The contribution of qualitative behavioural assessment to appraisal of livestock welfare
Patricia A. Fleming A B , Taya Clarke A , Sarah L. Wickham A , Catherine A. Stockman A , Anne L. Barnes A , Teresa Collins A and David W. Miller A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, WA 6150, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: t.fleming@murdoch.edu.au
Animal Production Science 56(10) 1569-1578 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15101
Submitted: 24 February 2015 Accepted: 24 December 2015 Published: 3 May 2016
Journal Compilation © CSIRO Publishing 2016 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Animal welfare is increasingly important for the Australian livestock industries, to maintain social licence to practice as well as ensuring market share overseas. Improvement of animal welfare in the livestock industries requires several important key steps. Paramount among these, objective measures are needed for welfare assessment that will enable comparison and contrast of welfare implications of husbandry procedures or housing options. Such measures need to be versatile (can be applied under a wide range of on- and off-farm situations), relevant (reveal aspects of the animal’s affective or physiological state that is relevant to their welfare), reliable (can be repeated with confidence in the results), relatively economic to apply, and they need to have broad acceptance by all stakeholders. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA) is an integrated measure that characterises behaviour as a dynamic, expressive body language. QBA is a versatile tool requiring little specialist equipment suiting application to in situ assessments that enables comparative, hypothesis-driven evaluation of various industry-relevant practices. QBA is being increasingly used as part of animal welfare assessments in Europe, and although most other welfare assessment methods record ‘problems’ (e.g. lameness, injury scores, and so on), QBA can capture positive aspects of animal welfare (e.g. positively engaged with their environment, playfulness). In this viewpoint, we review the outcomes of recent QBA studies and discuss the potential application of QBA, in combination with other methods, as a welfare assessment tool for the Australian livestock industries.
Additional keywords: animal welfare, consumers, farming, stakeholder.
References
Andreasen SN, Wemelsfelder F, Sandøe P, Forkman B (2013) The correlation of Qualitative Behavior Assessments with Welfare Quality® protocol outcomes in on-farm welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 143, 9–17.| The correlation of Qualitative Behavior Assessments with Welfare Quality® protocol outcomes in on-farm welfare assessment of dairy cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Arnold GM, Williams AA (1985) The use of Generalized Procrustes Techniques in sensory analysis. In ‘Statistical procedures in food research’. (Ed. JR Piggott) pp. 233–253. (Elsevier Applied Science: London)
Berkson J, Magath TB, Horn M (1940) The error of estimate of the blood cell count as made with the hemocytometer. American Journal of Physiology 128, 309–323.
Boissy A, Manteuffel G, Jensen MB, Moe RO, Spruijt B, Keeling LJ, Winckler C, Forkman B, Dimitrov I, Langbein J, Bakken M, Veissier I, Aubert A (2007) Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology & Behavior 92, 375–397.
| Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXhtF2htr7K&md5=fbeceb771c4101fce5cc216632949df3CAS |
Bokkers EAM, de Vries M, Antonissen ICMA, de Boer IJM (2012) Inter-and intra-observer reliability of experienced and inexperienced observers for the Qualitative Behaviour Assessment in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare (South Mimms, England) 21, 307–318.
| Inter-and intra-observer reliability of experienced and inexperienced observers for the Qualitative Behaviour Assessment in dairy cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38XhtFOntL7J&md5=0a385531495b2d3675b9337835078228CAS |
Brscic M, Wemelsfelder F, Tessitore E, Gottardo F, Cozzi G, Van Reenen CG (2009) Welfare assessment: correlations and integration between a Qualitative Behavioural Assessment and a clinical/ health protocol applied in veal calves farms. Proceedings of the 18th National Congress ASPA Palermo, Italy. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8, 601–603.
| Welfare assessment: correlations and integration between a Qualitative Behavioural Assessment and a clinical/ health protocol applied in veal calves farms. Proceedings of the 18th National Congress ASPA Palermo, Italy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Clarke T (2015) Qualitative behavioural assessment of sows under different housing conditions. PhD thesis, School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University.
Clarke T, Pluske JR, Fleming PA (2016) Are observer ratings influenced by prescription? A comparison of free choice profiling and fixed list methods of qualitative behavioural assessment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 177, 77–83.
Cordaro L, Ison JR (1963) Psychology of the scientist: X. Observer bias in classical conditioning of the planarian. Psychological Reports 13, 787–789.
| Psychology of the scientist: X. Observer bias in classical conditioning of the planarian.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
de Rosa G, Tripaldi C, Napolitano F, Saltalamacchia F, Grasso F, Bisegnai V, Bordfr A (2003) Repeatability of some animal-related variables in dairy cows and buffaloes. Animal Welfare 12, 625–629.
Dijksterhuis GB, Heiser WJ (1995) The role of permutation tests in exploratory multivariate data analysis. Food Quality and Preference 6, 263–270.
| The role of permutation tests in exploratory multivariate data analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Duijvesteijn N, Benard M, Reimert I, Camerlink I (2014) Same pig, different conclusions: stakeholders differ in qualitative behaviour assessment. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 27, 1019–1047.
| Same pig, different conclusions: stakeholders differ in qualitative behaviour assessment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Duncan IJH (2005) Science-based assessment of animal welfare: farm animals. Revue scientifique et technique-Office international des epizooties 24, 483
Ellingsen K, Coleman GJ, Lund V, Mejdell CM (2014) Using Qualitative Behaviour Assessment to explore the link between stockperson behaviour and dairy calf behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 153, 10–17.
| Using Qualitative Behaviour Assessment to explore the link between stockperson behaviour and dairy calf behaviour.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
European Union (2011) ‘Welfare Quality®: Science and society improving animal welfare in the food quality chain.’ Available at http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone [Verified March 2016]
Fleming PA, Paisley C, Barnes AL, Wemelsfelder F (2013) Application of Qualitative Behavioural Assessment to horses during an endurance ride. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144, 80–88.
| Application of Qualitative Behavioural Assessment to horses during an endurance ride.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fleming PA, Wickham SL, Stockman CA, Verbeek E, Matthews L, Wemelsfelder F (2015) The sensitivity of QBA assessments of sheep behavioural expression to variations in visual or verbal information provided to observers. Animal 9, 878–887.
| The sensitivity of QBA assessments of sheep behavioural expression to variations in visual or verbal information provided to observers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC2MvmtVChsg%3D%3D&md5=175d2bbce17d7eecd293998cc164035fCAS | 25583376PubMed |
Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL (2001) Human-animal interactions and animal stress. In ‘The biology of animal stress – basic principles and implications for animal welfare’. (Eds GP Moberg, JA Mench) pp. 309–336. (CABI Publishing: Oxon, UK)
Jones M Allison R 2007
Keeling L, Evans A, Forkman B, Kjaernes U (2013) ‘Welfare Quality principles and criteria.’ (Wageningen Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands)
Lau YYW, Pluske JR, Fleming PA (2015) Does environmental background (intensive vs. outdoor systems) influence the behaviour of piglets at weaning? Animal 9, 1361–1372.
| Does environmental background (intensive vs. outdoor systems) influence the behaviour of piglets at weaning?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC2Mjmslegug%3D%3D&md5=3db4b23bcea1391539b7059a0f3e1a9fCAS |
Meagher RK (2009) Observer ratings: validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119, 1–14.
| Observer ratings: validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Minero M, Tosi MV, Canali E, Wemelsfelder F (2009) Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the response of foals to the presence of an unfamiliar human. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 74–81.
| Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the response of foals to the presence of an unfamiliar human.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Morgan T, Pluske JR, Miller DW, Collins T, Barnes AL, Wemelsfelder F, Fleming PA (2014) Socialising piglets in lactation positively affects their post-weaning behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 158, 23–33.
| Socialising piglets in lactation positively affects their post-weaning behaviour.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Murphy E, Nordquist RE, van der Staay FJ (2014) A review of behavioural methods to study emotion and mood in pigs, Sus scrofa. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 159, 9–28.
| A review of behavioural methods to study emotion and mood in pigs, Sus scrofa.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Napolitano F, De Rosa G, Braghieri A, Grasso F, Bordi A, Wemelsfelder F (2008) The qualitative assessment of responsiveness to environmental challenge in horses and ponies. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109, 342–354.
| The qualitative assessment of responsiveness to environmental challenge in horses and ponies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Napolitano F, De Rosa G, Grasso F, Wemelsfelder F (2012) Qualitative behaviour assessment of dairy buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 141, 91–100.
| Qualitative behaviour assessment of dairy buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Oreskovich DC, Klein BP, Sutherland JW (1991) Procrustes Analysis and its applications to free-choice and other sensory profiling. In ‘Sensory science: theory and applications in foods’. (Eds HT Lawless, BP Klein) pp. 353–393. (Marcel Dekker: New York)
Petherick CJ, Doogan VJ, Venus BK, Holroyd RG, Olsson P (2009) Quality of handling and holding yard environment, and beef cattle temperament: 2. Consequences for stress and productivity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 120, 28–38.
| Quality of handling and holding yard environment, and beef cattle temperament: 2. Consequences for stress and productivity.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Phythian C, Michalopoulou E, Duncan J, Wemelsfelder F (2013) Inter-observer reliability of Qualitative Behavioural Assessments of sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144, 73–79.
| Inter-observer reliability of Qualitative Behavioural Assessments of sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Popescu S, Borda C, Diugan EA, El Mahdy C, Spinu M, Sandru CD (2014) Qualitative behaviour assessment of dairy cows housed in tie-and free stall housing systems. Bulletin UASVM Veterinary Medicine 71, 273–275.
Rousing T, Wemelsfelder F (2006) Qualitative assessment of social behaviour of dairy cows housed in loose housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 40–53.
| Qualitative assessment of social behaviour of dairy cows housed in loose housing systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rutherford KMD, Donald RD, Lawrence AB, Wemelsfelder F (2012) Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of emotionality in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 139, 218–224.
| Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of emotionality in pigs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Saks MJ, Risinger DM, Rosenthal R, Thompson WC (2003) Context effects in forensic science: a review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. Science & Justice 43, 77–90.
| Context effects in forensic science: a review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3szksl2nsw%3D%3D&md5=5f6befd7c4ee84df4a5e8b766c17f39fCAS |
Sant’Anna AC, Paranhos da Costa MJR (2013) Validity and feasibility of qualitative behavior assessment for the evaluation of Nellore cattle temperament. Livestock Science 157, 254–262.
| Validity and feasibility of qualitative behavior assessment for the evaluation of Nellore cattle temperament.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Serrapica M, Braghieri A, Riviezzi AM, Bragaglio A, Carlucci A, Napolitano F (2014) Qualitative assessment of buffalo behaviour temporal fluctuations. Italian Journal of Agronomy 9, 157–162.
| Qualitative assessment of buffalo behaviour temporal fluctuations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stockman CA, Collins T, Barnes AL, Miller DW, Wickham SL, Beatty DT, Blache D, Wemelsfelder F, Fleming PA (2011) Qualitative behavioural assessment of cattle naïve and habituated to road transport. Animal Production Science 51, 240–249.
| Qualitative behavioural assessment of cattle naïve and habituated to road transport.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stockman CA, McGilchrist P, Collins T, Barnes AL, Miller DW, Wickham SL, Greenwood PL, Cafe LM, Blache D, Wemelsfelder F, Fleming PA (2012) Qualitative behavioural assessment of cattle pre-slaughter and relationship with cattle temperament and physiological responses to the slaughter process. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 142, 125–133.
| Qualitative behavioural assessment of cattle pre-slaughter and relationship with cattle temperament and physiological responses to the slaughter process.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stockman CA, Collins T, Barnes AL, Miller DW, Wickham SL, Beatty DT, Blache D, Wemelsfelder F, Fleming PA (2013) Flooring and driving conditions during road transport influence the behavioural expression of cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 143, 18–30.
| Flooring and driving conditions during road transport influence the behavioural expression of cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stockman CA, Collins T, Barnes AL, Miller DW, Wickham SL, Verbeek E, Matthews L, Ferguson D, Wemelsfelder F, Fleming PA (2014) Qualitative behavioural assessment of the motivation for feed in sheep in response to altered body condition score. Animal Production Science 54, 922–929.
Temple D, Dalmau A, Ruiz de la Torre JL, Manteca X, Velarde A (2011a) Application of the Welfare Quality protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 6, 138–149.
| Application of the Welfare Quality protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Temple D, Manteca X, Velarde A, Dalmau A (2011b) Assessment of animal welfare through behavioural parameters in Iberian pigs in intensive and extensive conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 131, 29–39.
| Assessment of animal welfare through behavioural parameters in Iberian pigs in intensive and extensive conditions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Temple D, Manteca X, Dalmau A, Velarde A (2013) Assessment of test-retest reliability of animal-based measures on growing pig farms. Livestock Science 151, 35–45.
| Assessment of test-retest reliability of animal-based measures on growing pig farms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tuyttens FAM, de Graaf S, Heerkens JLT, Jacobs L, Nalon E, Ott S, Stadig L, Van Laer E, Ampe B (2014) Observer bias in animal behaviour research: can we believe what we score, if we score what we believe? Animal Behaviour 90, 273–280.
| Observer bias in animal behaviour research: can we believe what we score, if we score what we believe?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Walker J, Dale A, Waran N, Clarke N, Farnworth M, Wemelsfelder F (2010) The assessment of emotional expression in dogs using a Free Choice Profiling methodology. Animal Welfare (South Mimms, England) 19, 75–84.
Wemelsfelder F (1997) The scientific validity of subjective concepts in models of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53, 75–88.
| The scientific validity of subjective concepts in models of animal welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wemelsfelder F (2007) How animals communicate quality of life: the qualitative assessment of behaviour. Animal Welfare (South Mimms, England) 16, 25–31.
Wemelsfelder F, Millard F (2009) Qualitative Behaviour Assessment. In ‘Assessment of animal welfare measures for sows, piglets and fattening pigs. Welfare Quality reports No. 10, Sixth Framework Programme’. (Eds B Forkman, L Keeling) pp. 213–219. (University of Cardiff: Cardiff)
Wemelsfelder F, Mullan S (2014) Applying ethological and health indicators to practical animal welfare assessment. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) 33, 111–120.
Wemelsfelder F, Hunter EA, Mendl MT, 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.
| The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 10736529PubMed |
Wemelsfelder F, Hunter TEA, Mendl MT, Lawrence AB (2001) Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62, 209–220.
| Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free choice profiling approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wemelsfelder F, Knierim U, Schulze Westerath H, Lentfer T, Staack M, Sandilands V (2009a) Qualitative Behaviour Assessment. In ‘Assessment of animal welfare measures for layers and broilers. Welfare Quality reports No. 9, Sixth Framework Programme’. (Eds B Forkman, L Keeling) pp. 113–119. (University of Cardiff: Cardiff)
Wemelsfelder F, Millard F, De Rosa G, Napolitano F (2009b) Qualitative Behaviour Assessment. In ‘Assessment of animal welfare measures for dairy cattle, beef bulls and veal calves. Welfare Quality reports No. 11, Sixth Framework Programme.’ (Eds B Forkman, L Keeling) pp. 215–224. (University of Cardiff: Cardiff)
Wemelsfelder F, Nevison I, Lawrence AB (2009c) The effect of perceived environmental background on qualitative assessments of pig behaviour. Animal Behaviour 78, 477–484.
| The effect of perceived environmental background on qualitative assessments of pig behaviour.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wemelsfelder F, Hunter AE, Paul ES, Lawrence AB (2012) Assessing pig body language: agreement and consistency between pig farmers, veterinarians and animal activists. Journal of Animal Science 90, 3652–3665.
| Assessing pig body language: agreement and consistency between pig farmers, veterinarians and animal activists.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38XhsFKrs7fE&md5=da36cf316945e93afcd4e5b0fabbd170CAS | 22745187PubMed |
Whitham JC, Wielebnowski N (2009) Animal-based welfare monitoring: using keeper ratings as an assessment tool. Zoo Biology 28, 545–560.
Wickham SL, Collins T, Barnes AL, Miller DW, Beatty DT, Stockman CA, Blache D, Wemelsfelder F, Fleming PA (2012) Qualitative behavioral assessment of transport-naïve and transport-habituated sheep. Journal of Animal Science 90, 4523–4535.
| Qualitative behavioral assessment of transport-naïve and transport-habituated sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXns1SrtA%3D%3D&md5=5b6ea4b4cd3f87a49a3e88f451061cc0CAS | 22829616PubMed |
Wickham SL, Collins T, Barnes AL, Miller DW, Beatty DT, Stockman CA, Blache D, Wemelsfelder F, Fleming PA (2015) Validating the use of Qualitative Behavioural Assessment as a measure of the welfare of sheep during transport. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 18, 269–286.
| Validating the use of Qualitative Behavioural Assessment as a measure of the welfare of sheep during transport.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC2MXjt1SjsLo%3D&md5=7edf0ba9991cadc0c935ac38a74e9239CAS | 25695526PubMed |
