The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement

Wemelsfelder, Françoise; Hunter, E. A.; Mendl, Michael; Lawrence, Alistair B.

doi:10.1016/s0168-1591(99)00093-3

Cited by 238 publications

(186 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

177

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA) makes use of observers to score animals against descriptive terms of the animals' qualitative behavioural expression using visual analogue scales (VAS). Behavioural expression is not what the animals are doing, but how it goes about doing what it is doing (Wemelsfelder et al, 2000;2001). QBA therefore captures the body language or demeanour of an individual in a dynamic, integrated measure (Stevenson-Hinde, 1983;Feaver et al, 1986;Wemelsfelder, 1997;2007).…”

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

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

show abstract

“…QBA is a 'whole-animal' methodology based on the qualitative interpretation of the dynamic style in which animals interact with their environment (Wemelsfelder et al, 2000 and. QBA describes not 'what' the animals do but 'how' they do what they do (Wemelsfelder et al, 2009).…”

Section: Lau Pluske and Flemingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such descriptive terms have an expressive, emotional connotation, and provide information that appears relevant to animal welfare (Dawkins, 2015) and could be a useful addition to quantitative indicators. QBA has been used as part of behaviour assessments for a range of species including adult pigs (Wemelsfelder et al, 2000(Wemelsfelder et al, , 2001(Wemelsfelder et al, and 2009Temple et al, 2011;Rutherford et al, 2012) and piglets (Morgan et al, 2014). QBA scores are correlated with quantitative measures of behaviour (e.g.…”

Section: Lau Pluske and Flemingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…each experimental challenge) were analysed together in a single Generalised Procrustes Analysis (GPA) (GenStat software edition, VSN International, Hemal Hempstead, Hertfordshire, UK). This multivariate analysis determines common pattern in observer scores, assuming that even if observers use different variables (terms) for measurement, the distances between samples (pigs) will be comparable (Wemelsfelder et al, 2000 and. The percentage of variation in the data matrices explained by a consensus profile is summarised as the Procrustes Statistic, which is compared with the mean Procrustes Statistic calculated for 100 randomised data matrices using a one-sided Student's t-test statistic (Wemelsfelder et al, 2000).…”

Section: Lau Pluske and Flemingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This multivariate analysis determines common pattern in observer scores, assuming that even if observers use different variables (terms) for measurement, the distances between samples (pigs) will be comparable (Wemelsfelder et al, 2000 and. The percentage of variation in the data matrices explained by a consensus profile is summarised as the Procrustes Statistic, which is compared with the mean Procrustes Statistic calculated for 100 randomised data matrices using a one-sided Student's t-test statistic (Wemelsfelder et al, 2000). Principal Component Analysis was then used to reduce the number of dimensions of the consensus profile to two or three principal dimensions.…”

Section: Lau Pluske and Flemingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Does the environmental background (intensive v. outdoor systems) influence the behaviour of piglets at weaning?

Lau

Pluske

Fleming

2015

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under intensive pig husbandry, outdoor systems offer a more complex physical and social environment compared with indoor systems (farrowing sheds). As the rearing environment affects behavioural development, it can, therefore, influence behavioural responses of pigs to stressful environments in later stages of production. We tested how the rearing environment influenced behavioural responses to a novel arena test in piglets on the day that they were weaned and mixed into large groups. We recorded video footage and compared the behavioural responses of 30 outdoor-raised and 30 farrowing shed-raised piglets tested in an experimental arena and sequentially exposed to four challenges (each for 5 min) on the day of weaning. Quantitative and qualitative behavioural measures were recorded using time budgets and scoring demeanour or 'qualitative behavioural expression' (using Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA)). When held in isolation (challenge 1), both groups were scored as more 'scared/ worried', while outdoor-raised piglets spent more time eating and jumping against the arena walls. Both groups interacted with a plastic ball (challenge 2: exposure to a novel object) during which they were scored as more 'playful/curious' than other challenges. When a food bowl was introduced (challenge 3), farrowing shed-raised piglets were more interested in playing with the food bowl itself, whereas outdoor-raised piglets spent more time eating the feed. Finally, there were no significant differences in social behaviour (challenge 4: introduction of another piglet) between the two groups in terms of the latency to contact each other, amount of time recorded engaged in aggressive/non-aggressive social interactions or QBA scores. Although piglets spent 30% of their time interacting with the other piglet, and half of this time (47%) was engaged in negative interactions (pushing, biting), the levels of aggression were not different between the two groups. Overall, outdoor-raised piglets ate more and were scored as more 'calm/passive', whereas farrowing shed-raised piglets spent more time investigating their environment and were scored as more 'playful/inquisitive'. In conclusion, we did not find differences in behaviour between outdoor-raised and farrowing shed-raised piglets that would highlight welfare issues. The differences found in this study may reflect conflicting affective states, with responses to confinement, neophobia and motivation for exploration evident.Keywords: assessment, behaviour, free-range, piggery, piglet ImplicationsThe day of weaning is particularly challenging both physiologically and psychologically for piglets, and the behaviour of piglets towards their environment and each other affects their overall welfare. One of the concerns for the pork industry is that confinement housing can detrimentally influence social behaviour; however, we found no differences in aggressive or non-aggressive social interactions. Piglets raised under the confinement system demonstrated more exploratory behaviour, whereas ou...

show abstract

References

2003

Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement

Cited by 238 publications

References 26 publications

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

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

Does the environmental background (intensive v. outdoor systems) influence the behaviour of piglets at weaning?

References

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About