Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-fr72s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-10T06:17:02.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A training programme to ensure high repeatability of injury scoring of dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

J Gibbons ,
E Vasseur ,
J Rushen  and
AM de Passillé
J Gibbons*
Affiliation:
Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, PO Box 1000, 6947 Highway 7, Agassiz, BC, Canada, V0M 1A0
E Vasseur
Affiliation:
Organic Dairy Research Centre, Universitie de Guelph, Campus d’Alfred, 31 St Paul Street, PO Box 580, Alfred, Ontario, Canada K0B 1A0
J Rushen
Affiliation:
Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, PO Box 1000, 6947 Highway 7, Agassiz, BC, Canada, V0M 1A0
AM de Passillé
Affiliation:
Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, PO Box 1000, 6947 Highway 7, Agassiz, BC, Canada, V0M 1A0
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Obtaining reliable welfare outcome measures from commercial farms can be challenging. We developed a training programme to train observers to score injuries of the tarsal joint, carpal joint and neck on dairy cows as part of an on-farm study. Twelve trainees were trained using protocols and photographs in a classroom session and on-farm visits. Continued repeatability checking was carried out during a refresher and mid-way assessment. Two trainers were used as the reference standard to which all trainees were compared. The study demonstrated that methods of scoring tarsal joint, carpal joint and neck injury can be learned by trainees from different backgrounds and high repeatability can be achieved and maintained at a very large regional or national level. Successful learning of injury scoring is dependent on protocols with strong definitions and photographs as well as repetitive training sessions. Additionally, continued repeatability checks are essential to ensure the reference standard continues to be met. This training programme can be used as a model to successfully train on-farm assessors.

Keywords

animal welfaredairy cattleinjuryinter-observer reliabilitytrainingwelfare assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue 3: Selected papers from the 5th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , August 2012 , pp. 379 - 388
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barberg, AE, Endres, MI, Salfer, JA and Reneau, JK 2007 Performance and welfare of dairy cows in an alternative housing system in Minnesota. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 1575–1583. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)71643-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busato, A, Trachsel, P and Blum, JW 2000 Frequency of traumatic cow injuries in relation to housing systems in Swiss organic dairy herds. Journal of Veterinary Medicine 47: 221–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0442.2000.00283.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EFSA 2011 Scientific opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of dairy cows EFSA panel on animal health and welfare. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA): Parma, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Fulwider, WK, Grandin, T, Garrick, DJ, Engle, TE, Lamm, WD, Dalsted, NL and Rollin, BE 2007 Influence of free-stall base on tarsal joint lesions and hygiene in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3559–3566. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-793CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haskell, MJ, Rennie, LJ, Bowell, VA, Bell, MJ and Lawrence, AB 2006 Housing system, milk production, and zero-grazing effects on lameness and leg injury in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 4259–4266. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72472-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoehler, FK 2000 Bias and prevalence effects on kappa viewed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 53: 499–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00174-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kielland, C, Ruud, LE, Zanella, AJ and ⊘sterås, O 2009 Prevalence and risk factors for skin lesions on legs of dairy cattle housed in freestalls in Norway. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 5487–5496. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2293CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landis, JR and Koch, GG 1977 The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lapointe, GD 2010 Vos Vaches Sont-Elles. Proceedings of the 34th Symposium sur les Bovins Laitiers pp 119–142. Québec, QC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Lombard, JE, Tucker, CB, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Kopral, CA and Weary, DM 2010 Associations between cow hygiene, hock injuries, and free stall usage on US dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 4668–4676CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2011 Inter-observer reliability testing of pig welfare outcome measures proposed for inclusion within farm assurance schemes. The Veterinary Journal 190: 100–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.01.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potterton, SL, Green, MJ, Harris, J, Millar, KM, Whay, HR and Huxley, JN 2011 Risk factors associated with hair loss, ulceration, and swelling at the hock in freestall-housed UK dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 2952–2963. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-4084CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pritchard, JC, Barr, ARS and Whay, HR 2007 Repeatability of a skin tent test for dehydration in working horses and donkeys. Animal Welfare 16: 181–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regula, G, Danuser, J, Spycher, B and Wechsler, B 2004 Health and welfare of dairy cows in different husbandry systems in switzerland. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 66: 247–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2004.09.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J, Butterworth, A and Swanson, JC 2011 Animal behavior and well-being symposium: farm animal welfare assurance: science and application. Journal of Animal Science 89: 1219–1228. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3589CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J, Haley, D and de Passillé, AM 2007 Effect of softer flooring in tie stalls on resting behavior and leg injuries of lactating Cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3647–3651. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-463CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutherford, KMD, Langford, FM, Jack, MC, Sherwood, L, Lawrence, AB and Haskell, MJ 2008 Hock injury prevalence and associated risk factors on organic and nonorganic dairy farms in the United Kingdom. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 2265–2274. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0847CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS Institute 2008 SAS User's Guide. SAS Institute Inc: Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
Sogstad, AM, Fjeldaas, T and Osteras, O 2005 Lameness and claw lesions of the Norwegian red dairy cattle housed in free stalls in relation to environment, parity and stage of lactation. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 46: 203–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-46-203CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomsen, PT and Baadsgaard, NP 2006 Intra- and interobserver agreement of a protocol for clinical examination of dairy cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 75: 133–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2006.02.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vapnek, J and Chapman, M 2010 Legislation and regulatory options for animal welfare. FAO: Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM and Taszkun, I 2000 Hock lesions and free-stall design. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 697–702. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)74931-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, B, Schaub, J, Friedli, K and Hauser, R 2000 Behaviour and leg injuries in dairy cows kept in cubicle systems with straw bedding or soft lying mats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69: 189–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00134-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Veterinary Record 153: 197–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.153.7.197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zurbrigg, K, Kelton, D, Anderson, N and Millman, S 2005 Tie-stall design and its relationship to lameness, injury, and cleanliness on 317 Ontario dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 88: 3201–321010.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73003-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed