Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T13:38:26.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How reliable is the multi-criteria evaluation system of the Welfare Quality® protocol for growing pigs?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

I Czycholl ,
C Kniese ,
L Schrader  and
J Krieter
I Czycholl
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstrasse 40, D-24098 Kiel, Germany Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
C Kniese
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich Loeffler Institute, Doernbergstrasse 25/27, D-29223 Celle, Germany
L Schrader
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich Loeffler Institute, Doernbergstrasse 25/27, D-29223 Celle, Germany
J Krieter
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstrasse 40, D-24098 Kiel, Germany
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.

This paper focuses on the reliability of the multi-criteria evaluation model included in the Welfare Quality® protocol for growing pigs to aggregate the animal-based indicators, first to criteria, then to principle level and finally to an overall welfare score. This assessment was carried out in a practical application study on a sample of 24 farms in Germany. Altogether, 102 protocol assessments were carried out in repeated visits to these farms in order to evaluate the inter-observer and test-retest repeatability of the overall scores calculated by the multi-criteria evaluation system. Reliability is then assessed by the calculation of different reliability and agreement parameters: Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients (RS), Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), Smallest Detectable Changes (SDC) and Limits of Agreement (LoA). Inter-observer repeatability was insufficient for the criteria comfort around resting, absence of injuries, expression of social behaviours, expression of other behaviours, good human-animal relationship and positive emotional state as well as for the principles good housing and appropriate behaviour. This is probably due in the main to insufficient repeatability of the underlying indicators that have been revealed in previous studies. Test-retest repeatability is predominantly insufficient. Overall, the present results highlight the importance of absolutely reliable indicators at the baseline level. Furthermore, it could be shown that the calculation procedure is partly incorrect and consequently needs correction. Therefore, this study is an important contribution to the future progression of the Welfare Quality® protocols and animal welfare assessment tools in general.

Keywords

animal welfaremulti-criteria evaluationpigsreliabilityrepeatabilityWelfare Quality®
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , May 2018 , pp. 147 - 156
Copyright
© 2018 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

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
Bland, MJ and Altman, DG 1986 Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet 327: 307–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, H, Veissier, I, Jones, B and Miele, M 2013 Improving farm animal welfare - science and society working together: the Welfare Quality® approach. In: Blokhuis, H, Miele, M, Veissier, I and Jones, B (eds) Improving Farm Animal Welfare - Science and Society Working Together: The Welfare Quality Approach. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, Gelderland, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-770-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokkers, EAM, de Vries, M, Antonissen, I and de Boer, IJM 2012 Inter- and intra-observer reliability of experienced and inex-perienced observers for the Qualitative Behaviour Assessment in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 21: 307–318. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.3.307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Bonde, M, Butterworth, A, Perny, P, Bracke, MBM, Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2007 Aggregation of meas-ures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 1: a review of existing methods. Animal 1: 1179–1187. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731107000535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I and Perny, P 2009 Overall assessment of animal welfare: strategy adopted in Welfare Quality®. Animal Welfare 18: 363–370Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Winckler, C, Velarde, A, Butterworth, A, Dalmau, A, Keeling, LJ and Veissier, I 2013 Integration of data collected on farms or at slaughter to generate an overall assess-ment of animal welfare. In: Blokhuis H, Miele M, Veissier I and Jones B (eds) Improving Farm Animal Welfare-Science and Society Working Together: The Welfare Quality® Integration of data collected on farms or at slaughter to generate an overall assess-ment of animal welfare. In: Blokhuis H, Miele M, Veissier I and Jones B (eds) Improving Farm Animal Welfare-Science and Society Working Together: The Welfare Quality® Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, Gelderland, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-770-7_7Google Scholar
Courboulay, V, Meunier-Salaun, MC, Edwards, SA, Guy, JH and Scott, K 2009b Repeatability of abnormal behaviour. In: Forkman B and Keeling LJ (eds) Welfare Quality® Reports pp 131–141. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle 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. Archive for Animal Breeding 58: 237–249. https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-58-237-2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czycholl, I, Kniese, C, Büttner, K, Grosse Beilage, E, Schrader, L and Krieter, J 2016a Inter-observer reliability of the Welfare Quality® Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Growing Pigs. Springer Plus 5: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2785-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czycholl, I, Kniese, C, Büttner, K, Grosse Beilage, E, Schrader, L and Krieter, J 2016b Test-retest reliability of the Welfare Quality® Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Growing Pigs. Animal Welfare 25: 447–459. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.25.4.447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czycholl, I, Kniese, C, Schrader, L and Krieter, J 2017 Assessment of the multi-criteria evaluation system of the Welfare Quality® protocol for growing pigs. Animal 9: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731117000210Google Scholar
de Passillé, AM and Rushen, J 2005 Can we measure human animal interactions in on-farm animal welfare assessment? Some unresolved issues. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92: 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutscher Tierschutzbund 2013 Kriterienkatalog für eine tierge-rechte Haltung und Behandlung von Mastschweinen im Rahmen des Tierschutzlabels “Für mehr Tierschutz”. Deutscher Tierschutzbund ev: Bonn, Germany. [Title translation: Criteria catalogue for an animal-friendly husbandry and handling of growing pigs within the German animal welfare label ‘increasing animal welfare’]Google Scholar
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
de Vries, M, Bokkers, EAM, van Schaik, G, Botreau, R, Engel, B, Dijkstra, T and de Boer, IJM 2013 Evaluating results of the Welfare Quality® multi-criteria evaluation model for clas-sification of dairy cattle welfare at the herd level. Journal of Dairy Science 96: 6264–6273. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dohoo, I, Martin, W and Stryhn, H 2003 Screening and diag-nostic tests. Veterinary Epidemiologic Research 1: 85–120Google Scholar
Donoghue, D and Stokes, EK 2009 How much change is true change? The minimum detectable change of the Berg Balance Scale in elderly people. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 41: 343–346. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0337CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, A and Miele, M 2007 Consumers’ Views about Farm Animal Welfare. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
FAWC 1993 Second report on priorities for research and develop-ment in farm animal welfare. Defra: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Gamer, M, Lemon, J, Fellows, I and Singh, P 2012 Irr: various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement (R package version 0.83). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=irrGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, TD 2001 Detecting trends using Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient. Environmental Forensics 2: 359–362. https://doi.org/10.1006/enfo.2001.0061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, AL, Hobbs, JE, Isaac, GE and Kerr, WA 2002 Ethics, domestic food policy and trade law: assessing the EU animal wel-fare proposal to the WTO. Food Policy 27: 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(02)00048-9CrossRefGoogle 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: 451–458Google Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 2007 Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide. University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P, Czycholl, I, Buxadé, C and Krieter, J 2017 Validation of a multi-criteria evaluation model for animal welfare. Animal 11: 650–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731116001737CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, P, Traulsen, I, Buxadé, C and Krieter, J 2017 Development of a multi-criteria evaluation system to assess growing pig welfare. Animal 11: 466–477. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731116001464CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGraw, KO and Wong, SP 1996 Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods 1:30–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miele, M, Veissier, I, Evans, A and Botreau, R 2011 Animal welfare: establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare 20: 103–117Google Scholar
Shrout, PE and Fleiss, JL 1979 Intra-class correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin 86: 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temple, D, Courboulay, V, Manteca, X, Velarde, A and Dalmau, A 2012 The welfare of growing pigs in five different pro-duction systems: assessment of feeding and housing. Animal 6:656–667. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111001868CrossRefGoogle 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
Tuyttens, FAM, de Graaf, S, Heerkens, JLT, Jacobs, L, Nalon, E, Ott, S, Stadig, L, Van Laer, E and Ampe, B 2014 Observer bias in animal behaviour research: can we believe what we score, if we score what we believe? Animal Behaviour 90: 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vapnek, J and Chapman, M 2010 Legislative and regulatory options for animal welfare. FAO Legislative Study, No 104. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2898362Google Scholar
Velarde, AG 2007 On farm Monitoring of Pig Welfare. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Gelderland, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-591-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venables, WN and Smith, DM 2010 The R development core team (2004), an introduction to R. The R Development Core Team 2: 1–90Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Pigs. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, Gelderland, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® Network 2009 Online Calculator. http://www1.cler-mont.inra.fr/wq/index.php?id=simul&new=1&situation=FPFGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Czycholl et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 267.8 KB