Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:34:30.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future perspectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

U Knierim  and
C Winckler
U Knierim*
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry, Faculty of Organic Agricultural Science, University of Kassel, Nordbahnhofstr 1a, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
C Winckler
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel-Str 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: knierim@wiz.uni-kassel.de
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.

This paper discusses the current state of development of on-farm cattle welfare assessment systems with special regard to the approach of Welfare Quality® that focuses on animal-related measures. The central criteria validity, reliability and feasibility are considered with regard to selected welfare measures. All welfare measures incorporated into the Welfare Quality® protocol possess face validity, but for most of them construct or criterion validity as, eg shown for lameness, have not been demonstrated. Exemplarily the cases of qualitative behaviour assessment and measurement of avoidance distance towards humans or social licking are discussed. Reliability issues have often been neglected in the past and require more thorough investigation and discussion in the future, especially with respect to appropriate test statistics and limits of acceptability. Means of improving reliability are the refinement of definitions or recording methods and training. Consistency of results over time requires further attention, especially if farms are to be certified, based on infrequent recordings. Considering feasibility, time constraints are the main concern for assessment systems that focus seriously on animal-based measures; currently they require several hours of on-farm recordings, eg about 6 h for a herd of 60 dairy cows. The Welfare Quality® project has promoted knowledge and discussion about validity, reliability and feasibility issues. Many welfare measures applied in the Welfare Quality® on-farm assessment approach can be regarded sufficiently valid, reliable and feasible. However, there are still a considerable number of challenges. They should be tackled while using the present assessment system in order to constantly improve it.

Keywords

animal welfarecattlecertificationreliabilityvaliditywelfare assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2009 , pp. 451 - 458
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Aureli, F, Preston, SD and de Waal, FB 1999 Heart rate responses to social interactions in free-moving rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta): A pilot study. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 113: 59–65CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bahr, C, Leroy, T, Song, XiangYu, Maertens, W, Vranken, E, van Nuffel, A, Vangeyte, J, Sonck, B and Berckmans, D 2008 Automatic detection of lameness in dairy cattle by vision analysis of cows’ gait. Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering for a Sustainable World. International Conference on Agricultural Engineering. 23-25 June 2008, Hersonissos, GreeceGoogle Scholar
Bartussek, H 2001 An historical account of the development of the animal needs index ANI-35L as part of the attempt to promote and regulate farm animal welfare in Austria: An example of the interaction between animal welfare science and society. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A Animal Science Supplementum 30: 34–41Google 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
Boccia, M, Reite, M and Laudenslager, M 1989 On the physiology of grooming in a pigtail macaque. Physiology & Behavior 45: 667–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A, Manteuffel, G, Jensen, MB, Oppermann Moe, R, Spruijt, BM, Keeling, L, Winckler, C, Forkman, B, Dimitrov, I, Langbein, J, Bakken, M, Veissier, I and Aubert, A 2007 Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology & Behavior 92: 375–397CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borderas, TF, Fournier, A, Rushen, J and de Passillé, AM 2008 Effects of lameness on dairy cows’ visits to automatic milking systems. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 88: 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I and Perny, P 2009 Overall assessment of cow welfare; strategy adopted in Welfare Quality® Animal Welfare 18: 363–370Google 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
Bracke, MBM, Metz, JHM and Spruijt, BM 2001 Development of a decision support system to assess farm animal welfare. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A Animal Science Supplementum 30: 17–20Google Scholar
Brenninkmeyer, C, Dippel, S, March, S, Brinkmann, J, Winckler, C and Knierim, U 2007 Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16: 127–129Google Scholar
Broom, DM 1991 Animal welfare: Concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175Google Scholar
Byrt, T, Bishop, J and Carlin, JB 1993 Bias, prevalence and kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 46: 423–429CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, MS 2004 Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Animal Welfare 13: 3–7Google Scholar
de Passillé, AM and Rushen, J 2005 Can we measure human-animal interactions in on-farm animal welfare assessment? Some unresolved issues. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92: 193–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Rosa, G, Tripaldi, C, Napolitano, F, Grasso, F, Bisegna, V and Bordi, V 2003 Repeatability of some animal related variables in dairy cows and buffaloes. Animal Welfare 12: 625–629Google Scholar
Emmerig, H 2004 Behavioural indicators of good welfare in dairy cows, an exploratory approach. Bachelor Thesis, Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Engel, B, Bruin, G, Andre, G and Buist, W 2003 Assessment of observer performance in a subjective scoring system: visual classification of the gait of cows. Journal of Agricultural Science 140: 317–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleiss, JL, Levin, B and Paik, MC 2003 Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions pp 598–626. John Wiles & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, AF and Broom, DM 1990 Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Third Edition. Baillière Tindall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Johnsen, PF, Johannesson, T and Sand⊘e, P 2001 Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: Many goals, many methods. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A Animal Science Supplementum 30: 26–33Google Scholar
Keverne, EB, Martensz, ND and Tuite, B 1989 Beta-endorphin concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid of monkeys are influenced by grooming relationships. Psychoneuroendocrinology 14: 155–161CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirchner, M, Schulze Westerath, H, Tessitore, E, Cozzi, G, Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2008 Perception and attitudes of beef farmers towards the Welfare Quality® assessment system. In: Koene, P (ed) Book of Abstracts 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm or Group Level p 159. 10-13 September 2008, Ghent, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Knierim, U, Carter, CS, Fraser, D, Gärtner, K, Lutgendorf, SK, Mineka, S, Panksepp, J and Sachser, N 2001 Good Welfare: Improving Quality of Life. In: Broom, DM (ed) Coping with Challenge: Welfare in Animals including Humans. Dahlem Workshop Report pp 79–100. Dahlem University Press: Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Knierim, U, Sundrum, A, Bennedsgaard, T, Roiha, U and Johnson, PF 2004 Assessing animal welfare in organic herds. In: Vaarst, M, Roderick, S, Lund, V and Lockeretz, W (eds) Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture pp 189–203. CAB International: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krohn, CC 1994 Behaviour of dairy cows kept in extensive (loose housing/pasture) or intensive (tie stall) environments. III. Grooming, exploration and abnormal behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42: 73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laister, S, Hesse, N, Zucca, D, Knierim, U, Minero, M, Canali, E and Winckler, C 2007 Suitability of selected behavioural indicators for on-farm welfare assessment in loose housed dairy cattle. In: Galindo, F and Alvarez, L (eds) Proceedings of the 41st International Congress of the ISAE p 94. 30 July-3 August 2007, Merida, MexicoGoogle Scholar
Laister, S, Regner, A-M, Zenger, K, Winckler, C, Hesse, N, Quast, R and Knierim, U Validation of social licking as an indicator for positive emotions. Unpublished Report EU Project, Welfare Quality® Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Lensink, BJ, Van Reenen, CG, Engel, B, Rodenburg, TB and Veissier, I 2003 Repeatability and reliability of an approach test to determine calves’ responsiveness to humans: ‘a brief report’. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83: 325–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Whay, HR, Leeb, C and Webster, AJF 2007 Formal animal-based welfare assessment in UK certification schemes. Animal Welfare 16: 233–236Google Scholar
March, S, Brinkmann, J and Winckler, C 2007 Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 16: 131–133Google Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 2007 Measuring Behaviour. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niesink, RJM and van Ree, JM 1989 Involvement of opioid and dopaminergic systems in isolation-induced pinning and social grooming of young rats. Neuropharmacology 28: 411–418CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Callaghan, KA, Cripps, PJ, Downham, DY and Murray, RD 2003 Subjective and objective assessment of pain and discomfort due to lameness in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 12: 605–610Google Scholar
Plesch, G, Brörkens, N, Laister, S, Winckler, C and Knierim, U 2008 Reliability testing concerning behaviour around resting in dairy cows. In: Koene, P (ed) Book of Abstracts 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm or Group Level p 87. 10-13 September 2008, Ghent, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, V 1980 Untersuchungen zum Sozialverhalten des Rindes. Birkhäuser Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany. [Title translation: Investigations on the social behaviour of cattle]Google Scholar
Rousing, T and Waiblinger, S 2004 Evaluation of on-farm methods for testing the human-animal relationship in dairy herds with cubicle loose housing systems: test-retest and inter-observer reliability and consistency to familiarity of test person. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85: 215–231Google Scholar
Rushen, J and de Passillé, AMB 1992 The scientific assessment of the impact of housing on animal welfare: a critical review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72: 721–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Pombourcq, E and de Passillé, AM 2007 Validation of two measures of lameness in dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 106: 173–177Google Scholar
Sato, S and Tarumizu, K 1993 Heart rates before, during and after allo-grooming in cattle (Bos taurus). Journal of Ethology 11: 149–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, S, Sako, S and Maeda, A 1991 Social licking patterns in cattle (Bos taurus): influence of environmental and social factors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, S, Tarumizu, K and Hatae, K 1993 The influence of social factors on allogrooming in cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38: 235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, EM, Nolan, AM and Fitzpatrick, JL 2001 Conceptual and methodological issues related to welfare assessment: A framework for measurement. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A Animal Science Supplementum 30: 5–10Google Scholar
S⊘rensen, JT and Sand⊘e, P 2001 Assessment of animal welfare at farm or group level. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A Animal Science Supplementum 30Google Scholar
S⊘rensen, JT, Sand⊘e, P and Halberg, N 2001 Animal welfare as one among several values to be considered at farm level: The idea of an ethical account for livestock farming. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A Animal Science Supplementum 30: 11–16Google Scholar
Spoolder, HAM, de Rosa, G, Hörning, B, Waiblinger, S and Wemelsfelder, F 2003 Integrating parameters to assess on-farm welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 529–534Google Scholar
Thomsen, PT, Munksgaard, L and T⊘gersen, FA 2008 Evaluation of a lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 119–126CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waiblinger, S and Menke, C 2003 Influence of sample size and experimenter on reliability of measures of avoidance distance in dairy cows. Animal Welfare 12: 585–589Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Fresdorf, A and Spitzer, G 2002 The role of social licking in cattle for conflict resolution. Proceedings of the 1st European Conference of Behavioural Biology p 122. 1-4 August 2002, Münster, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2001 The development of an epidemiologically based on-farm welfare assessment system for use with dairy cows. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A Animal Science Supplementum 30: 73–77Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Mülleder, C, Schmied, C and Dembele, I 2007 Assessing the animals’ relationship to humans in tied dairy cows: between-experimenter repeatability of measuring avoidance reactions. Animal Welfare 16: 143–146Google Scholar
Webster, AJF and Main, DCJ 2003 Special Issue: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm or Group Level. Animal Welfare 12(4)Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® Consortium 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Lelystad: The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Lawrence, AB 2001 Qualitative assessment of animal behaviour as an on-farm welfare-monitoring tool. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A Animal Science Supplementum 30: 21–25Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, TEA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2001 Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62: 209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Knierim, U, de Rosa, G, Napolitano, F and Haslam, S 2008 The development of qualitative behaviour assessment as an on-farm welfare inspection tool. In: Koene, P (ed) Book of Abstracts 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm or Group Level p 52. 10-13 September 2008, Ghent, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Nevison, I and Lawrence, AB 2009 The effect of perceived environmental background on qualitative assessments of pig behaviour. Animal Behaviour 78: 477–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: Consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare 12: 205–217Google Scholar
Winckler, C and Willen, S 2001 The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A Animal Science Supplementum 30: 103–107Google Scholar
Winckler, C, Baumgartner, J and Waiblinger, S 2007a Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm or Group Level. Animal Welfare 16(2)Google Scholar
Winckler, C, Brinkmann, J and Glatz, J 2007b Long-term consistency of selected animal-related welfare parameters in dairy farms. Animal Welfare 16: 197–199Google Scholar
Winckler, C, Capdeville, J, Gebresenbet, G, Hörning, B, Roiha, U, Tosi, M and Waiblinger, S 2003 Selection of parameters for on-farm welfare assessment protocols in cattle and buffalo. Animal Welfare 12: 619–624Google Scholar