Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:18:29.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Sample Size and Experimenter on Reliability of Measures of Avoidance Distance in Dairy Cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

S Waiblinger  and
C Menke
S Waiblinger*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria
C Menke
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [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.

In the present study we evaluated the influence of different sample sizes and different experimenters on the reliability of measures of avoidance distance (AD) at farm level. On 29 dairy farms the AD of 55-100% of the cows was assessed by two different experimenters (E1 and E2). For both experimenters the herd median of AD (ADME) and the percentage of animals that could be touched (Touch%) were calculated. The reliability between experimenters was assessed by Spearman rank correlation coefficients. To assess the influence of sample size on reliability of AD, the tested animals were randomly divided into two halves (H1 and H2), and ADME and Touch% were calculated for both halves and correlated with each other, with total ADME and total Touch%, and with the behaviour of the milkers. All measures of AD were highly correlated between experimenters (ADME rs = 0.86; Touch% rs = 0.81). On farms with a higher value for ADME, however, some discrepancy was found between experimenters in ADME and Touch%. Smaller sample size reduced the number of significant correlations with milkers’ behaviour. AD of H1 and H2 correlated only moderately (rs = 0.38-0.43). In sum, smaller sample size reduced reliability and validity. Between-observer reliability of AD was relatively high, but there may be some observer influence. Further investigations are necessary to optimise the measures.

Keywords

animal welfareavoidance distancecattlehuman-animal relationshipon-farm welfare assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2003 , pp. 585 - 589
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Boivin, X, Garel, J P, Mante, A and LeNeindre, P 1998 Beef calves react differently to different handlers according to the test situation and their previous interactions with their caretaker. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 245–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X, LeNeindre, P, Chupin, J M, Garel, J P and Trillat, C 1992 Influence of breed and early management on ease of handling and open-field behaviour of cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 313–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P H and Coleman, G J 1998 Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals. CAB International: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P H, Barnett, J L, Tilbrook, A J and Hansen, C 1989 The effects of handling by humans at calving and during milking on the behaviour and milk cortisol concentrations of primiparous dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 313–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P H, Price, E O and Borgwardt, R 1996 Behavioural responses of domestic pigs and cattle to human kind novel stimuli. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50: 43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, C, Waiblinger, S, Fölsch, D W and Wiepkema, P R 1999 Social behaviour and injuries of horned cows in loose housing systems. Animal Welfare 8: 243–258Google Scholar
Munksgaard, L, DePassillé, A M, Rushen, J, Thodberg, K and Jensen, M B 1997 Discrimination of people by dairy cows based on handling. Journal of Dairy Science 80: 1106–1112CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rousing, T and Waiblinger, S 2002 Evaluation of on-farm methods for testing the human-animal relationship in dairy herds with cubicle loose housing systems — test-retest and inter-observer reliability and consistency to familiarity of test person. In: Rousing T 2002 Welfare assessment in dairy herds with loose-housing cubicle systems — development and evaluation of welfare indicators pp 30-52. PhD thesis, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, and Research Centre Foulum, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Rybarczyk, P, Koba, Y, Rushen, J, Tanida, H and De Passillé, A M 2001 Can cows discriminate people by their faces? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and Coleman, G 2002 The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79: 195–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar