Literature DB >> 23932136

Evaluating results of the Welfare Quality multi-criteria evaluation model for classification of dairy cattle welfare at the herd level.

M de Vries1, E A M Bokkers, G van Schaik, R Botreau, B Engel, T Dijkstra, I J M de Boer.   

Abstract

The Welfare Quality multi-criteria evaluation (WQ-ME) model aggregates scores of single welfare measures into an overall assessment for the level of animal welfare in dairy herds. It assigns herds to 4 welfare classes: unacceptable, acceptable, enhanced, or excellent. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the relative importance of single welfare measures for WQ-ME classification of a selected sample of Dutch dairy herds. Seven trained observers quantified 63 welfare measures of the Welfare Quality protocol in 183 loose housed- and 13 tethered Dutch dairy herds (herd size: 10 to 211 cows). First, values of welfare measures were compared among the 4 welfare classes, using Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-squared tests. Second, observed values of single welfare measures were replaced with a fictitious value, which was the median value of herds classified in the next highest class, to see if improvement of a single measure would enable a herd to reach a higher class. Sixteen herds were classified as unacceptable, 85 as acceptable, 78 as enhanced, and none as excellent. Classification could not be calculated for 17 herds because data were missing (15 herds) or data were deemed invalid because the stockperson disturbed behavioral observations (2 herds). Herds classified as unacceptable showed significantly more very lean cows, more severely lame cows, and more often an insufficient number of drinkers than herds classified as acceptable. Herds classified as acceptable showed significantly more cows with high somatic cell count, with lesions, that could not be approached closer than 1m, colliding with components of the stall while lying down, and lying outside the lying area, and showed fewer cows with diarrhea, more often had an insufficient number of drinkers, and scored lower for the descriptors "relaxed" and "happy" than herds classified as enhanced. Increasing the number of drinkers and reducing the percentage of cows colliding with components of the stall while lying down were the changes most effective in allowing herds classified as unacceptable and acceptable, respectively, to reach a higher class. The WQ-ME model was not very sensitive to improving single measures of good health. We concluded that a limited number of welfare measures had a strong influence on classification of dairy herds. Classification of herds based on the WQ-ME model in its current form might lead to a focus on improving these specific measures and divert attention from improving other welfare measures. The role of expert opinion and the type of algorithmic operator used in this model should be reconsidered.
Copyright © 2013 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Welfare Quality; classification; dairy cattle; multi-criteria evaluation

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23932136     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2012-6129

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dairy Sci        ISSN: 0022-0302            Impact factor:   4.034


  15 in total

1.  Should the Contribution of One Additional Lame Cow Depend on How Many Other Cows on the Farm Are Lame?

Authors:  Peter Sandøe; Björn Forkman; Franziska Hakansson; Sine Norlander Andreasen; Rikke Nøhr; Matt Denwood; Thomas Bøker Lund
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2017-12-11       Impact factor: 2.752

2.  Zoo agent's measure in applying the five freedoms principles for animal welfare.

Authors:  Argyo Demartoto; Robertus Bellarminus Soemanto; Siti Zunariyah
Journal:  Vet World       Date:  2017-09-03

3.  Primiparous and multiparous Friesland, Jersey, and crossbred cows' behavior around parturition time at the pasture-based system in South Africa.

Authors:  Mpisana Zuko; Ishmael Festus Jaja
Journal:  J Adv Vet Anim Res       Date:  2020-04-15

4.  Evaluation of the performance of register data as indicators for dairy herds with high lameness prevalence.

Authors:  Nina Dam Otten; Nils Toft; Peter Thorup Thomsen; Hans Houe
Journal:  Acta Vet Scand       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 1.695

5.  Environmental and Management Factors Affecting the Time Budgets of Free-Ranging Iberian Pigs Reared in Spain.

Authors:  Míriam Martínez-Macipe; Eva Mainau; Xavier Manteca; Antoni Dalmau
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-05       Impact factor: 2.752

6.  A Results-Oriented Approach for the Animal Welfare Measure of the European Union's Rural Development Programme.

Authors:  Angela Bergschmidt; Solveig March; Kathrin Wagner; Jan Brinkmann
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 2.752

7.  The Welfare Aggregation and Guidance (WAG) Tool: A New Method to Summarize Global Welfare Assessment Data for Equids.

Authors:  Laura M Kubasiewicz; João B Rodrigues; Stuart L Norris; Tamlin L Watson; Karen Rickards; Nikki Bell; Andrew Judge; Zoe Raw; Faith A Burden
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2020-03-25       Impact factor: 2.752

8.  Effects of cubicle characteristics on animal welfare indicators in dairy cattle.

Authors:  D Gieseke; C Lambertz; M Gauly
Journal:  Animal       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Cattle Cleanliness from the View of Swedish Farmers and Official Animal Welfare Inspectors.

Authors:  Frida Lundmark Hedman; Maria Andersson; Vanja Kinch; Amelie Lindholm; Angelica Nordqvist; Rebecka Westin
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-27       Impact factor: 2.752

10.  A New, Practical Animal Welfare Assessment for Dairy Farmers.

Authors:  Frank J C M van Eerdenburg; Alice M Di Giacinto; Jan Hulsen; Bert Snel; J Arjan Stegeman
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 2.752

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.