Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:05:27.256Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assessment time of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

M de Vries*
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
B Engel
Affiliation:
Biometris, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
I den Uijl
Affiliation:
GD Animal Health Service, Deventer, The Netherlands
G van Schaik
Affiliation:
GD Animal Health Service, Deventer, The Netherlands
T Dijkstra
Affiliation:
GD Animal Health Service, Deventer, The Netherlands
IJM de Boer
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
EAM Bokkers
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
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) protocols are increasingly used for assessing welfare of farm animals. These protocols are time consuming (about one day per farm) and, therefore, costly. Our aim was to assess the scope for reduction of on-farm assessment time of the WQ protocol for dairy cattle. Seven trained observers quantified animal-based indicators of the WQ protocol in 181 loose-housed and 13 tied Dutch dairy herds (herd size from 10 to 211 cows). Four assessment methods were used: avoidance distance at the feeding rack (ADF, 44 min); qualitative behaviour assessment (QBA, 25 min); behavioural observations (BO, 150 min); and clinical observations (CO, 132 min). To simulate reduction of on-farm assessment time, a set of WQ indicators belonging to one assessment method was omitted from the protocol. Observed values of omitted indicators were replaced by predictions based on WQ indicators of the remaining three assessment methods, resources checklist, and interview, thus mimicking the performance of the full WQ protocol. Agreement between predicted and observed values of WQ indicators, however, was low for ADF, moderate for QBA, slight to moderate for BO, and poor to moderate for CO. It was concluded that replacing animal-based WQ indicators by predictions based on remaining WQ indicators shows little scope for reduction of on-farm assessment time of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle. Other ways to reduce on-farm assessment time of the WQ protocol for dairy cattle, such as the use of additional data or automated monitoring systems, should be investigated.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2013 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bewley, JM, Boyce, RE, Hockin, J, Munksgaard, L, Eicher, SD, Einstein, ME and Schutz, MM 2010 Influence of milk yield, stage of lactation, and body condition on dairy cattle lying behaviour measured using an automated activity monitoring sensor. Journal of Dairy Research 77: 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022029909990227CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blackie, N, Amory, J, Bleach, E and Scaife, J 2011 The effect of lameness on lying behaviour of zero grazed Holstein dairy cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 134: 8591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.08.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Veissier, I, Miele, M and Jones, B 2010 The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science 60: 129140Google Scholar
Bokkers, EAM, de Vries, M, Antonissen, I and de Boer, IJM 2012 Inter- and intra-observer reliability of experienced and inexperienced observers for the Qualitative Behaviour Assessment in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 21: 307318. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.3.307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Bracke, MBM, Perny, P, Butterworth, A, Capdeville, J, Van Reenen, CG and Veissier, I 2007 Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: analysis of constraints. Animal 1: 11881197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowell, VA, Rennie, LJ, Tierney, G, Lawrence, AB and Haskell, MJ 2003 Relationships between building design, management system and dairy cow welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 547552Google Scholar
Cohen, J 1960 A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20: 3746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, M, Bokkers, EAM, Dijkstra, T, van Schaik, G and de Boer, IJM 2011 Invited review: associations between variables of routine herd data and dairy cattle welfare indicators. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 32133228. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4169CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dohoo, IR, Martin, SW and Stryhn, H 2009 Veterinary Epidemiologic Research. VER, Inc: Charlottetown, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Donders, ART, van der Heijden, GJMG, Stijnen, T and Moons, KGM 2006 Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59: 10871091. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flower, FC, Sanderson, DJ and Weary, DM 2005 Hoof pathologies influence kinematic measures of dairy cow gait. Journal of Dairy Science 88: 31663173. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73000-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GenStat for Windows 2011 GenStat for Windows Release 14. VSN International Ltd: Hemel Hempstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Ito, K, von Keyserlingk, MAG, LeBlanc, SJ and Weary, DM 2010 Lying behavior as an indicator of lameness in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 35533560. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2951CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 451458Google Scholar
Landis, JR and Koch, GG 1977 The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159174. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LEI 2008 Farm Accountancy Data Network 2009. LEI: The Hague, The Netherlands. http://www.lei.wur.nl/UK/statistics/Binternet/Google Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1993 Measuring Behaviour. An Introductory Guide. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCullagh, P and Nelder, JA 1989 Generalized Linear Models. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mülleder, C, Troxler, J, Laaha, G and Waiblinger, S 2007 Can environmental variables replace some animal-based parameters in welfare assessment of dairy cows? Animal Welfare 16: 153156Google Scholar
Pluk, A, Bahr, C, Poursaberi, A, Maertens, W, van Nuffel, A and Berckmans, D 2012 Automatic measurement of touch and release angles of the fetlock joint for lameness detection in dairy cattle using vision techniques. Journal of Dairy Science 95: 17381748. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rousing, T and Wemelsfelder, F 2006 Qualitative assessment of social behaviour of dairy cows housed in loose housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 4053. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.12.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandgren, CH, Lindberg, A and Keeling, LJ 2009 Using a national dairy database to identify herds with poor welfare. Animal Welfare 18: 523532Google Scholar
Schafer, JL and Olsen, MK 1998 Multiple imputation for multivariate missing-data problems: A data analyst's perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research 33: 545571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr33045CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and Folsch, DW 2003 Influences on the avoidance and approach behaviour of dairy cows towards humans on 35 farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 2339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00148-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF, Main, DCJ and Whay, HR 2004 Welfare assessment: indices from clinical observation. Animal Welfare 13(S): S93-S98Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle 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 51: 103107Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

de Vries et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 24.3 KB
PDF 24.3 KB