Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:18:22.352Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inter- and intra-observer reliability of animal welfare indicators for the on-farm self-assessment of fattening pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2019

M. Pfeifer Open the ORCID record for M. Pfeifer [Opens in a new window] ,
L. Eggemann ,
J. Kransmann ,
A. O. Schmitt  and
E. F. Hessel
M. Pfeifer*
Affiliation:
Thünen – Institute of Agricultural Technology, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries, Bundesallee 47, D-38116 Braunschweig, Germany
L. Eggemann
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Göttingen, Gutenbergstraße 33, D-37075 Göttingen, Germany
J. Kransmann
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Göttingen, Gutenbergstraße 33, D-37075 Göttingen, Germany
A. O. Schmitt
Affiliation:
Breeding Informatics, University of Göttingen, Margarethe von Wrangell-Weg 7, D-37075 Göttingen, Germany Center for Integrated Breeding Research (CiBreed), University of Göttingen, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, D-37075 Göttingen, Germany
E. F. Hessel
Affiliation:
Thünen – Institute of Agricultural Technology, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries, Bundesallee 47, D-38116 Braunschweig, Germany
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In Germany all keepers of livestock are legally required to record animal welfare indicators as part of their on-farm self-assessment. The Association for Technology and Structures in Agriculture (Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL)) has suggested the use of a particular set of animal welfare indicators in their publication Animal welfare indicators: Practical guide – Pigs. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the inter-observer reliability (Inter-OR) and intra-observer reliability (Intra-OR) of these indicators with respect to the welfare of fattening pigs. For the assessment of Inter-OR, three observers evaluated six KTBL animal welfare indicators. The Inter-OR of the indicators was calculated from the results using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). ‘Excellent’ Inter-OR results were found for the indicators tail length (ICC 0.89), skin lesions (ICC 0.77) and ear lesions (ICC 0.80). In contrast, the Inter-OR of the indicators tail lesions (ICC 0.46) and faecal soiling (ICC 0.47) were considered to be only ‘fair’ and that of the indicator lameness (ICC 0.36) as ‘poor’. For the evaluation of the Intra-OR, the same three observers assessed the welfare of 162 to 200 fattening pigs using the same welfare indicators in total eight times. Again ICCs, here per indicator and observer, were used to calculate the Intra-OR. The Intra-OR of the indicators faecal soiling (ICC 0.81) and ear lesions (ICC 0.97) lay in the ‘excellent’ range on average. While the Intra-OR of the indicators skin lesions (ICC 0.67), tail length (ICC 0.74) and lameness (ICC 0.60) could still be considered as being ‘good’, the Intra-OR of the indicator tail lesions (ICC 0.52) could only be assessed as being ‘fair’. From these results the significance of the KTBL indicators could be judged as follows: it is possible to use all the chosen indicators apart from the indicator tail lesions as an internal controlling instrument or as part of an internal weak-point analysis as long as the indicators are evaluated by the same person. A comparison of the indicators tail lesions, lameness and faecal soiling when assessed by different observers should be considered critically because the Inter-OR of these three indicators could only be considered as being ‘poor’ to ‘fair’.

Keywords

animal welfare assessmentanimal welfare assessment schemeanimal-based measuresobserver agreementinter- and intra-rater reliability
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 8 , August 2019 , pp. 1712 - 1720
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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

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.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, DV 1994. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment 6, 284–290.Google Scholar
Czycholl, I, Kniese, C, Büttner, K, Grosse Beilage, E, Schrader, L and Krieter, J 2016. Interobserver reliability of the ‘Welfare Quality® Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Growing Pigs’. SpringerPlus 5, 1114.10.1186/s40064-016-2785-1Google Scholar
Dalmau, A, Geverink, NA, Van Nuffel, A, Van Steenbergen, L, Van Reenen, K, Hautekiet, V, Vermeulen, K, Velarde, A and Tuyttens, FAM 2010. Repeatability of lameness, fear and slipping scores to assess animal welfare upon arrival in pig slaughterhouses. Animal 4, 804–809.10.1017/S1751731110000066Google Scholar
Gamer, M, Lemon, J, Fellows, I and Singh, P 2012. Package ‘irr’: various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement (Version 0.84). Retrieved on 4 October 2017 from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/irr/irr.pdf.Google Scholar
German Animal Welfare Act 2006. Tierschutzgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 18. Mai 2006 (BGBl. I S. 1206, 1313), das zuletzt durch Artikel 141 des Gesetzes vom 29. März 2017 (BGBl. I S. 626) geändert worden ist. Retrieved on 20 December 2016 from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/BJNR012770972.html.Google Scholar
Hallgren, KA 2012. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 8, 23–34.10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023Google Scholar
Keeling, LJ, Wallenbeck, A, Larsen, A and Holmgren, N 2012. Scoring tail damage in pigs: an evaluation based on recordings at Swedish slaughterhouses. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 54, 32.Google Scholar
Leeb, C 2015. Final report for the core organic ll funded project ‘ProPIG’. Farm specific strategies to reduce environmental impact by improving health, welfare and nutrition of organic pigs. Retrieved on 18 January 2017 from http://orgprints.org/29937/1/COII_ProPIG_Final%20Report_Leeb%20et%20al.pdf.Google Scholar
Main, DCJ, Kent, JP, Wemelsfelder, F, Ofner, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2003. Applications for methods of on-farm welfare assessment. Animal Welfare 12, 523–528.Google Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 2007. Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
McGraw, K and Wong, SP 1996. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods 1, 30–46.Google Scholar
Meagher, RK 2009. Observer ratings: validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119, 1–14.10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.026Google Scholar
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, e100–e109.Google Scholar
Petersen, HH, Enøe, C and Nielsen, EO 2004. Observer agreement on pen level prevalence of clinical signs in finishing pigs. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 64, 147–156.Google Scholar
R Core Team 2017. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Schrader, L, Czycholl, I, Krieter, J, Leeb, C, Zapf, R and Ziron, M 2016. Tierschutzindikatoren: Leitfaden für die Praxis - Schwein. Vorschläge für die Produktionsrichtungen Sauen, Saugferkel, Aufzuchtferkel und Mastschweine. KTBL, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
Shrout, PE and Fleiss, JL 1979. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin 86, 420–428.Google 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.Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Farnworth, MJ, White, IMS, Brotherstone, S, Mendl, M, Knap, P, Penny, P and Lawrence, AB 2006. The accumulation of skin lesions and their use as a predictor of individual aggressiveness in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 245–259.10.1016/j.applanim.2005.06.009Google Scholar
Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bock, B and Roe, E 2008. European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113, 279–297.10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.008Google Scholar
Veissier, I, Winckler, C, Velarde, A, Butterworth, A, Dalmau, A and Keeling, L 2013. Development of welfare measures and protocols for the collection of data on farms or at slaughter. In Improving farm animal welfare. Science and society working together: the welfare quality approach (ed. H Blokhuis, M Miele, I Veissier and B Jones), pp. 115–146. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.10.3920/978-90-8686-770-7_6Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs (sow and piglets, growing and finishing pigs) (Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Zapf, R, Schultheiß, U, Achilles, W, Schrader, L, Knierim, U, Herrmann, H-J, Brinkmann, J and Winckler, C 2015. Indicators for on-farm self-assessment of animal welfare - example: dairy cows. Landtechnik – Agricultural Engineering 70, 221–230.Google Scholar
Zapf, R, Schultheiß, U, Knierim, U, Brinkmann, J and Schrader, L 2017. Assessing farm animal welfare - guidelines for on-farm self-assessment. Landtechnik – Agricultural Engineering 72, 214–221.Google Scholar