Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T07:59:50.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Navigating the iceberg: reducing the number of parameters within the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2014

C. A. E. Heath ,
W. J. Browne ,
S. Mullan  and
D. C. J. Main
C. A. E. Heath*
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol, BS40 5DU, UK
W. J. Browne
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol, BS40 5DU, UK
S. Mullan
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol, BS40 5DU, UK
D. C. J. Main
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol, BS40 5DU, UK
*
†E-mail: Cheryl.heath@bristol.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

The Welfare Quality® protocols provide a multidimensional assessment of welfare, which is lengthy, and hence limited in terms of practicality. The aim of this study was to investigate potential ‘iceberg indicators’ which could reliably predict the overall classification as a means of reducing the length of time for an assessment and so increase the feasibility of the Welfare Quality® protocol as a multidimensional assessment of welfare. Full Welfare Quality® assessments were carried out on 92 dairy farms in England and Wales. The farms were all classified as Acceptable or Enhanced. Logistic regression models with cross validation were used to compare model fit for the overall classification on farms. ‘Absence of prolonged thirst’, on its own, was found to correctly classify farms 88% of the time. More generally, the inclusion of more measures in the models was not associated with greater predictive ability for the overall classification. Absence of prolonged thirst could thus, in theory, be considered to be an iceberg indicator for the Welfare Quality® protocol, and could reduce the length of time for a farm assessment to 15 min. Previous work has shown that the parameters within the Welfare Quality® protocol are important and relevant for welfare assessment. However, it is argued that the credibility of the published aggregation system is compromised by the finding that one resource measure (Absence of prolonged thirst) is a major driver for the overall classification. It is therefore suggested that the prominence of Absence of prolonged thirst in this role may be better understood as an unintended consequence of the published measure aggregation system rather than as reflecting a realistic iceberg indicator.

Keywords

dairy cowsanimal welfareclassificationaggregationmodels
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 12 , December 2014 , pp. 1978 - 1986
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersson, M, Schaar, J and Wiktorsson, H 1984. Effects of drinking water flow rates and social rank on performance drinking behaviour of tied-up dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 11, 599–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Veissier, I, Miele, M and Jones, B 2010. The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 60, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A, Manteuffel, G, Jensen, MB, Moe, RO, Spruijt, B, Keeling, LJ, Winckler, C, Forkman, B, Dimirov, I, Langbein, J, Bakken, M, Veissier, I and Aubert, A 2007. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology and Behaviour 92, 375–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bokkers, EAM, de Vries, M, Antonissen, ICMA and de Boer, IJM 2012. Inter- and intra-observer reliability of experienced and inexperienced observers for the Qualitative Behaviour Assessment in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 21, 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brscic, M, Wemelsfelder, F, Tessitore, E, Gottardo, F, Cozzi, G and Van Reenen, CG 2009. Welfare assessment: correlations and integration between a Qualitative Behavioural Assessment and a clinical/health protocol applied in veal calves farms. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8, 601–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardot, V, Le Roux, Y and Jurjanz, S 2008. Drinking behavior of lactating dairy cows and prediction of their water intake. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 2257–2264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DairyCo 2013. Dairy statistics an insiders guide 2013. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Kenilworth, UK.Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2003. Behaviour as a tool in the assessment of animal welfare. Zoology 106, 383–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Vries, M, Bokkers, EAM, van Schaik, G, Botreau, B, Engel, B, Dijkstra, T and de Boer, IJM 2013a. Evaluating results of the Welfare Quality multi-criteria evaluation model for classification of dairy cattle welfare at the herd level. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 6264–6273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Vries, M, Bokkers, EAM, van Schaik, G, Engel, B and de Boer, IJM 2013b. Exploring the value of routinely collected herd data for estimating dairy cattle welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 715–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Vries, M, Engel, B, den Uijl, I, van Schaik, G, Dijkstra, T, de Boer, IJM and Bokkers, EAM 2013c. Assessment time of the Welfare Quality ® protocol for dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 13, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eerdenburg 2013. On-farm comparison of the Welfare Quality ® resource-based versus an animal-based measure of thirst in broiler chickens. In Abstracts for WQ Network Workshop 11th December, Lille, France, 10pp.Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 2005. Report on the Welfare Implications of Farm Assurance Schemes. FAWC, London, UK.Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 2009. Farm animal welfare in Great Britain: past, present and future. FAWC, London, UK.Google Scholar
Fraser, AF and Broom, DM 1990. Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Saunders, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H, Carpenter, J and Browne, WJ 2014. Fitting multilevel multivariate models with missing data in responses and covariates that may include interactions and nonlinear terms. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, Series A. 177, 553–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, C, Lin, Y, Browne, WJ, Mullan, S and Main, DCJ 2014. Implementing Welfare Quality® in UK assurance schemes: evaluating the challenges. Animal Welfare 23, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchner, MK, Schulze Westerath-Nicklaus, H, Gutmann, A, Pfeiffer, C, Elena, T, Giulio, C, Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2012. Qualitative Behaviour Assessment is independent from other parameters used in the Welfare Quality® assessment system for beef cattle. In Proceedings of the 46th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, 31st July to 4th August, Vienna, Austria, 79pp.Google Scholar
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, 451–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, W, Collis, KA, Gleed, PT, Sansom, BF, Allen, WM and Quick, AJ 1980. Effect of reduced water intake by lactating dairy cows on behaviour, milk yield and blood composition. Veterinary Record 106, 547–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machado Filho, LCP, Teixeira, DL, Von Keyserlingk, MAG, Weary, DM and Hötzel, MJ 2004. Designing better water troughs: dairy cows prefer and drink more from larger troughs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miele, M, Evans, A and Higgin, M (ed.) 2010. Dialogue between citizens and experts regarding farm animal welfare: citizen juries in the UK, Norway, the Netherlands and Italy, Welfare Quality Reports, 16 vols. Cardiff School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff, UK.Google Scholar
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2011. A pilot investigation of possible positive system descriptors in finishing pigs. Animal Welfare 20, 439–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Phythian, C, Nichalopoulou, E, Duncan, J and Wemeldsfelder, F 2013. Inter-observer reliabilty of Qualitative Behavioural Assessments of sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144 (s 1–2), 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, KMD, Donald, RD, Lawrence, AB and Wemelsfelder, F 2012. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of emotionality in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 139, 218–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwed, B 2013. Intra-day variation of Qualitative Behaviour Assesement outcomes in dairy cattle. In Proceedings of UFAW International Animal Welfare Science Symposium, 4th to 5th July 2013, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 91pp.Google Scholar
Stockman, CA, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, D, Wickham, SL, Beatty, DT, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2011. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment and quantitative physiological measurement of cattle naïve and habituated to road transport. Animal Production Science 51, 240–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockman, CA, McGilchrist, P, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, D, Wickhama, SL, Greenwood, PL, Cafe, LM, Blache, D, Wemelsfelder, F and Fleming, PA 2012. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of Angus steers during pre-slaughter handling and relationship with temperament and physiological responses. Applied Animal Behaviour 142, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teixeira, DL, Hötzel, MJ and Machado Filho, LCP 2006. Designing better water troughs: 2. Surface area and height, but not depth influence dairy cows’ preference. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, Vanderhasselt, RF, Federici, JF, Sans, ECO, Molento, CFM, Goethals, K, Buijs, S and Duchateau, L 2013. On-farm comparison of the Welfare Quality ® resource-based versus an animal-based measure of thirst in broiler chickens. In Abstracts for WQ Network Workshop, 11th December, Lille, France, 4p.Google Scholar
Webster, AJF, Main, DCJ and Whay, HR 2004. Welfare assessment: indices from clinical observation. Animal Welfare 13, 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality ® 2009. Welfare Quality ® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality ® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F 2007. How animals communicate quality of life: the qualitative assessment of behaviour. Animal Welfare 16, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, TEA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2001. Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62, 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeates, JW and Main, DCJ 2008. Assessment of positive welfare: a review. The Veterinary Journal 175, 293–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed