...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of dairy science >Trained-user opinion about Welfare Quality measures and integrated scoring of dairy cattle welfare
【24h】

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

机译:有关福利质量措施和奶牛福利综合评分的受过培训的用户意见

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

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.
机译:农场奶牛福利评估的福利质量(WQ)协议描述了27种措施以及将这些措施的值整合到11个标准评分中的逐步方法,进一步分为4个主要评分,最后分为4个等级。我们进行了一项在线调查,以检查训练有素的用户对奶牛WQ协议的看法是否符合根据WQ协议计算的综合评分(标准,原则和总体分类)。首先,将经过培训的用户在信度和效度上的得分(n = 8-15)以及他们对所有对畜群福利衡量的重要性的排名与这些衡量对WQ综合得分的实际影响程度进行比较。应用Logistic回归来确定影响WQ整体福利归类为“未分类”或“增强”类别的指标的度量标准,该数据库包含491个欧洲牛群。最小的多元模型在“增强”类别中保持最高的敏感性和特异性百分比,其中包含6个量度,而“未分类”模型包含4个量度。受过培训的用户将最不重要的一些措施(例如与饮酒者有关的措施)对WQ整体福利分类的影响最大。相反,受过培训的用户将最重要的衡量标准(例如,la行和死亡率)对WQ总体类别的影响较小。此外,还要求受过培训的用户为从数据库中选择的7个重点种群(n = 491个种群)分配标准和总体福利分数。相对于数据库中的所有其他牛群,提供了这些牛群所有WQ量度的数据。然后测试专家评分彼此对应的程度,系统的差异以及受过培训的用户意见和WQ标准评分之间的对应关系。 12个标准中的6个和整体福利得分的专家评分和WQ评分之间的对应程度很低。因此,奶牛规程的WQ得分与受过培训的使用者缺乏几种福利措施的重要性的对应关系。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Journal of dairy science》 |2017年第8期|6376-6388|共13页
  • 作者单位

    Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Burg. van Gansberghelaan 92, Merelbeke, Belgium,Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, Ghent, Belgium;

    Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Burg. van Gansberghelaan 92, Merelbeke, Belgium;

    Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel Straße 33, Vienna, Austria;

    Animal Welfare Center, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Lazar Pop-Trajkov 5-7, Skopje, Macedonia;

    UMR1213 Herbivores, L'Institut national de la recherche agronomique (INRA), VetAgro Sup, Clermont Université, Université de Lyon, Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France;

    University of Copenhagen, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Section of Animal Welfare and Disease Control, Grønnegårdsvej 8, Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark;

    SRUC (Scotland's Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom;

    Department of Herd Animal Health, Utrecht University, Utrecht, TD, Netherlands;

    UMR1213 Herbivores, L'Institut national de la recherche agronomique (INRA), VetAgro Sup, Clermont Université, Université de Lyon, Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France;

    University of Copenhagen, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Section of Animal Welfare and Disease Control, Grønnegårdsvej 8, Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark;

    Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Burg. van Gansberghelaan 92, Merelbeke, Belgium;

    Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Burg. van Gansberghelaan 92, Merelbeke, Belgium,Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, Ghent, Belgium;

    Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, Ghent, Belgium;

    Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Burg. van Gansberghelaan 92, Merelbeke, Belgium;

  • 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

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

    机译:动物福利;经过培训的用户意见;福利评估;福利质量;

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