Literature DB >> 28571983

Trained-user opinion about Welfare Quality measures and integrated scoring of dairy cattle welfare.

S de Graaf1, B Ampe2, C Winckler3, M Radeski4, L Mounier5, M K Kirchner6, M J Haskell7, F J C M van Eerdenburg8, A de Boyer des Roches5, S N Andreasen6, J Bijttebier2, L Lauwers1, W Verbeke9, F A M Tuyttens10.   

Abstract

The Welfare Quality (WQ) protocol for on-farm dairy cattle welfare assessment describes 27 measures and a stepwise method for integrating values for these measures into 11 criteria scores, grouped further into 4 principle scores and finally into an overall welfare categorization with 4 levels. We conducted an online survey to examine whether trained users' opinions of the WQ protocol for dairy cattle correspond with the integrated scores (criteria, principles, and overall categorization) calculated according to the WQ protocol. First, the trained users' scores (n = 8-15) for reliability and validity and their ranking of the importance of all measures for herd welfare were compared with the degree of actual effect of these measures on the WQ integrated scores. Logistic regression was applied to identify the measures that affected the WQ overall welfare categorization into the "not classified" or "enhanced" categories for a database of 491 European herds. The smallest multivariate model maintaining the highest percentage of both sensitivity and specificity for the "enhanced" category contained 6 measures, whereas the model for "not classified" contained 4 measures. Some of the measures that were ranked as least important by trained users (e.g., measures relating to drinkers) had the highest influence on the WQ overall welfare categorization. Conversely, measures rated as most important by the trained users (e.g., lameness and mortality) had a lower effect on the WQ overall category. In addition, trained users were asked to allocate criterion and overall welfare scores to 7 focal herds selected from the database (n = 491 herds). Data on all WQ measures for these focal herds relative to all other herds in the database were provided. The degree to which expert scores corresponded to each other, the systematic difference, and the correspondence between median trained-user opinion and the WQ criterion scores were then tested. The level of correspondence between expert scoring and WQ scoring for 6 of the 12 criteria and for the overall welfare score was low. The WQ scores of the protocol for dairy cattle thus lacked correspondence with trained users on the importance of several welfare measures.
Copyright © 2017 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Welfare Quality; animal welfare; trained-user opinion; welfare assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28571983     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-12255

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


  5 in total

1.  Using Expert Elicitation for ranking hazards, promoters and animal-based measures for on-farm welfare assessment of indoor reared beef cattle: an Italian experience.

Authors:  Valentina Lorenzi; Carlo Angelo Sgoifo Rossi; Riccardo Compiani; Silvia Grossi; Luca Bolzoni; Francesca Mazza; Gianfilippo Alessio Clemente; Francesca Fusi; Luigi Bertocchi
Journal:  Vet Res Commun       Date:  2022-05-28       Impact factor: 2.459

Review 2.  Precision Technologies to Address Dairy Cattle Welfare: Focus on Lameness, Mastitis and Body Condition.

Authors:  Severiano R Silva; José P Araujo; Cristina Guedes; Flávio Silva; Mariana Almeida; Joaquim L Cerqueira
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-07-30       Impact factor: 3.231

3.  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

Review 4.  What Is so Positive about Positive Animal Welfare?-A Critical Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Alistair B Lawrence; Belinda Vigors; Peter Sandøe
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2019-10-11       Impact factor: 2.752

5.  The Relation between Hair-Cortisol Concentration and Various Welfare Assessments of Dutch Dairy Farms.

Authors:  Frank J C M van Eerdenburg; Tessa Hof; Benthe Doeve; Lars Ravesloot; Elly C Zeinstra; Rebecca E Nordquist; Franz Josef van der Staay
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-15       Impact factor: 2.752

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.