Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T13:26:00.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of a list of terms in Brazilian Portuguese for the Qualitative Behaviour Assessment of broiler chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

APO Souza ,
F Wemelsfelder ,
CA Taconeli  and
CFM Molento
APO Souza*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, 80035-050, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
F Wemelsfelder
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Sciences Group, SRUC, Roslin Institute Building, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
CA Taconeli
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Federal University of Paraná, Centro Politécnico, 81531-990, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
CFM Molento
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, 80035-050, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
*
* 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.

Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) is a methodological approach to assess the whole animal using terms to describe and quantify the emotionally expressive qualities of behaviour and identifying larger patterns of expressivity through multi-variate statistical integration. A key condition for the success of QBA is achieving a common understanding of the meaning of descriptive terms by raters. Based on this, our study aimed to develop a list of terms in Brazilian Portuguese for the QBA of broiler chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus), and to test this list by studying its inter- and intra-rater reliability. Fourteen experts participated in a workshop and developed a list of 25 QBA terms, and 40 undergraduates tested this list by scoring 18 video clips using a 125-mm visual analogue scale. Principal Component Analysis was used to analyse observers’ scores. Principal Component (PC) 1 ranged from disturbed/frustrated to comfortable/lively, suggesting this PC may be interpreted in terms of emotional valence. PC2 ranged from calm/dull to agitated/active, suggesting this PC indicates the level of arousal/energy of the birds. Both PC1 and PC2 clip scores showed good inter- and intra-rater reliability. This study demonstrates the importance of producing QBA term lists bottom-up as opposed to merely translating pre-existing lists from the scientific literature. Results suggest the standardised Portuguese QBA term list developed in this study is reliable in assessing the expressive qualities of broiler behaviour; therefore, a next step is to test it on-farm with experienced raters and further refine it concerning terms related to poor welfare.

Keywords

animal-based indicatoranimal welfarebehaviourpoultryQualitative Behavioural AssessmentWelfare Quality® protocol
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 49 - 59
Copyright
© 2021 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

ABPA 2020 Relatório anual 2020. ABPA: São Paulo, Brazil. [Title translation: Annual report]. https://abpa-br.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/abpa_ relatorio_anual_2020_por-tugues_web.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bartko, JJ 1966 The intraclass correlation coefficient as a meas-ure of reliability. Psychological Reports 19: 3–11. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1966.19.1.3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bassler, AW, Arnould, C, Butterworth, A, Colin, L, De Jong, IC, Ferrante, V, Ferrari, P, Haslam, S, Wemelsfelder, F and Blokhuis, HJ 2013 Potential risk factors associated with contact dermatitis, lameness, negative emotional state, and fear of humans in broiler chicken flocks. Poultry Science 92: 2811–2826. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03208CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D, Mächler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S 2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67: 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battini, M, Barbieri, S, Vieira, A, Can, E, Stilwell, G and Mattiello, S 2018 The use of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment for the on-farm welfare assessment of dairy goats. Animals 8: 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8070123CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blokhuis, HJ, Veissier, I, Miele, M and Jones, B 2010 The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 60: 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2010.523480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A, Manteuffel, G, Jensen, MB, Moe, RO, Spruijt, B, Keeling, LJ, Winckler, C, Forkman, B, Dimitrov, I, Langbein, J, Bakken, M, Veissier, I and Aubert, A 2007 Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology & behavior 92: 375–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phys-beh.2007.02.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bokkers, EAM, De Vries, M, Antonissen, ICMA and De Boer, IJM 2012 Inter- and intra-observer reliability of experi-enced and inexperienced observers for the Qualitative Behaviour Assessment in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 21: 307–318. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.3.307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Boyer des Roches, A, Lussert, A, Faure, M, Herry, V, Rainard, P, Durand, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Foucras, G 2018 Dairy cows under experimentally induced Escherichia coli mastitis show negative emotional states assessed through Qualitative Behaviour Assessment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 206: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buijs, S, Ampe, B and Tuyttens, FAM 2016 Sensitivity of the Welfare Quality® broiler chicken protocol to differences between intensively reared indoor flocks: which factors explain overall classification? Animal 11: 244–253. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731116001476CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burn, CC 2017 Bestial boredom: a biological perspective on ani-mal boredom and suggestions for its scientific investigation. Animal Behaviour 130: 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbe-hav.2017.06.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canty, A and Ripley, B 2017 boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/boot/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Carrasco, JL, Jover, L, King, TS and Chinchilli, VM 2007 Comparison of concordance correlation coefficient estimating approaches with skewed data. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 17: 673–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/10543400701329463CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, DV 1994 Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment 6: 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, IC, Gunnink, H and Hindle, V 2014 Implementation of the Welfare Quality® broiler assessment protocol – final report. Livestock Report 833. Wageningen UR Livestock Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands. https://edepot.wur.nl/339412Google Scholar
De Jong, IC, Hindle, VA, Butterworth, A, Engel, B, Ferrari, P, Gunnink, H, Perez Moya, T, Tuyttens, FAM and van Reenen, CG 2015 Simplifying the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for broiler chicken welfare. Animal: An International Journal of Animal Bioscience 10: 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115001706CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Efron, B and Tibshirani, RJ 1994 An Introduction to the Bootstrap. CRC Press: Florida, USA. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429246593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EFSA 2010 Scientific Opinion on the influence of genetic param-eters on the welfare and the resistance to stress of commercial broilers. EFSA Journal 8: 1–82. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1666Google Scholar
EFSA 2012 Scientific report updating the EFSA opinions on the welfare of broilers and broiler breeders. EFSA Supporting Publication 9: 116. https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2012.EN-295Google Scholar
Federici, JF, Vanderhasselt, R, Sans, ECO, Tuyttens, FAM, Souza, APO and Molento, CFM 2016 Assessment of broiler chicken welfare in Southern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 18: 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1590/18069061-2015-0022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, PA, Clarke, T, Wickham, SL, Stockman, CA, Barnes, AL, Collins, T and Miller, DW 2016 The contribution of qualitative behavioural assessment to appraisal of livestock wel-fare. Animal Production Science 56: 1569–1578. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forkman, B and Keeling, L 2009 Assessment of animal welfare measures for dairy cattle, beef bulls and veal calves, Welfare Quality® Assessment of animal welfare measures for dairy cattle, beef bulls and veal calves, Welfare Quality® Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Franklin, SB, Gibson, DJ, Robertson, PA, Pohlmann, JT and Fralish, JS 1995 Parallel analysis: a method for determining signif-icant principal components. Journal of Vegetation Science 6: 99–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/3236261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fureix, C and Meagher, RK 2015 What can inactivity (in its var-ious forms) reveal about affective states in non-human animals? A review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 171: 8–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.08.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosso, L, Battini, M, Wemelsfelder, F, Barbieri, S, Minero, M, Dalla Costa, E and Mattiello, S 2016 On-farm Qualitative Behaviour Assessment of dairy goats in different housing conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 180: 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.04.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IBGE 2020 Pesquisa trimestral do abate de animais. [Title translation: Animal slaughter database]. https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/tabela/1094Google Scholar
Johnson, RA and Wichern, DW 2007 Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Sixth Edition. Pearson Education: New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB 1996 Fear and adaptability in poultry: insights, implications and imperatives. World's Poultry Science Journal 52: 131–174. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS19960013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, A 2009 Bootstrap methods for bias correction and confidence interval estimation for nonlinear quantile regression of longitudinal data. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 79: 1205–1218. https://doi.org/10.1080/00949650802221180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marino, L 2017 Thinking chickens: a review of cognition, emotion, and behavior in the domestic chicken. Animal Cognition 20:127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-016-1064-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCulloch, CE and Searle, SR 2004 Generalised, Linear, and Mixed Models. John Wiley & Sons: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Meagher, RK 2009 Observer ratings: Validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendl, M, Oliver, HP and Paul, ES 2010 An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: 2895-2904. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minero, M, Dalla, E, Dai, F, Anne, L, Murray, M, Canali, E and Wemelsfelder, F 2016 Use of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment as an indicator of welfare in donkeys. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 174: 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2015.10.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minero, M, Dalla, E, Dai, F, Canali, E, Barbieri, S, Zanella, A, Pascuzzo, R and Wemelsfelder, F 2018 Using qualitative behaviour assessment (QBA) to explore the emotional state of horses and its association with human-animal relationship. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 204: 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.04.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muri, K, Marie, S, Vasdal, G, Oppermann, R and Georg, E 2019 Associations between qualitative behaviour assessments and measures of leg health, fear and mortality in Norwegian broiler chicken flocks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 211: 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.12.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muri, K and Stubsjøen, SM 2017 Inter-observer reliability of Qualitative Behavioural Assessments (QBA) of housed sheep in Norway using fixed lists of descriptors. Animal Welfare 26: 427–435. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.26.4.427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napolitano, F, De Rosa, G, Grasso, F and Wemelsfelder, F 2012 Qualitative behaviour assessment of dairy buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 141: 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panksepp, J and Watt, D 2011 What is basic about basic emotions? Lasting lessons from affective neuroscience. Emotion Review 3: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911410741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phythian, C, Michalopoulou, E, Duncan, J and Wemelsfelder, F 2013 Inter-observer reliability of Qualitative Behavioural Assessments of sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144: 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team 2018 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
Revelle, W 2017 Psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. Northwestern University: Illinois, USAGoogle Scholar
Russell, JA and Bullock, M 1985 Multidimensional scaling of emotional facial expressions: Similarity from pre-schoolers to adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48: 1290–1298. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.5.1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sans, ECO, Federici, JF, Dahlke, F and Molento, CFM 2014 Avaliação de grau de bem-estar de frango de corte tipo caipira pelo Welfare Quality®. Revista Brasileira de Ciencia Avicola 16: 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-635x1603297-306. [Title translation: Evaluation of free-range broilers using the Welfare Quality® protocol]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souza, APO and Molento, CFM 2015 Good agricultural prac-tices in broiler chicken production in the state of Paraná: focus on animal welfare. Ciência Rural 45: 2239–2244. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20141877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souza, APO, Sans, ECO, Müller, BR and Molento, CFM 2015 Broiler chicken welfare assessment in GLOBALGAP certified and non- certified farms in Brazil. Animal Welfare 24: 45–54. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.1.045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, Federici, JF, Vanderhasselt, RF, Goethals, K, Duchateau, L, Sans, ECO and Molento, CFM 2015 Assessment of welfare of Brazilian and Belgian broiler flocks using the Welfare Quality® protocol. Poultry Science 94: 1758–1766. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev167CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, PY 2004 Investigating the validity of qualitative assessments of behaviour using a Free Choice Profiling approach in chickens. University of Edinburgh: Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens) p 116. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, AE and Lawrence, AB 2012 Assessing pig body language: Agreement and consistency between pig farmers, veterinarians, and animal activists. Journal of Animal Science 90: 3652–3665. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas2011-4691CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, EA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2000 The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: First explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00093-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, TEA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2001 Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62: 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Knierim, U, Lentfer, T, Staack, M and Sandilands, V 2009 Qualitative behaviour assessment. In: Forkman B and Keeling L (eds) Welfare Quality® Reports N9 -Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Layers and Broilers pp 113–119. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar