Trained-user opinion about Welfare Quality measures and integrated scoring of dairy cattle welfare

Abstract

The Welfare Quality (WQ) protocol for on-farm dairy cattle welfare assessment describes 27 measures and a stepwise method for integrating values for these measures into 11 criteria scores, grouped further into 4 principle scores and finally into an overall welfare categorization with 4 levels. We conducted an online survey to examine whether trained users' opinions of the WQ protocol for dairy cattle correspond with the integrated scores (criteria, principles, and overall categorization) calculated according to the WQ protocol. First, the trained users' scores (n = 8-15) for reliability and validity and their ranking of the importance of all measures for herd welfare were compared with the degree of actual effect of these measures on the WQ integrated scores. Logistic regression was applied to identify the measures that affected the WQ overall welfare categorization into the "not classified" or "enhanced" categories for a database of 491 European herds. The smallest multivariate model maintaining the highest percentage of both sensitivity and specificity for the "enhanced" category contained 6 measures, whereas the model for "not classified" contained 4 measures. Some of the measures that were ranked as least important by trained users (e.g., measures relating to drinkers) had the highest influence on the WQ overall welfare categorization. Conversely, measures rated as most important by the trained users (e.g., lameness and mortality) had a lower effect on the WQ overall category. In addition, trained users were asked to allocate criterion and overall welfare scores to 7 focal herds selected from the database (n = 491 herds). Data on all WQ measures for these focal herds relative to all other herds in the database were provided. The degree to which expert scores corresponded to each other, the systematic difference, and the correspondence between median trained-user opinion and the WQ criterion scores were then tested. The level of correspondence between expert scoring and WQ scoring for 6 of the 12 criteria and for the overall welfare score was low. The WQ scores of the protocol for dairy cattle thus lacked correspondence with trained users on the importance of several welfare measures.

Should the Contribution of One Additional Lame Cow Depend on How Many Other Cows on the Farm Are Lame?

“…They also show the mechanisms in the WQ system that give rise to this problematic sort of compensation. In addition, our findings are in line with [ 14 ], who found a low level of correspondence between the overall WQ welfare score and scoring by experts. Our findings relating to (3), agreement between experts, point in the same direction.…”

What Is so Positive about Positive Animal Welfare?—A Critical Review of the Literature

“…However, there have only been few attempts to explain and justify, firstly, how to add up these measures to give an account of the net welfare of the affected animals and, secondly, how to draw lines between positive, neutral and negative welfare states. So far the most developed attempt to do this in the Welfare Quality ® project has attracted severe criticisms of both a conceptual and an ethical nature [61,62,63,64].…”

A survey of selected animal-based measures of dairy cattle welfare in the Eastern Alps: Toward context-based thresholds

“…One approach is to ask experts for their opinion regarding unacceptable/acceptable thresholds above/below which welfare would be compromised. Experts have also been asked to rank ABM according to their relative importance (de Graaf et al, 2017). This approach aims to identify acceptable welfare conditions in terms of effect on the animal; it was applied by the WQ Consortium (WQ, 2009) among others to assessment protocols for indoor systems and, later, for pasture-based systems (Burow et al, 2013).…”