Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:48:30.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validation of an Animal Needs Index for cattle using Test Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

T Herva ,
O Peltoniemi  and
A-M Virtala
T Herva*
Affiliation:
Quality Manager, Atria Ltd, Department of Production Animal Medicine, University of Helsinki, Finland
O Peltoniemi
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Medicine, University of Helsinki, Finland
A-M Virtala
Affiliation:
Department of Basic Veterinary Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland
*
* 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.

The validity of an ANI-based welfare index for cattle, the A-Index, was evaluated using Test Theory methods described for quality of life assessments in human medicine. Content validity was considered during the modification of the Index for Finnish beef production. In total, 43 items evaluating locomotion abilities, lying area, social environment, management, feeding, and health of animals over six months up to slaughter were formed. Index scorings were performed on 237 farms. A most consistent partial A-Index was constructed based on qualitative item analyses. A positive relationship was established between the full A-Index and daily carcase gain. In addition, a preliminary negative relationship was established between the partial A-Index, body fat and mortality. Based on our observations, methods used for quality of life indices in human beings would appear suitable for animal welfare assessment. Practicability and well-defined methodology are the main advantages of Test Theory approach.

Keywords

animal welfarecattledaily gainepidemiologyfatmortality
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2009 , pp. 417 - 425
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Amon, T, Amon, B, Ofner, E and Boxberger, J 2001 Precision of Assessment of Animal Welfare by the TGI 35 L, Austrian Needs Index. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A-Animal Sciences 51: 114–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, HR, Jensen, LR, Munksgaard, L and Ingvartsen, KL 1997 Influence of floor space allowance and access sites to feed trough on the production of calves and young bulls and on the carcass and meat quality of young bulls. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science 47: 48–56Google Scholar
Andersson, M 1984 Drinking water supply to housed dairy cows. Influence on performance and behaviour of flow rate, water temperature, number of bowls, restriction in availability and social rank. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciencies, Department of Animal Nutrition and Management. Uppsala. Report 130: 54–57Google Scholar
Bartussek, H 1999 A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61: 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, S 1998 Konstruktion und Überprüfung eines Bewertungskonzeptes für pferdehaltende Betriebe unter dem Aspekt der Tiergerechtheit. Dissertation, Justus Liebig-Universität, Giessen, Germany. [Title translation: Construction and testing of a concept to measure horse farms from animal rights point of view]Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Bonde, M, Butterworth, A, Perny, P, Bracke, MBM, Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2007a Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 1: A review of existing methods. Animal 1: 1179–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Bracke, MBM, Perny, P, Butterworth, A, Capdeville, J, Reenen, CG and Veissier, I 2007b Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: Analysis of constraints. Animal 1: 1188–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM 2007 Animal-based parameters are no panacea for on-farm monitoring of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 229–231Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Spruijt, BM and Metz, JHM 1999 Overall animal welfare assessment reviewed. Part 1: Is it possible? Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47: 279–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 1991 Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2001 A method of assessing welfare in loose-housed dairy cows at farm level, focusing on animal observations. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, A, 51, Supplement 30: 62–68Google Scholar
Cronbach, LJ 1951 Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16: 297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dallman, MF, Pecoraro, N, Akana, SF, la Fleur, SE, Gomez, F, Houshyar, H, Bell, ME, Bhatnagar, S, Laugero, KD and Manalo, S 2003 Chronic stress and obesity: A new view of comfort food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 11696–11701CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, MS 1980 Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall: UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeGrazia, D 1996 Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVellis, RF 2003 Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, USAGoogle Scholar
Dohoo, I, Martin, W and Stryhn, H 2003 Veterinary Epidemiologic Research. AVC Incorporation: Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH 1996 Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 27: 29–35Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1995 Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Animal Welfare 4: 103–117Google Scholar
Hannan, J and Murphy, P 1983 Comparative Mortality and Morbidity Rates for Cattle on Slatted Floors and in Straw Yards. Current Topics in Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science: The Hague, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassall, S, Ward, W and Murray, R 1993 Effects of lameness on the behaviour of cows during the summer. The Veterinary Record 132: 578–580CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herva, T, Huuskonen, A, Virtala, A, Saatkamp, H and Peltoniemi, OAT On-farm welfare and estimated daily carcass gain of slaughtered bulls. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 59(2): 104–120Google Scholar
Ingvartsen, KL and Andersen, HR 1993 Space allowance and type of housing for growing cattle. A review of performance and possible relation to neuroendocrine function. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 43: 65–80Google Scholar
Jóhannesson, T and S⊘rensen, J 2000 Evaluation of welfare indicators for the social environment in cattle herds. Animal Welfare 9: 297–316Google Scholar
Keeling, LJ 2005 Healthy and happy: animal welfare as an integral part of sustainable agriculture. AMBIO. A Journal of the Human Environment 34: 316–319Google Scholar
Lindström, T and Redbo, I 2000 Effect of feeding duration and rumen fill on behaviour in dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70: 83–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menke, C, Waiblinger, S, Fölsch, DW and Wiepkema, PR 1999 Social behaviour and injuries of horned cows in loose housing systems. Animal Welfare 8: 243–258Google Scholar
Munsterhjelm, C and Herva, T 2003 Hyvinvointimittarit osaksi laatutyötä? Finnish Veterinary Journal 91: 79–81. [Title translation: Should welfare scores be included in the quality schemes?]Google Scholar
Munsterhjelm, C, Valros, A, Heinonen, M, Halli, O and Peltoniemi, OAT 2006 Welfare index and reproductive performance in the sow. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 41: 494–500CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunnally, JC and Bernstein, IH 1994 Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Phillips, CJC, Morris, ID, Lomas, CA and Lockwood, SJ 2000 The locomotion of dairy cows in passageways with different light intensities. Animal Welfare 9: 421–431Google Scholar
Ruis-Heutinck, LFM, Smits, MCJ, Smits, AC and Heeres, JJ 1999 Effects of floor type and floor area on behaviour and carpal joint lesions in beef bulls. Improving health and welfare in animal production. Proceedings of Sessions of the EAAP Commission on Animal Management and Health pp 29–36. 21-24 August 2000, The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J 2003 Changing concepts of farm animal welfare: bridging the gap between applied and basic research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrader, L, Hoth, HR, Winterling, C, Brodmann, N, Langhans, W, Geyer, H and Graf, B 2001 The occurrence of tail-tip alterations in fattening bulls kept under different husbandry conditions. Animal Welfare 10: 119–130Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Nolan, AM and Fitzpatrick, JL 2001 Conceptual and Methodological Issues Related to Welfare Assessment: A Framework for Measurement. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A-Animal Sciences 51: 5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Testa, MA and Simonson, DC 1996 Assessment of Quality-of-Life Outcomes. New England Journal of Medicine 334: 835–840CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waiblinger, S, Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2001 The development of an epidemiologically based on-farm welfare assessment system for use with dairy cows. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A-Animal Sciences 51: 73–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF, Smith, JS and Brockway, JM 1972 Effects of isolation, confinement and competition for feed on the energy exchanges of growing lambs. Animal Production 15: 189–201Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DC, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. The Veterinary Record 153: 197–202CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winckler, C, Capdeville, J, Gebresenbet, G, Hörning, B, Roiha, U, Tosi, M and Waiblinger, S 2003 Selection of parameters for on-farm welfare-assessment protocols in cattle and buffalo. Animal Welfare 12: 619–624Google Scholar