Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:11:59.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

C Brenninkmeyer ,
S Dippel ,
S March ,
J Brinkmann ,
C Winckler  and
U Knierim
C Brenninkmeyer*
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry, University of Kassel, Nordbahnhofstraße 1a, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
S Dippel
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel Straße 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
S March
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Animal Production and Technology, Georg-August-University of Goettingen, Driverstrasse 22, 49377 Vechta, Germany
J Brinkmann
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Animal Production and Technology, Georg-August-University of Goettingen, Driverstrasse 22, 49377 Vechta, Germany
C Winckler
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel Straße 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
U Knierim
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry, University of Kassel, Nordbahnhofstraße 1a, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
*
* 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.

Four observers were trained in lameness assessment using a subjective scoring system with five categories, and observer agreement was investigated four times at different stages of training and experience. Inter-observer reliability increased with time and reached acceptable levels in the last session. Retrospectively simplified versions of the scoring system were satisfactorily reliable already at a fairly low training level. For experienced raters, the original scoring system with five categories is suitable in terms of reliability for on-farm welfare assessment.

Keywords

animal welfaredairy cattlelameness scoringobserver agreementreliability
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , May 2007 , pp. 127 - 129
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Abramson, JH 2004. WINPEPI (PEPI-for-Windows) computer programs for epidemiologists. Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations 2004: 1–6 www.epi-perspectives.com/content/1/1/6Google Scholar
Byrt, T, Bishop, J and Carlin, JB 1993 Bias, prevalence and kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 46: 423–429CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleiss, JL, Levin, B and Paik, MC 2003 Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Mülleder, C and Waiblinger, S 2004 Analyse der Einflussfaktoren auf Tiergerechtheit, Tiergesundheit und Leistung von Milchkühen im Boxenlaufstall auf konventionellen und biologischen Betrieben unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Mensch-Tier-Beziehung. Endbericht zum Forschungsprojekt 1267, Eigenverlag, Wien. [Title translation: Analysis of factors affecting welfare, health and production parameters of dairy cows in cubicle loose housing systems on conventional and organic farms with a special focus on the human-animal relationship]Google Scholar
Vermunt, J 2004 Herd lameness – a review, major causal factors, and guidelines for prevention and control. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium and fifth Conference on Lameness in Ruminants pp 3-18. Maribor, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
Winckler, C and Willen, S 2001 The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 30: 103–107Google Scholar
Woodward, M 2005 Epidemiology – Study Design and Data Analysis, 2nd edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, USAGoogle Scholar