Both the nature of the human-animal relationship (HAR) and housing conditions significantly impact the welfare of farmed animals. To evaluate the influence of HAR on the behaviour, emotions and stress of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in two distinct outdoor living environments, we allocated 144 young rabbits to four groups (CPX-H, CPX-N, SPL-H, SPL-N) differing in the living environments (CPX for complex, and SPL for simple). The treatment by human (H) involved daily provision of additional food resources and stroking (thoughtful farmer). It commenced at 49 days of age and lasted for 16 days. N groups did not receive the treatment (distant farmer). The rabbits were observed between 48 and 73 days of age. Their behavioural responses to human presence were evaluated at 48 and 68 days using Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) and scan sampling. A set of tests was conducted at 68 days of age to assess their reactions to a novel object and human presence. Stress levels were measured by analysing corticosterone concentrations in their hair. Rabbits in the SPL environment spent significantly more time near the novel object than those in the CPX environment (24.7 vs 17.2%). Additionally, rabbits in the H treatment group spent more time near the human than those in the N treatment group (28.2 vs 17.1%) and accepted more strokes (90.2 vs 45.9%). Following the HAR treatment, rabbits in the H group were significantly more likely to be described as ‘Affectionate/Interested’ than those in the N treatment. Rabbits in the N treatment were described as ‘Indifferent’ significantly more in the SPL environment. However, there were no significant differences in hair corticosterone concentrations between the groups. These findings indicate that rabbits’ responses are influenced by both their living environment and the quality of their relationship with humans. Encouraging positive interactions with animals may enhance their welfare and facilitate daily care from farmers.

The notion ‘quality of life’ (QoL) suggests that welfare in animals encompasses more than just an absence of suffering; it concerns the quality of an animal's entire relationship with its environment, of how it lives its life. Judgements of such quality are based on the integration of perceived details of how animals behave over time in different contexts. The scientific status of such judgements has long been ambiguous, but in recent decades has begun to be addressed by animal scientists. This paper starts with a brief review of qualitative approaches to the study of animal behaviour, which tend to address characteristics such as individuality, personality, and emotionality. The question then arises whether such characteristics involve a subjective, experiential aspect, and identify animals as sentient beings. The second half of this paper argues that taking the integrative nature of qualitative judgements seriously enables a ‘whole animal’ perspective, through which it becomes possible to view behaviour as a dynamic, expressive body language that provides a basis for assessing the quality of an animal's experience (eg contented, anxious). Judging this quality is a skill that requires knowledge of species-specific behaviour, experience in observing and interacting with animals in different contexts, and a willingness to communicate with animals as sentient beings. A substantial body of research indicates that this skill can function reliably in a scientific context, and can be applied usefully as a practical welfare assessment tool. Thus qualitative approaches to the study of animal behaviour should make an important contribution to the growing interest in animal QoL.

The aim of this paper is to discuss the relationship between qualitative categories of sheep welfare and associated quantitative behavioural observations. Most scientific studies rely on quantitative measures, however to interpret those measures in terms of an animal's experience of welfare, the use of qualitative terminologies denoting various emotional states (eg fear, pain, distress) seems hard to avoid. This is especially so in cases where the same behavioural or physiological indicator could have different meanings for welfare; high levels of locomotion, for example, could indicate fear, aggression, or both. To resolve such dilemmas, scientists often resort to judging an animal's most likely state through direct observation; indeed qualitative characterisations are often intertwined with reported quantitative results. This paper reviews frequently used qualitative categories of sheep welfare and the behavioural context in which these categories are applied. Qualitative judgements of welfare tend to habitually be regarded as ‘subjective’, ie as anthropomorphic and unreliable; however from this review it appears that such judgements reflect the overall demeanour of an animal's behaviour, and as such may provide a useful empirical basis for the investigation of emotional expression in sheep. Further development of a qualitative behavioural approach may provide a more complete picture of the expressive repertoire of sheep, and enhance our understanding of ways in which these animals experience well-being or distress.

Qualitative Behaviour Assessment of cattle expression using a fixed rating scale of 20 descriptors is one of the measures of the Welfare Quality® (WQ) assessment protocol for dairy cattle. As for other on-farm measures of welfare, reliability is an important issue especially if farms are to be certified. This study investigated the repeatability of QBA results across three different observation times during the day (early morning, late morning, early afternoon). For this purpose, 13 observers assessed a total of 30 video clips from ten commercial dairy farms using visual analogue scales to score the 20 QBA terms. QBA scores for ‘emotional state’ were computed according to the Welfare Quality® protocol (WQ_QBA) and, additionally, a Principal Component Analysis was carried out. The latter revealed two main dimensions which may be described as ‘mood’ and ‘activity’, the former thus corresponding to the ‘emotional state’ score of the WQ protocol. Both for scores derived from the WQ protocol and from PCA, mixed model analysis for repeated measures revealed a significant effect of observation time depending on the farm. Mixed model analysis for repeated measures revealed a significant effect of observation time for three farms out of ten on both the WQ_QBA score and the PCA ‘mood’ dimension; a similar effect was found for eight out of ten farms for the PCA ‘activity’ dimension. These results indicate that observation time potentially affects WQ (and other QBA) outcomes on a proportion of farms. However, given that outcomes for WQ_QBA and PCA ‘mood’ were consistent for the majority of farms, procedures suggested in the Welfare Quality® protocol may constitute a reasonable compromise between reliability and feasibility. If the QBA assessment should reflect the ‘mean mood’, multiple assessments throughout the day may be carried out.

This study explores the use of Free Choice Profiling (FCP) methodology for the qualitative behaviour assessment of emotional expression in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Qualitative behaviour assessment is based upon the integration of many pieces of information that in conventional quantitative approaches are recorded separately or not at all. Observers are asked to focus on an animal's interaction with its surrounding environment, and to describe the animal's expressive demeanor, or ‘body language’. A specific characteristic of FCP methodology is that it allows observers the freedom to devise their own descriptive terms, and then to use these personal terms to quantitatively score observed subjects. Application of FCP to qualitative behaviour assessment in animals was originally tested for pigs, and more recently for dairy cows, horses, and ponies. The goal of this study was to apply FCP to the domestic dog, and to investigate the inter-observer reliability of assessments of emotional expression in 10 individual Beagles by a group of 18 untrained observers. The data was analysed using Generalised Procrustes Analysis (GPA), a multivariate statistical technique associated with FCP. The observers achieved highly-significant agreement in their assessments of the dogs’ expressions, thereby establishing the applicability of this methodology for the first time in the domestic dog.

In response to an increased public awareness regarding how livestock are reared, animal welfare scientists have attempted to develop new methods of welfare assessment at the farm level. Furthermore, in recent years they have increasingly moved away from the conventional approach of evaluating the provision of resources necessary to ensure good welfare, and have instead focused on the use of animal-based measures of welfare. In contrast, it is believed that farmers use mostly resource-based and management-based measures (eg the provision of food, water and housing) when assessing the welfare of their animals. They also seem to be driven more by economic and financial concerns than by the welfare of the animals per se, when it comes to the provision of animal welfare. Different approaches to the definition and assessment of farm animal welfare were explored in work carried out at Newcastle University as part of the Welfare Quality® project by both social and welfare scientists. Social scientists explored farmers’ perceptions and understanding of animal welfare, whilst welfare scientists developed animal-based measures of welfare for use in a prototype on-farm welfare monitoring system. Based on two separate surveys, this paper focuses on UK farmers’ perception and understanding of animal welfare and their criteria of assessment in contrast with those employed by welfare scientists, using a specific case study of pigs. Results show that, despite scientists being unaware of the findings from the farmer survey, they produced a set of measures to assess welfare which were very similar to those used by farmers. However, ‘instinctive’ terms used by farmers to describe (positive or negative) animal behaviour did not bear any relation to more objective welfare measures. Compared with conventional monitoring systems which focus more on the provision of resources to promote good welfare than on the animal itself, the prototype monitoring system may be more acceptable to farmers given that it uses similar animal-based measures to assess welfare to those they use themselves, and furthermore, the focus is on the animal.

This study evaluated the short-term hormonal and behavioural responses to capture and radio-collar fitting in free-ranging pampas deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus). Twenty adult deer (eleven females and nine males) were captured in the South Pantanal wetland (Brazil) and equipped with VHF radio-collars (marked deer). Untreated adult deer of the same sex were randomly chosen as the control group (nine females and nine males). On the day following capture, an observer followed all deer for faecal collection and behaviour evaluation. Faecal samples were immediately refrigerated and frozen at-20°C within a maximum of 12 h. Faecal glucocorticoid metabolites (FGM) were measured using an 11-oxoaetiocholanolone enzyme immunoassay. A qualitative behaviour assessment and the consequences of capture were evaluated using pre-defined terminologies and scores. Flight distance was recorded using a range finder. FGM increased from 19-22 h after capture onwards and peak concentrations were five times (median) higher as the respective baseline values. FGM values of marked deer were significantly higher at 22-25 and 25-28 h compared with controls. Marked male but not female deer had significantly higher FGM values at 22-25 and 25-28 h compared with their baseline values. Marked deer were significantly more fearful, less sociable and defensive than controls. The absences of significant increases of FGM in the captured female deer may indicate that females are less prone to capture stress. The significantly more fearful, and less sociable and defensive patterns observed in marked deer may be relevant during capture of lactating females or in areas with high predator pressure.

Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) is part of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle, although its inter- and intra-observer reliability have not been reported. This study evaluated inter- and intra-observer reliability of the QBA for dairy cattle in experienced and inexperienced observers using videos. Eight experienced observers performed the QBA (20 descriptors) twice for 16 video clips (60 s per clip; series 1) showing 4-17 animals. They assessed another 11 video clips showing herds (4 shots of 30 s per clip; series 2). Ten inexperienced observers performed the QBA on both video series one time. Inter-observer reliability of experienced observers ranged from slight to moderate (both assessments of series 1), and from low to high (series 2) for descriptors, and from slight to moderate for the QBA score. Inter-observer reliability of inexperienced observers ranged from low to moderate (series 1), and from low to high (series 2) for descriptors, and was moderate (both series) for the QBA score. Intra-observer correlations varied largely per descriptor and observer. They were both negative and positive, and ranged from low to very high. High correlations, however, were not necessarily associated with low paired differences. Values of half of the descriptors and the QBA score differed amongst experienced and inexperienced observers. The QBA appears insufficiently reliable as a tool for welfare assessment in dairy cattle.