Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:05:27.995Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of consistency over time of the use of the Animal Welfare Indicators protocol for horses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

I Czycholl ,
K Büttner ,
P Klingbeil  and
J Krieter
I Czycholl*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Olshausenstraße 40, 24118 Kiel, Germany
K Büttner
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Olshausenstraße 40, 24118 Kiel, Germany Unit for Biomathematics and Data Processing, Facullty of Veterinary Medicine, Justus Liebig University, Frankfurter Str 95, 35392 Giessen, Germany
P Klingbeil
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Olshausenstraße 40, 24118 Kiel, Germany
J Krieter
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Olshausenstraße 40, 24118 Kiel, Germany
*
* Contact for correspondence: [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.

Consistency over time is a basic requirement for welfare assessment schemes since consistency must not depend, for example, on the day it is carried out. This study analysed the consistency of the indicators of the Animal Welfare Indicators (AWIN) protocol for horses (Equus caballus) over time. Given the multi-dimensionality of animal welfare, the AWIN protocol includes a variety of indicators evaluating, eg the health status or the behaviour of the animals. Fourteen establishments keeping horses in Germany were visited four times each (day 0, day 3, day 42, day 90). For the evaluation of reliability and agreement between the different visits, ie across time, the reference visit on day 0 was compared to the other visits via calculation of Spearman's rank correlation (RS), intra-class correlation (ICC), smallest detectable change (SDC) and limits of agreement (LoA). The indicator, Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) was analysed by Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Most of the indicators demonstrated sufficient consistency over time. Indicators that were inconsistent included parts of the Horse Grimace Scale, outcomes of behavioural tests, the presence of swollen joints as well as the indicators hoof neglect, alopecia on the legs and water cleanliness. The QBA was consistent for the period of 42 days, but not for 90 days. Overall, those indicators with insufficient consistency over time require to be revised or replaced in future welfare assessment schemes.

Keywords

animal-based indicatorsanimal welfareAWINconsistencyhorsereliability
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 81 - 90
Copyright
© 2021 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

AWIN 2015 AWIN welfare assessment protocol for horses. https://doi.org/10.13130/AWIN_HORSES_2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, H, Jones, B, Veissier, I and Miele, M 2013 Improving farm animal welfare. In: Blokhuis, H, Miele, M, Veissier, I and Jones, B (eds) Improving Farm Animal Welfare pp 1–13. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen: The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-770-7_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BMELV 1995 Leitlinien zur Beurteilung von Pferdehaltungen unter Tierschutzgesichtspunkten. Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz (Sachverständigengruppe artge-rechte Pferdehaltung, BMELV). BMELV: Bonn, Germany. [Title translation: Guideline for the assessment of horse husbandry with regard to animal welfare]Google Scholar
Chamove, AS, Crawley-Hartrick, OJE and Stafford, KJ 2002 Horse reactions to human attitudes and behavior. Anthrozoös 15:323–331. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279302786992423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couetil, LL, Hoffmann, AM, Hodgson, J, Buechner-Maxwell, V, Viel, L, Wood, JLN and Lavoie, JP 2007 Inflammatory air-way disease of horses. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 21:356–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2007.tb02975.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courboulay, V, Eugene, A and Delarue, E 2009 Welfare assess-ment in 82 pig farms. Effect of animal age and floor type on behav-iour and injuries in fattening pigs. Animal Welfare 18: 515–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czycholl, I, Büttner, K, Grosse Beilage, E and Krieter, J 2015 Review of the assessment of animal welfare with special emphasis on the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment protocol for growing pigs. Archives Animal Breeding 58: 237–249. https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-58-237-2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czycholl, I, Büttner, K, Klingbeil, P and Krieter, J 2018 An indication of reliability of the two-level approach of the AWIN Welfare assessment protocol for horses. Animals 8: 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8010007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Czycholl, I, Grosse Beilage, E, Henning, C and Krieter, J 2017a Reliability of the qualitative behavior assessment as includ-ed in the Welfare Quality® Assessment protocol for growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 95: 3445–3454. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2017.1525Google Scholar
Czycholl, I, Klingbeil, P and Krieter, J 2017b Suitability of ani-mal-based indicators for the detection of animal welfare in hors-es. Tieraerztliche Umschau 6: 209–217Google Scholar
Czycholl, I, Klingbeil, P and Krieter, J 2019a Interobserver reli-ability of the AWIN welfare assessment protocol for horses. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 75: 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2019.02.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czycholl, I, Menke, S, Straßburg, C and Krieter, J 2019b Reliability of different behavioural tests for growing pigs on-farm. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 213: 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, F, Cogi, NH, Heinzl, EUL, Dalla Costa, E, Canali, E and Minero, M 2015 Validation of a fear test in sport horses using infrared thermography. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 10: 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2014.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalla Costa, E, Dai, F, Lebelt, D, Scholz, P, Barbieri, S and Canali, E 2016a Welfare assessment of horses: the AWIN approach. Animal Welfare 25: 481–488. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.25.4.481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalla Costa, E, Dai, F, Lebelt, D, Scholz, P, Barbieri, S, Canali, E and Minero, M 2017 Initial outcomes of a harmonized approach to collect welfare data in sport and leisure horses. Animal 11: 254–260. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731116001452CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalla Costa, E, Dai, F, Murray, LAM, Guazzetti, S, Canali, E and Minero, M 2015 A study on validity and reliability of on-farm tests to measure human–animal relationship in horses and don-keys. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 163: 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.12.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalla Costa, E, Minero, M, Lebelt, D, Stucke, D, Canali, E and Leach, MC 2014 Development of the Horse Grimace Scale (HGS) as a pain assessment tool in horses undergoing routine castration. PLoS One 9: e92281. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092281CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalla Costa, E, Stucke, D, Dai, F, Minero, M, Leach, MC and Lebelt, D 2016b Using the horse grimace scale (HGS) to assess pain associated with acute laminitis in horses (Equus caballus). Animals 6: 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6080047CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Vet, HCW, Terwee, CB, Knol, DL and Bouter, LM 2006 When to use agreement versus reliability measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59: 1033–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2012 EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare Statement on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of animals. EFSA Journal 10:1–29. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2512Google Scholar
Fraser, D 2008 Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50: S1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-50-S1-S1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ireland, JL, Clegg, PD, McGowan, CM, McKane, SA, Chandle, KJ and Pinchbeck, GL 2011 Disease prevalence in geriatric horses in the United Kingdom: Veterinary clinical assess-ment of 200 cases. Equine Veterinary Journal 44(1): 101–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00361.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jezierski, T, Jaworski, Z and Górecka, A 1999 Effects of han-dling on behaviour and heart rate in Konik horses: comparison of stable and forest reared youngstock. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00209-3CrossRefGoogle 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: 451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 2007 Measuring Behaviour. An Introductory Guide. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, JS, Heird, JC, Bell, RW and Lutherer, LO 1988 Normal and more highly reactive horses. Part II: the effect of han-dling and reserpine on the cardiac response to stimuli. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(88)90002-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, KO and Wong, SP 1996 Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods 1(1): 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mieloch, FJ, Nietfeld, S, Straßburg, C, Krieter, J, grosse Beilage, E and Czycholl, I 2020 Factors of potential influence on different behavioural tests in fattening pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 222: 104900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2019.104900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, KA, Garner, JP and Mench, JA 2006 Is fearfulness a trait that can be measured with behavioural tests? A validation of four fear tests for Japanese quail. Animal Behaviour 71: 1323–1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.08.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minero, M, Dalla Costa, E, Dai, F, Canali, E, Barbieri, S and Zanella, A 2018 Using qualitative behaviour assessment (QBA) to explore the emotional state of horses and its asso-ciation with human-animal relationship. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 204: 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2018.04.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, N and Hatcher, L 2013 Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. SAS: Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
Robinson, NE, Karmaus, W, Holcombe, SJ, Carr, EA and Derksen, FJ 2010 Airway inflammation in Michigan pleasure horses: prevalence and risk factors. Equine Veterinary Journal 38(4): 293–299. https://doi.org/10.2746/042516406777749281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute 2008 SAS/STAT 9.2. User's Guide. SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
Temple, D, Manteca, X, Dalmau, A and Velarde, A 2013 Assessment of test-retest reliability of animal-based measures on growing pig farms. Livestock Science 151: 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.10.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thatcher, CD, Pleasant, RS, Geor, RJ and Elvinger, F 2012 Prevalence of over-conditioning in mature horses in Southwest Virginia during the summer. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 26: 1413–1418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2012.00995.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
TierSchG 2006 Tierschutzgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 18 Mai 2006 (BGBl. I S. 1206, 1313), das zuletzt durch Artikel 280 der Verordnung vom 19 Juni 2020 (BGBl I S 1328) geändert worden ist. [Title translation: German animal pro-tection directive]Google Scholar
TierSchVersV 2013 Tierschutz-Versuchstierverordnung vom 1 August 2013 (BGBl I S 3125, 3126), die zuletzt durch Artikel 394 der Verordnung vom 31 August 2015 (BGBl I S 1474) geändert worden ist. [Title translation: German experimental animals directive]Google Scholar
Velarde, A and Geers, R 2007 On Farm Monitoring of Pig Welfare. AE Wageningen: Gelderland, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-591-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, EK, Van Reenen, CG, Hopster, H, Schilder, MBH, Knaap, JH, Barneveld, A and Blokhuis, HJ 2001 Quantifying aspects of young horses’ temperament: consistency of behaviour-al variables. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00177-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Lawrence, AB 2001 Qualitative assess-ment of animal behaviour as an on-farm welfare-monitoring tool. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavice Section A-Animal Science 51: 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/090647001316923018Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Millard, F 2009 Qualitative Behaviour Assessment. In: Forkmann, B and Keeling, L (eds) Welfare Quality® Reports. SLU Service/Reproenheten: Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Wheeler RG, Christley RM and McGowan 2002 Prevalence of owner reported respiratory disease in Pony Club horses. The Veterinary Record 150: 79–80. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.150.3.79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Czycholl et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 78.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Czycholl et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 127.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Czycholl et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 62.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Czycholl et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 138.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Czycholl et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 33.7 KB