Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:02:41.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On-farm animal welfare assessment in beef bulls: consistency over time of single measures and aggregated Welfare Quality® scores

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2013

M. K. Kirchner ,
H. Schulze Westerath ,
U. Knierim ,
E. Tessitore ,
G. Cozzi  and
C. Winckler
M. K. Kirchner*
Affiliation:
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Gregor-Mendel-Strasse 33, A–1180 Vienna, Austria
H. Schulze Westerath
Affiliation:
Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry Section, University of Kassel/Witzenhausen, Nordbahnhofstr. 1a, D-37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
U. Knierim
Affiliation:
Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry Section, University of Kassel/Witzenhausen, Nordbahnhofstr. 1a, D-37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
E. Tessitore
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padova, Agripolis - Viale dell'Università 16, I-35040 Legnaro (PD), Italy
G. Cozzi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padova, Agripolis - Viale dell'Università 16, I-35040 Legnaro (PD), Italy
C. Winckler
Affiliation:
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Gregor-Mendel-Strasse 33, A–1180 Vienna, Austria
*
† E-mail: marlene.kirchner@boku.ac.at
Get access

Abstract

Consistency over time of (on-farm) animal welfare assessment systems forms part of reliability, meaning that results of the assessment should be representative of the longer-term welfare state of the farm as long as the housing and management conditions have not changed considerably. This is especially important if assessments are to be used for certification purposes. It was the aim of the present study to investigate consistency over time of the Welfare Quality® (WQ®) assessment system for fattening cattle at single measure level, aggregated criterion and principle scores, and overall classification across short-term (1 month) and longer-term periods (6 months). We hypothesized that consistency over time of aggregated criterion and principle scores is higher than that of single measures. Consistency was also expected to be lower with longer intervals between assessments. Data were obtained using the WQ® protocol for fattening cattle during three visits (months 0, 1 and 7) on 63 beef farms in Austria, Germany and Italy. Only data from farms where no major changes in housing and management had taken place were considered for analysis. At the single measure level, Spearman rank correlations between visits were >0.7 and variance was lower within farms than between farms for six and two of 19 measures after 1 month and 6 months, respectively. After aggregation of single measures into criterion and principle scores, five and two of 10 criteria and three and one of four principles were found reliable after 1 and 6 months, respectively. At the WQ® principle level, this was the case for three and one of four principles. Seventy-nine per cent and 75% of the farms were allocated to the same overall welfare category after 1 month and 6 months. Possible reasons for a lack of consistency are seasonal effects or short-term fluctuations that occur under normal farm conditions, low prevalence of clinical measures and probably insufficient sample size, whereas poor inter-observer agreement leading to inflation of correlation can be ruled out. At the criterion and principle level, aggregation of information into scores appears to partly smoothen undirected variation at the single measure level without losing sensitivity in terms of welfare evaluation. Reliable on-farm animal welfare assessments should therefore be based on repeated assessments. Further long-term studies are recommended to better understand the factors influencing consistency over time.

Keywords

beef cattleanimal-based measureson-farm assessmentwelfareconsistency
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , March 2014 , pp. 461 - 469
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bell, AM, Hankison, SJ and Laskowski, KL 2009. The repeatability of behaviour: a meta-analysis. Animal Behaviour 77, 771–783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Botreau, R, Veissier, I and Perny, P 2009. Overall assessment of animal welfare: strategy adopted in Welfare Quality® . Animal Welfare 18, 363–370.Google 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, 225–228.Google Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ 2008. International cooperation in animal welfare: the Welfare Quality® project. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50, S10.Google 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, 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brörkens, N, Plesch, G, Laister, S, Zucca, D, Winckler, C, Minero, M and Knierim, U 2009. Reliability testing concerning behaviour around resting in cattle in dairy cows and beef bulls. In Welfare Quality® Reports No. 11 (ed. B, Forkman and LJ, Keeling), pp. 7–23. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2001. A method of assessing welfare in loose housed dairy cows at farm level, focusing on animal observations. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 51, 62–68.Google Scholar
Dohoo, I, Martin, W and Stryhn, H 2009. Intra-class correlation coefficient. In Veterinary epidemiological research (ed. I, Dohoo, W, Martin and H, Stryhn), pp. 478–479. AVC Inc, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.Google Scholar
Johnsen, PF, Johannesson, T and Sandøe, P 2001. Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: many goals, many methods. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 51, 26–33.Google Scholar
Kirchner, MK, Schulze Westerath, H, Knierim, U, Tessitore, E, Cozzi, G, Vogl, C and Winckler, C. Attitudes and expectations of European beef farmers towards the Welfare Quality® Assessment System. Livestock Science. Submitted.Google Scholar
Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2009. On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future perspectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach. Animal Welfare 18, 451–458.Google Scholar
Kralj-Fiser, S, Scheiber, IB, Blejec, A, Moestl, E and Kotrschal, K 2007. Individualities in a flock of free-roaming greylag geese: behavioral and physiological consistency over time and across situations. Hormones and Behaviour 51, 239–248.Google Scholar
Laister, S 2009. Suitability of selected behavioural parameters for on-farm welfare assessment in dairy and beef cattle. Doctoral thesis, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Austria.Google Scholar
Laister, S, Brörkens, N, Lolli, S, Zucca, D, Knierim, U, Minero, M, Canali, E and Winckler, C 2009. Reliability of measures of agonistic behaviour in dairy and beef cattle. In Welfare Quality® Reports No. 11 (ed. B, Forkman and LJ, Keeling), pp. 113–123. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 2007. Measuring behaviour – an introductory guide, 3rd edition Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Mullan, S, Browne, WJ, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2009. The effect of sampling strategy on the estimated prevalence of welfare outcome measures on finishing pig farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119, 39–48.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2008. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
Schulze Westerath, H, Brörkens, N, Laister, S, MacKintosh, N, Winckler, C and Knierim, U 2009. Reliability of measures of socio-positive and play behaviour in dairy and beef cattle. In Welfare Quality® Reports No. 11 (ed. B, Forkman and LJ, Keeling), pp. 175–188. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Sørensen, JT and Fraser, D 2010. On-farm welfare assessment for regulatory purposes: issues and possible solutions. Livestock Science 131, 1–7.Google Scholar
Spoolder, HAM, Burbidge, JA, Lawrence, AB, Simmins, PH and Edwards, SA 1996. Individual behavioural differences in pigs: intra-and inter-test consistency. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49, 185–198.Google Scholar
Sundrum, A and Rubelowski, I 2001. The meaningfulness of design criteria in relation to the mortality of fattening bulls. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 51, 48–52.CrossRefGoogle 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 51, 73–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, PF and Petrie, A 2010. Method agreement analysis: a review of correct methodology. Theriogenology 73, 1167–1179.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2011. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle without veal calves. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, the Netherlands. http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net Google Scholar
Winckler, C, Brinkmann, J and Glatz, J 2007. Long-term consistency of selected animal-related welfare parameters in dairy farms. Animal Welfare 16, 197–199.Google Scholar
Windschnurer, I, Boivin, X and Waiblinger, S 2009. Reliability of an avoidance distance test for the assessment of animals’ responsiveness to humans and a preliminary investigation of its association with farmers’ attitudes on bull fattening farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117, 117–127.Google Scholar