Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T23:48:51.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sensitivity of the integrated Welfare Quality® scores to changing values of individual dairy cattle welfare measures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

S de Graaf ,
B Ampe ,
S Buijs ,
SN Andreasen ,
A De Boyer Des Roches ,
FJCM van Eerdenburg ,
MJ Haskell ,
MK Kirchner ,
L Mounier  and
M Radeski
...Show all authors
S de Graaf
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Burgemeester van Gansberghelaan 92, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
B Ampe
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Burgemeester van Gansberghelaan 92, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
S Buijs
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Burgemeester van Gansberghelaan 92, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
SN Andreasen
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Groennegaardsvej 8, DK-1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark
A De Boyer Des Roches
Affiliation:
Université de Lyon, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, 69280 Marcy-L’Étoile, France Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UMR1213 Herbivores, Equipe Comportement Animal, Robustesse et Approche Intégrée du Bien-Etre, 63122 Saint Genes Champanelle, France
FJCM van Eerdenburg
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands
MJ Haskell
Affiliation:
SRUC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
MK Kirchner
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Groennegaardsvej 8, DK-1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark
L Mounier
Affiliation:
Université de Lyon, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, 69280 Marcy-L’Étoile, France
M Radeski
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Center, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Lazar Pop-Trajkov 5-7, 1000 Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
C Winckler
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel Straße 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
J Bijttebier
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Burgemeester van Gansberghelaan 92, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
L Lauwers
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Burgemeester van Gansberghelaan 92, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
W Verbeke
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
FAM Tuyttens
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Burgemeester van Gansberghelaan 92, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Welfare Quality® (WQ) protocol for on-farm dairy cattle welfare assessment describes 33 measures and a step-wise method to integrate the outcomes into 12 criteria scores, grouped into four principle scores and into an overall welfare categorisation with four possible levels. The relative contribution of various welfare measures to the integrated scores has been contested. Using a European dataset (491 herds), we investigated: i) variation in sensitivity of integrated outcomes to extremely low and high values of measures, criteria and principles by replacing each actual value with minimum and maximum observed and theoretically possible values; and ii) the reasons for this variation in sensitivity. As intended by the WQ consortium, the sensitivity of integrated scores depends on: i) the observed value of the specific measures/criteria; ii) whether the change was positive/negative; and iii) the relative weight attributed to the measures. Additionally, two unintended factors of considerable influence appear to be side-effects of the complexity of the integration method. Namely: i) the number of measures integrated into criteria and principle scores; and ii) the aggregation method of the measures. Therefore, resource-based measures related to drinkers (which have been criticised with respect to their validity to assess absence of prolonged thirst), have a much larger influence on integrated scores than health-related measures such as ‘mortality rate’ and ‘lameness score’. Hence, the integration method of the WQ protocol for dairy cattle should be revised to ensure that the relative contribution of the various welfare measures to the integrated scores more accurately reflect their relevance for dairy cattle welfare.

Keywords

animal-based welfare indicatorsanimal welfaredairy cattleintegrated welfare indexsensitivity analysisWelfare Quality®
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , May 2018 , pp. 157 - 166
Copyright
© 2018 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bartussek, H, Leeb, C and Held, S 2000 Animal Needs Index for Cattle. ANI 35, L/2000. http://www.bartussek.at/veroeffentlichun-gen/511134991b0db8204/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Geers, R, Miele, M and Veissier, I 2003 Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: Transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12: 445–455Google Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Veissier, I, Miele, M and Jones, B 2010 The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding herd animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 60: 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2010.523480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Capdeville, J, Perny, P and Veissier, I 2008 Multicriteria evaluation of animal welfare at farm level: An appli-cation of MCDA methodologies. Foundation of Computing and Decision Sciences 33: 1–18Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007 Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225–228Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I and Perny, P 2009 Overall assessment of animal welfare: strategy adopted in Welfare Quality®. Animal Welfare 18: 363–370Google Scholar
Buijs, S, Ampe, B and Tuyttens, FAM 2016 Sensitivity of the Welfare Quality® broiler chicken protocol to differences between intensively reared indoor flocks: which factors explain overall classification? Animal 15: 1–10Google Scholar
de Graaf, S, Ampe, B and Tuyttens, FAM 2017 Assessing dairy cow welfare at the beginning and end of the indoor period using the Welfare Quality® protocol. Animal Welfare 26: 213–221. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.26.2.213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, IC, Hindle, VA, Butterworth, A, Engel, B, Ferrari, P, Gunnink, H, Moya, TP, Tuyttens, FAM and Van Reenen, CG 2016 Simplifying the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for broiler chicken welfare. Animal 10: 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115001706CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Vries, M, Bokkers, EAM, van Schaik, G, Botreau, Rl, Engel, B, Dijkstra, T and de Boer, IJM 2013 Evaluating results of the Welfare Quality® multi-criteria evaluation model for clas-sification of dairy cattle welfare at the herd level. Journal of Dairy Science 96: 6264–6273. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1992 FAWC updates the Five Freedoms. Veterinary Record 17: 357Google Scholar
Heath, CAE, Browne, WJ, Mullan, S and Main, DCJ 2014 Navigating the iceberg: reducing the number of parameters with-in the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for dairy cows. Animal 8: 1978–1986. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114002018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2009 On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future per-spectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach. Animal Welfare 18: 451–458Google Scholar
Lievaart, JJ and Noordhuizen, JPTM 2011 Ranking experts’ preferences regarding measures and methods of assessment of wel-fare in dairy herds using Adaptive Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 3420–3427. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, BH, Angelucci, A, Scalvenzi, A, Forkman, B, Fusi, F, Tuyttens, F, Houe, H, Blokhuis, H, Sørensen, JT, Rothmann, J, Matthews, L, Mounier, L, Bertocchi, L, Richard, M, Donati, M, Nielsen, PP, Salini, R, de Graaf, S, Hild, S, Messori, S, Nielsen, SS, Lorenzi, V, Boivin, X and Thomsen, PT 2014 Use of animal based measures for the assessment of dairy cow welfare-ANIBAM. EFSA External Scientific Report. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/it/supporting/pub/659eGoogle Scholar
Reece, WO 2009 Functional Anatomy and Physiology of Domestic Animals. John Wiley & Sons: Iowa, USAGoogle Scholar
Schütz, KE, Rogers, AR, Poulouin, YA, Cox, NR and Tucker, CB 2010 The amount of shade influences the behavior and phys-iology of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 125–133. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprenger, M, Vangestel, C and Tuyttens, FAM 2009 Measuring thirst in broiler chickens. Animal Welfare 18: 553–560Google Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, Federici, JF, Vanderhasselt, RF, Goethals, K, Duchateau, L, Sans, ECO and Molento, CFM 2015 Assessment of welfare of Brazilian and Belgian broiler flocks using the Welfare Quality® protocol. Poultry Science 94: 1758–1766. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev167CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuyttens, FAM, Vanhonacker, F, Van Poucke, E and Verbeke, W 2010 Quantitative verification of the correspon-dence between the Welfare Quality® operational definition of herd animal welfare and the opinion of Flemish herders, citizens and vegetarians. Livestock Science 131: 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderhasselt, RF, Buijs, S, Sprenger, M, Goethals, K, Willemsen, H, Duchateau, L and Tuyttens, FAM 2013 Dehydration indicators for broiler chickens at slaughter. Poultry Science 92: 612–619. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02715CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanderhasselt, RF, Goethals, K, Buijs, S, Federici, JF, Sans, ECO, Molento, CFM, Duchateau, L and Tuyttens, FAM 2014 Performance of an animal-based test of thirst in commercial broiler chicken herds. Poultry Science 93: 1327–1336. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Jensen, KK, Botreau, R and Sandøe, P 2011 Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal wel-fare in the Welfare Quality® scheme. Animal Welfare 20: 89–101Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® Consortium 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Webster, AJF and Green, LE 2003 Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of herd records. The Veterinary Record 153: 197–202. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.153.7.197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

de Graaf et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 108 KB
Supplementary material: File

de Graaf et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 101.7 KB