ABSTRACT Reliability of sampling strategies for measuring dairy cattle welfare on commercial farms
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of dairy science >Reliability of sampling strategies for measuring dairy cattle welfare on commercial farms
【24h】

Reliability of sampling strategies for measuring dairy cattle welfare on commercial farms

机译:测量商业农场奶牛福利的抽样策略的可靠性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

ABSTRACTOur objective was to evaluate how the proportion of high-producing lactating cows sampled on each farm and the selection method affect prevalence estimates for animal-based measures. We assessed the entire high-producing pen (days in milk <100; range = 81–241 cows) on 10 California farms using measures from the Welfare Quality Protocol for Cattle. Cows were restrained in head locks and visually evaluated for body condition, dirtiness, skin alterations (hair loss, lesions, or swelling), discharge (ocular, nasal, vulvar), diarrhea, and impaired respiration. Lameness was scored upon release. Prevalence was calculated as a percentage of assessed cows. The most common conditions were dirty hindquarters (33.5 ± 10.7%, mean ± standard deviation) and lesions or swelling on the carpal joint (34.4 ± 7.0%) and hock (26.4 ± 16.7%). Diarrhea (8.0 ± 5.8%), lameness (moderate = 7.3 ± 4.7%, severe = 2.2 ± 2.2%), and neck (5.8 ± 12.6%), flank (4.5 ± 5.0%), or hindquarter alterations (5.5 ± 3.9%) were less common. Very fat cows, vulvar discharge, and impaired respiration were rare (≤1%) and were excluded from further analysis. Four sampling strategies were used to generate 20 estimates for each animal-based measure. The strategies were (1) selecting every 10th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 2 of 3, or 3 of 4 cows at the feed bunk (7 estimates/measure); (2) randomly selecting 7 matching proportions of the pen; (3) randomly selecting cows using 3 sample size calculations from the Welfare Quality Protocol; and (4) selecting the first, middle, or final third of cows exiting the milking parlor. Estimates were compared with true values using regression analysis and were considered accurate if they met 3 criteria: the coefficient of determination was ≥0.9 and the slope and intercept did not differ significantly from 1 and 0, respectively. All estimates met the slope and intercept criteria, whereas the coefficient of determination increased when more cows were sampled. All estimates were accurate for neck alterations, ocular discharge (22.2 ± 27.4%), and carpal joint hair loss (14.1 ± 17.4%). Selecting a third of the milking order or using the Welfare Quality sample size calculations failed to accurately estimate all measures simultaneously. However, all estimates were accurate when selecting at least 2 of every 3 cows locked at the feed bunk. Using restraint position at the feed bunk did not differ systematically from computer-selecting the same proportion of cows randomly, and the former may be a simpler approach for welfare assessments.
机译: 抽象 我们的目标是评估每个农场采样的高产泌乳母牛的比例和选择方法如何影响基于动物的措施的流行率估算。我们使用《牛福利质量协议》中的方法评估了加利福尼亚州10个农场的全部高产围栏(牛奶中<100天,范围= 81–241头母牛)。母牛被束缚在头锁内,并通过肉眼评估其身体状况,脏污,皮肤改变(脱发,病变或肿胀),出院(眼,鼻,外阴),腹泻和呼吸障碍。放行时对release行评分。患病率以评估奶牛的百分比计算。最常见的情况是后肢脏(33.5±10.7%,平均值±标准偏差),腕关节病变或肿胀(34.4±7.0%)和飞节(26.4±16.7%)。腹泻(8.0±5.8%),la行(中度= 7.3±4.7%,严重= 2.2±2.2%),颈部(5.8±12.6%),腹侧(4.5±5.0%)或后肢改变(5.5±3.9%) )较少见。极胖的母牛,外阴分泌物和呼吸障碍很少见(≤1%),因此没有进一步分析。对于每种基于动物的措施,使用了四种采样策略来生成20个估计值。这些策略是(1)每4头奶牛每10头,5头,4头,3头,2头,3头或2头母牛进行选择(7个估算/度量); (2)随机选择7个匹配比例的笔; (3)使用“福利质量协议”中的3个样本量计算来随机选择奶牛; (4)选择从挤奶厅出来的母牛的前,中或后三分之一。使用回归分析将估计值与真实值进行比较,如果满足三个条件,则认为是正确的:确定系数≥0.9,斜率和截距分别与1和0均无显着差异。所有估计值均符合斜率和截距标准,而当采样更多的母牛时,确定系数增加。所有估计值对于颈部改变,眼球出射(22.2±27.4%)和腕关节脱发(14.1±17.4%)都是准确的。选择挤奶顺序的三分之一或使用“福利质量”样本数量计算无法同时准确估计所有度量。但是,当每3头锁定在饲料铺位的母牛中至少选择2头时,所有估算都是准确的。在饲料铺上使用约束位置与在计算机上随机选择相同比例的母牛没有系统上的区别,前者可能是更简单的福利评估方法。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Journal of dairy science》 |2018年第2期|1495-1504|共10页
  • 作者单位

    Center for Animal Welfare, Department of Animal Science, University of California;

    Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Division of Livestock Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences;

    Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Division of Livestock Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences;

    Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Santa Cruz State University;

    Veterinary Medicine Teaching and Research Center, University of California-Davis;

    Veterinary Medicine Teaching and Research Center, University of California-Davis;

    Center for Animal Welfare, Department of Animal Science, University of California;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《生物学医学文摘》(MEDLINE);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    health; on-farm assessment; sampling; validation;

    机译:健康;农场评估;抽样;验证;

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号