitative behavior assessment (QBA) versus methods with predefined behavioral categories to evaluate maternal protective behavior in dairy cows

Ceballos, Maria Camila; Góis, Karen Camille Rocha; Sant’Anna, Aline Cristina; Wemelsfelder, Françoise; Costa, Mateus José Rodrigues Paranhos da

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105263

Cited by 15 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research has indicated that video QBA (V-QBA) results correlate with other welfare indicators ( 17 , 18 ). Furthermore, Ceballos et al ( 23 ) found that intra-observer and inter-observer reliability was strong for video V-QBA of dairy cattle, results complemented elsewhere ( 24 , 25 ). However, this was contrasted by Bokkers et al ( 21 ) who assessed inter- and intra-observer reliability of V-QBA, concluding that the technique was “ insufficiently reliable” due to high intra observer variability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 61%

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: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 61%

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

“…Behavior assessment has played a huge role in evaluating animal welfare [ 78 , 79 ], including for dairy cows [ 80 , 81 , 82 ]. Since behavior assessment can be a long-term task, the use of technology is crucial [ 16 ].…”

Section: Welfare Of Dairy Cows and Precision Livestock Farmingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Precision Technologies to Address Dairy Cattle Welfare: Focus on Lameness, Mastitis and Body Condition

Silva

Araújo

Guedes

et al. 2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Specific animal-based indicators that can be used to predict animal welfare have been the core of protocols for assessing the welfare of farm animals, such as those produced by the Welfare Quality project. At the same time, the contribution of technological tools for the accurate and real-time assessment of farm animal welfare is also evident. The solutions based on technological tools fit into the precision livestock farming (PLF) concept, which has improved productivity, economic sustainability, and animal welfare in dairy farms. PLF has been adopted recently; nevertheless, the need for technological support on farms is getting more and more attention and has translated into significant scientific contributions in various fields of the dairy industry, but with an emphasis on the health and welfare of the cows. This review aims to present the recent advances of PLF in dairy cow welfare, particularly in the assessment of lameness, mastitis, and body condition, which are among the most relevant animal-based indications for the welfare of cows. Finally, a discussion is presented on the possibility of integrating the information obtained by PLF into a welfare assessment framework.

show abstract

“…However, the author failed to find a relationship between maternal protectiveness and the cows' temperament in the peripartum period [17]. Ceballos et al [19] reported that Holstein-Gyr crossbred cows who were more aggressive during the handling of their calves tended to be characterized as more 'frightened' and 'active' than those regarded as 'loving' and 'attentive' towards their calves when assessed using a qualitative behavior assessment, evincing a possible relationship between maternal defensiveness and the maternal style of care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have aimed to investigate the maternal care and the expression of maternal protective behaviors in cattle herds, mainly focusing on beef cattle breeds [3,4,9,[14][15][16][17], and only a few have been conducted with dairy cattle [18,19]. This is a relevant question in cowcalf contact dairy systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is a relevant question in cowcalf contact dairy systems. For Zebu cattle (Bos taurus indicus), the maternal defensiveness behavior was assessed in beef Gyr, Brahman, and their crossbreed cows [14,17] and Holstein-Gyr crossbred dairy cows [19]. In the study of Pe ´rez-Torres et al [14], 90% of the cows displayed defensive behavior when the handler was close to the calf at 30 days after birth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is maternal defensiveness of Gyr cows (Bos taurus indicus) related to parity and cows’ behaviors during the peripartum period?

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The maternal care of cows can influence both the milk production and the performance of their calves, making this a topic of important relevance for the production industry that uses zebu cattle. The aims of this study were to 1) investigate the effects of parity on the behaviors of Gyr cows during the peripartum period; 2) characterize the maternal defensiveness of primiparous and multiparous cows towards handlers during the first handling of their calves; and 3) evaluate the relationships between cows’ behaviors at the peripartum period and maternal defensiveness. Thirty-one Gyr cows (primiparous and multiparous), from Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecuária de Minas Gerais (Brazil), were used. The animals were placed in a maternity paddock monitored by video cameras. The behaviors of the animals were collected in four periods: Pre-calving, Post-calving, First handling of calf and Post-handling. Primiparous cows presented more pain signs, reflected in arched spine (P = 0.05), and tended to move more (P = 0.07) than the multiparous in the Pre-calving period. Trends were observed for both Maternal Composite Score (P = 0.06) and Maternal Protective Behavior score (P = 0.06), indicating that both primiparous and multiparous were protective, but only multiparous cows were aggressive toward the caretakers on the first handling of their calves. The most protective cows spent more time eating during the prepartum period (P = 0.03), while the least attentive cows spent more time lying down (P = 0.02) in the prepartum period. The cows who nursed and stimulated their calves more were also calmer (P = 0.02) and more attentive (P = 0.01). In conclusion, the peripartum behaviors of Gyr cows were related to maternal care and maternal defensiveness. Multiparous cows tended to be more aggressive than primiparous cows at the time of the first handling of their calves.

show abstract

Reliability of qualitative behavior assessment (QBA) versus methods with predefined behavioral categories to evaluate maternal protective behavior in dairy cows

Cited by 15 publications

References 39 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?

Precision Technologies to Address Dairy Cattle Welfare: Focus on Lameness, Mastitis and Body Condition

Is maternal defensiveness of Gyr cows (Bos taurus indicus) related to parity and cows’ behaviors during the peripartum period?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About