Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:22:04.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inter- and intra-observer reliability of experienced and inexperienced observers for the Qualitative Behaviour Assessment in dairy cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

EAM Bokkers ,
M de Vries ,
ICMA Antonissen  and
IJM de Boer
EAM Bokkers*
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
M de Vries
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
ICMA Antonissen
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
IJM de Boer
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
* 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.

Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) is part of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle, although its inter- and intra-observer reliability have not been reported. This study evaluated inter- and intra-observer reliability of the QBA for dairy cattle in experienced and inexperienced observers using videos. Eight experienced observers performed the QBA (20 descriptors) twice for 16 video clips (60 s per clip; series 1) showing 4-17 animals. They assessed another 11 video clips showing herds (4 shots of 30 s per clip; series 2). Ten inexperienced observers performed the QBA on both video series one time. Inter-observer reliability of experienced observers ranged from slight to moderate (both assessments of series 1), and from low to high (series 2) for descriptors, and from slight to moderate for the QBA score. Inter-observer reliability of inexperienced observers ranged from low to moderate (series 1), and from low to high (series 2) for descriptors, and was moderate (both series) for the QBA score. Intra-observer correlations varied largely per descriptor and observer. They were both negative and positive, and ranged from low to very high. High correlations, however, were not necessarily associated with low paired differences. Values of half of the descriptors and the QBA score differed amongst experienced and inexperienced observers. The QBA appears insufficiently reliable as a tool for welfare assessment in dairy cattle.

Keywords

animal welfaredairy cattleQualitative Behaviour AssessmentreliabilityrepeatabilityWelfare Quality®
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. 307 - 318
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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: 445–45510.1017/S096272860002604XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokkers, EAM, Leruste, H, Heutinck, LFM, Wolthuis-Fillerup, , M van der Werf, JTN, Lensink, BJ and van Reenen, CG 2009 Inter-observer and test-retest reliability of on-farm behavioural observations in veal calves. Animal Welfare 18: 381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caro, TM, Roper, R, Young, M and Dank, GR 1979 Interobserver reliability. Behaviour 69: 303–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853979X00520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, A and Cook, NB 2010 Time budgets of lactating dairy cattle in commercial free-stall herds. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 5772–5781. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazdin, AE 1977 Artifact, bias and complexity of assessment: ABCs of reliability. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 10: 141–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1977.10-141CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2009 On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future perspectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach. Animal Welfare 18: 451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1993 Measuring Behaviour, An Introductory Guide. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meagher, RK 2009 Observer ratings: validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119: 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napolitano, F, De Rosa, G, Caporale, G, Carlucci, A, Grasso, F and Monteleone, E 2007 Bridging consumer perception and on-farm assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 249–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plesch, G, Broerkens, N, Laister, S, Winckler, C and Knierim, U 2010 Reliability and feasibility of selected measures concerning resting behaviour for the on-farm welfare assessment in dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 126: 19–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uzal, S and Ugurlu, N 2010 The dairy cattle behaviors and time budget and barn area usage in freestall housing. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 9: 248–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/javaa.2010.248.254Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Lawrence, AB 2001 Qualitative assessment of animal behaviour as an on-farm welfare-monitoring tool. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 30: 21–25Google Scholar
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. http://dx.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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Millard, F, De Rosa, G and Napolitano, F 2006 Qualitative indicators for the on-farm monitoring of cattle welfare. EU deliverable D2.18.10, subtask 2.2.4 29Google Scholar
Windschnurer, I, Schmied C Boivin, X and Waiblinger, S 2008 Reliability and inter-test relationship of tests for on-farm assessment of dairy cows’ relationship to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114: 37–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar