Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T12:13:17.262Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inter-observer and test-retest reliability of on-farm behavioural observations in veal calves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

EAM Bokkers ,
H Leruste ,
LFM Heutinck ,
M Wolthuis-Fillerup ,
JTN van der Werf ,
BJ Lensink  and
CG van Reenen
EAM Bokkers*
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
H Leruste
Affiliation:
Institut Supérieur d’Agriculture, 48 Boulevard Vauban, 59046 Lille, France
LFM Heutinck
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
M Wolthuis-Fillerup
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
JTN van der Werf
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
BJ Lensink
Affiliation:
Institut Supérieur d’Agriculture, 48 Boulevard Vauban, 59046 Lille, France
CG van Reenen
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints eddie.bokkers@wur.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate inter-observer and test-retest reliability of different behavioural observations to be used in an on-farm, animal welfare monitoring system for veal calves. Twenty-three veal calf farms, varying in size, housing system, feeding regime and age of the calves were visited twice with two observers, simultaneously. Behavioural tests were conducted in eight pens per farm, measuring the response of calves to: a human entering the barn; a novel object; a passive, unfamiliar person; disturbance in the pen and an active approach by an unfamiliar and a familiar person. Furthermore, behaviour was recorded 20 min before and 20 min after feeding in eight other pens per farm. For all behavioural tests, inter-observer reliability was very high. Farm effects and test-retest reliabilities were high and significant for all behavioural tests, except for the test measuring response to disturbance in the pen. Although the active approach test with the familiar person was reliable, it was not feasible in practice due to the availability of the farmer. Since the active approach test with the unfamiliar person gave similar results, this test was recommended for an on-farm animal welfare monitoring system. For most behavioural elements recorded around feeding, farms differed significantly and interobserver and test-retest reliabilities were high as well as being significant. The behavioural tests with entering the barn, novel object and unfamiliar person, and the behavioural observations before and after feeding were feasible and distinctive and reliable enough to be performed on-farm. These methods are promising tools to use as a monitor of animal welfare in veal calves.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourbehavioural response testmonitoringreliabilityveal calves
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. 381 - 390
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

Andersen, IL, B⊘e, KE, Foerevik, G, Janczak, AM and Bakken, M 2000 Behavioural evaluation of methods for assessing fear responses in weaned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69: 227–240Google ScholarPubMed
Anonymous 2001 Scientists’ assessment of the impact of housing and management on animal welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4: 3–52Google Scholar
Arave, CW, Albright, JL, Armstrong, DV, Foster, WW and Larson, LL 1992 Effects of isolation of calves on growth, behavior, and first lactation milk yield of Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 3408–3415CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boissy, A and Bouissou, MF 1995 Assessment of individual differences in behavioural reactions of heifers exposed to various fear-eliciting situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokkers, EAM and Koene, P 2001 Activity, oral behaviour and slaughter data as welfare indicators in veal calves: a comparison of three housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Passillé, AM, Rushen, J, Ladewig, J and Petherick, C 1996 Dairy calves’ discrimination of people based on previous handling. Journal of Animal Science 74: 969–974CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Wilt, JG 1985 Behaviour and welfare of veal calves in relation to husbandry systems. PhD Thesis, Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
EFSA 2006 The risks of poor welfare in intensive calf farming systems. An update of the Scientific Veterinary Committee Report on the Welfare of Calves. European Food Safety Authority Annex to EFSA Journal 366: 1–36, 144Google Scholar
Fagen, RM 1981 Animal Play Behaviour. Oxford University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Forkman, B, Boissy, A, Meunier-Salaun, MC, Canali, E and Jones, RB 2007 A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiology & Behavior 92: 340–374CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, AF and Broom, DM 1997 Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Genstat 2005 VSN International Ltd, Version 8.1.0.152. Venstat: UKGoogle Scholar
Graml, C, Waiblinger, S and Niebuhr, K 2008 Validation of tests for on-farm assessment of the hen-human relationship in non-cage systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 111: 301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grignard, L, Boivin, X, Boissy, A and Le Neindre, P 2001 Do beef cattle react consistently to different handling situations? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71: 263–276CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heeres, JJ, Ruis-Heutinck, LFM and van Reenen, CG 2000 The effect of roughage supply on zootechnical parameters, meat quality, behaviour and pathological status of the digestive organs in veal calves. In: Van Arendonk, JAM, Hofer, A, van der Honing, Y, Madec, F, Sejrsen, K, Pullar, D, Bodin, L, Fernández, JA and Bruns, EW (eds) 51st Annual Meeting of EAAP pp 199. 21-24 August 2000, The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Price, EO and Borgwardt, R 1996 Behavioural responses of domestic pigs and cattle to humans and novel stimuli. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50: 43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jago, JG, Krohn, CC and Matthews, LR 1999 The influence of feeding and handling on the development of the human-animal interactions in young cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62: 137–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, MB and Kyhn, R 2000 Play behaviour in group-housed dairy calves, the effect of space allowance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, MB, Vestergaard, KS and Krohn, CC 1998 Play behaviour in dairy calves kept in pens: the effect of social contact and space allowance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensink, BJ, Boivin, X, Pradel, P, Le Neindre, P and Veissier, I 2000 Reducing veal calves’ reactivity to people by providing additional human contact. Journal of Animal Science 78: 1213–1218Google ScholarPubMed
Lensink, BJ, Raussi, S, Boivin, X, Pyykkonen, M and Veissier, I 2001 Reactions of calves to handling depend on housing condition and previous experience with humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70: 187–199CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lensink, BJ, van Reenen, CG, Engel, B, Rodenburg, TB and Veissier, I 2003 Repeatability and reliability of an approach test to determine calves’ responsiveness to humans: ‘a brief report’. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83: 325–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidfors, LM 1993 Cross-sucking in group-housed dairy calves before and after weaning off milk. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38: 15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1993 Measuring Behaviour, an Introductory Guide. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, RC, Wood-Gush, DGM and Hall, JW 1988 Playful behaviour of piglets. Behavioural Processes 17: 205–216CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J, Taylor, AA and de Passillé, AM 1999 Domestic animals’ fear of humans and its effect on their welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 285–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smulders, D, Verbeke, G, Mormède, P and Geers, R 2006 Validation of a behavioral observation tool to assess pig welfare. Physiology & Behavior 89: 438–447CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terosky, TL, Wilson, LL, Stull, CL and Stricklin, WR 1997 Effects of individual housing design and size on special-fed Holstein veal calf growth performance, hematology, and carcass characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 75: 1697–1703CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Reenen, CG, Engel, B, Ruis-Heutinck, LFM, van der Werf, JTN, Buist, WG, Jones, RB and Blokhuis, HJ 2004 Behavioural reactivity of heifer calves in potentially alarming test situations: a multivariate and correlational analysis. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85: 11–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Reenen, CG, O’Connell, NE, van der Werf, JTN, Korte, SM, Hopster, H, Jones, RB and Blokhuis, HJ 2005 Responses of calves to acute stress: Individual consistency and relations between behavioral and physiological measures. Physiology & Behavior 85: 557–570CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Vuuren, AM, Stockhofe, N, Heeres-van der Tol, JJ, Heutinck, LFM and van Reenen, CG 2004 Effect of roughages added to the milk replacer diet of veal calves on behavior and gastric development. In: Joshi, NP and Herdt, TH (eds) 12th International Conference on Production Diseases in Farm Animals.19-22 July 2004, East Lansing, Michigan, USAGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and Fölsch, DW 2003 Influences on the avoidance and approach behaviour of dairy cows towards humans on 35 farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar