Test-retest reliability of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment protocol for growing pigs
Test-retest reliability of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment protocol for growing pigs
复制标题
DOI：
10.7120/09627286.25.4.447
复制
发表时间：
2016-11-01
期刊：
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Krieter, J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Czycholl, I.;Kniese, C.;Krieter, J.
本研究的目的是评估生长猪福利质量(R)动物福利评估方案的可行性和重测信度。23个德国养猪场由训练有素的观察员反复访问；每个农场在两个育肥期被访问六次。整个方案评估在每次农场访问期间进行，即定性行为评估（QBA），行为观察（BO），人类动物关系测试（HAR）和不同的个体参数（IPs），如滑囊炎和咬尾。通过Wilcoxon签名秩检验(W)和最小可检测变化（SDC）和一致限（LoA）的计算来评估重测信度。QBA在农场访问之间提出了不令人满意的协议。然而，总的来说，BO得到了很好的赞同。对于HAR，没有检测到可靠性。除了滑囊炎和身上的粪便外，大多数IPs都是可接受的。滑囊炎表现出很大的差异，这可以解释为当动物四处走动或腿部脏时评估困难。人体粪便参数的差异可以用季节效应来解释。在咳嗽、打喷嚏、胸膜炎、肺炎和乳斑等参数上进一步发现不一致。可行性好；两名观察员都可以经过良好的训练来履行议定书。此外，评估所需的时间不超过6小时。为了加强和改进动物福利的客观测量，需要在未来解决方案中被证明不够可靠的部分。
The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and test-retest reliability of the Welfare Quality (R) Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Growing Pigs. Twenty-three German pig farms were visited repeatedly by the same trained observers; each farm being visited six times during two fattening periods. The entire protocol assessment was carried out during each farm visit, ie a Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA), behavioural observations (BO), a Human Animal Relationship test (HAR) and different individual parameters (IPs), eg bursitis and tail-biting. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by a Wilcoxon signed rank test (W) and by calculation of the Smallest Detectable Change (SDC) and Limits of Agreement (LoA). The QBA presented non-satisfactory agreement between farm visits. However, good agreement, in general, was found for the BO. For the HAR, no reliability could be detected. Most IPs were of acceptable agreement, with the exception of bursitis and manure on the body. Bursitis showed great differences, which can be explained by difficulties in the assessment when the animals moved around or their legs were dirty. The disagreement in the parameter manure on the body can be explained by seasonal effects. Disagreement was further found concerning the parameters coughing, sneezing, pleuritis, pneumonia and milkspots. Feasibility was good; both observers could be well-trained to fulfil the protocol. Furthermore, the time needed for an assessment did not exceed 6 h. The parts of the protocol that proved to be insufficiently reliable need to be addressed in the future in order to enhance and improve the objective measurement of animal welfare.