Reliability of qualitative behavior assessment (QBA) versus methods with predefined behavioral categories to evaluate maternal protective behavior in dairy cows

Abstract Our objective was to evaluate the reliability of five methods with predefined behavioral categories and qualitative behavior assessment (QBA) as potential indicators of maternal protective behavior of Holstein-Gyr crossbred dairy cows immediately after calving. Behaviors of 88 cows were recorded during the first handling of the cow-calf dyad (usually 30–60 min postpartum) for navel disinfection and identification. Methods with predefined behavioral categories were: maternal protective score (MPS), ranging from 1 (indifferent) to 6 (aggressive); displacement (DIS, from 1 to 5); agitation (AGI, 1–4); aggressiveness (AGG, 1–3); and attention (ATT, 1–3). For the QBA assessment, a visual analog scale was used to quantify 13 terms. This study involved two observer groups: Group 1 was 10 observers applying methods with predefined behavioral categories, whereas Group 2 was8 observers applying QBA. Each observer participated in three evaluation sessions, assessing the same 20 videos three times over 15 d. Intra- and inter-observer reliabilities were calculated by the Kappa coefficient (k) or Kendall coefficient (W) for predefined scores and QBA, respectively. For methods with predefined behavioral categories, intra-observer reliability (k) of 10 observers ranged from moderate to almost perfect (0.50 to 0.87, 0.50 to 0.75, 0.74–1.00, 0.50 to 0.86 and 0.57 to 0.86 for MPS, AGI, AGG, ATT, and DIS, respectively), whereas inter-observer reliability (k) of nine observers ranged from slight to perfect compared to a “gold” evaluator, with ATT score having a lower k (0.34 to 0.72), and AGG having a higher k (0.46–1.00). For QBA, intra-observer reliability ranged from strong to very strong for Principal Component (PC) PC1 (W = 0.71 to 0.89), PC2 (W = 0.74 to 0.90) and PC3 (W = 0.63 to 0.84). Inter-observer reliability ranged from strong to very strong for PC1 (W = 0.70; 0.70 and 0.73; within evaluations 1, 2 and 3, respectively), PC2 (W = 0.71; 072 and 0.77), and PC3 (W = 0.55; 0.54 and 0.73). In general, methods with predefined behavioral categories and the QBA were useful and reliable tools to evaluate maternal protective behavior of Hostein-Gyr crossbred dairy cows under commercial conditions.

[1]  A. Ebinghaus,et al.  How to measure dairy cows´ responsiveness towards humans in breeding and welfare assessment? A comparison of selected behavioural measures and existing breeding traits , 2017 .

[2]  A. Lawrence,et al.  Relationship between maternal defensive aggression, fear of handling and other maternal care traits in beef cows , 2007 .

[3]  S. Kuczaj,et al.  Rating vs. coding in animal personality research. , 2009, Zoo biology.

[4]  F. Wemelsfelder,et al.  Qualitative behavioral assessment of transport-naive and transport-habituated sheep. , 2012, Journal of animal science.

[5]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[6]  F. Wemelsfelder,et al.  Qualitative Behaviour Assessment of dogs in the shelter and home environment and relationship with quantitative behaviour assessment and physiological responses , 2016 .

[7]  X. Manteca,et al.  Application of the Welfare Quality protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain , 2011 .

[8]  F. Wemelsfelder,et al.  Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the response of foals to the presence of an unfamiliar human , 2009 .

[9]  K. Grandinson Genetic background of maternal behaviour and its relation to offspring survival , 2005 .

[10]  A. Lawrence,et al.  Precalving temperament and maternal defensiveness are independent traits but precalving fear may impact calf growth. , 2013, Journal of animal science.

[11]  M. V. Keyserlingk,et al.  Consistency of flight speed and its correlation to productivity and to personality in Bos taurus beef cattle , 2006 .

[12]  M. Mendl,et al.  The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. , 2000, Applied animal behaviour science.

[13]  F. Wemelsfelder,et al.  Inter-observer reliability of Qualitative Behavioural Assessments of sheep , 2013 .

[14]  F. Wemelsfelder,et al.  Qualitative behaviour assessment of dairy buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) , 2012 .

[15]  F. Wemelsfelder,et al.  The qualitative assessment of responsiveness to environmental challenge in horses and ponies , 2008 .

[16]  M. Haselton,et al.  Parental precaution: Neurobiological means and adaptive ends , 2011 .

[17]  F. Wemelsfelder How animals communicate quality of life: the qualitative assessment of behaviour , 2007, Animal Welfare.

[18]  Françoise Wemelsfelder,et al.  Qualitative Assessment of Animal Behaviour as an On-Farm Welfare-monitoring Tool , 2001 .

[19]  F. Wemelsfelder,et al.  Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of Angus steers during pre-slaughter handling and relationship with temperament and physiological responses , 2012 .

[20]  C. Galina,et al.  Maternal protective behavior of zebu type cattle (Bos indicus) and its association with temperament. , 2014, Journal of animal science.

[21]  G. Simm,et al.  Genetic selection for temperament traits in dairy and beef cattle , 2014, Front. Genet..

[22]  Laura Schmitz,et al.  Validity aspects of behavioural measures to assess cows’ responsiveness towards humans , 2020 .

[23]  P. Sandøe,et al.  The Correlation of Qualitative Behavior Assessments with Welfare Quality® Protocol Outcomes in On-Farm Welfare Assessment of Dairy Cattle , 2013 .

[24]  Wu Leung,et al.  Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. , 1962 .

[25]  F Wemelsfelder,et al.  Assessing pig body language: agreement and consistency between pig farmers, veterinarians, and animal activists. , 2012, Journal of animal science.

[26]  Tine Rousing,et al.  Qualitative assessment of social behaviour of dairy cows housed in loose housing systems , 2006 .

[27]  C. Morris,et al.  Some genetic factors affecting temperament in Bos taurus cattle , 1994 .

[28]  Roy C. Schmidt,et al.  MANAGING DELPHI SURVEYS USING NONPARAMETRIC STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES , 1997 .

[29]  Z. Johnson,et al.  Maternal behavior of beef cows at parturition. , 1986, Journal of animal science.

[30]  J. Garner,et al.  Reliability and validity of a modified gait scoring system and its use in assessing tibial dyschondroplasia in broilers , 2002, British poultry science.

[31]  A. C. Sant’anna,et al.  Validity and feasibility of qualitative behavior assessment for the evaluation of Nellore cattle temperament , 2013 .

[32]  H. Kraemer,et al.  Extension of the kappa coefficient. , 1980, Biometrics.

[33]  Paul S. Martin,et al.  Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide , 1986 .

[34]  S.S. Hellestveit,et al.  Intra- and Inter-Observer Reliability of Qualitative Behaviour Assessments of Housed Sheep in Norway , 2019, Animals : an open access journal from MDPI.

[35]  F. Wemelsfelder,et al.  Using qualitative behaviour assessment (QBA) to explore the emotional state of horses and its association with human-animal relationship , 2018, Applied Animal Behaviour Science.

[36]  R. Meagher,et al.  Observer ratings: validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research , 2009 .

[37]  M. Gauly,et al.  Maternal protective behaviour of German Angus and Simmental beef cattle after parturition and its relation to production traits , 2008 .

[38]  M. D. Vries,et al.  Inter- and intra-observer reliability of experienced and inexperienced observers for the Qualitative Behaviour Assessment in dairy cattle , 2012 .

[39]  A. Ebinghaus,et al.  Identification and development of measures suitable as potential breeding traits regarding dairy cows’ reactivity towards humans , 2016 .

[40]  F. Wemelsfelder,et al.  The assessment of emotional expression in dogs using a Free Choice Profiling methodology , 2010, Animal Welfare.

[41]  A continuous recording approach to qualitative behaviour assessment in dairy buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) , 2015 .

[42]  F. Tuyttens,et al.  Observer bias in animal behaviour research: can we believe what we score, if we score what we believe? , 2014, Animal Behaviour.

[43]  F. Wemelsfelder,et al.  The effect of perceived environmental background on qualitative assessments of pig behaviour , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[44]  M. C. Ceballos,et al.  Using an observer rating method to assess the effects of rotational stocking method on beef cattle temperament over time , 2016 .