Françoise Wemelsfelder

Assessing the 'whole animal': a free-choice - profiling approach

The qualitative assessment of animal behaviour summarizes the different aspects of an animals dynamic style of interaction with the environment, using descriptors such as ‘confident’, ‘nervous’, ‘calm’ or ‘excitable’. Scientists frequently use such terms in studies of animal personality and temperament, but, wary of anthropomorphism, are reluctant to do so in studies of animal welfare. We hypothesize that qualitative behaviour assessment, in describing behaviour as an expressive process, may have a stronger observational foundation than is currently recognized, and may be of use as an integrative welfare assessment tool. To test this hypothesis, we investigated the inter- and intraobserver reliability of spontanous qualitative assessments of pig, Sus scrofa, behaviour provided by nine naive observers. We used an experimental methodology called ‘free choice profiling’ (FCP), which gives observers complete freedom to choose their own descriptive terms. Data were analysed with generalized Procrustes analysis (GPA), a multivariate statistical technique associated with FCP. Observers achieved significant agreement in their assessments of pig behavioural expression in four separate tests, and could accurately repeat attributing expressive scores to individual pigs across these tests. Thus the spontaneous qualitative assessment of pig behaviour showed strong internal validity under our controlled experimental conditions. In conclusion we suggest that qualitative behaviour assessment reflects a ‘whole animal’ level of organization, which may guide the intepretation of behavioural and physiological measurements in terms of an animals overall welfare state.

The scientific validity of subjective concepts in models of animal welfare

Abstract This paper takes a closer look at the subjectivity/objectivity relationship, as it plays a role in the science of animal welfare. It argues that subjective, experiential states in animals such as well-being and suffering are, contrary to what is often assumed, open to empirical observation and scientific assessment. The presumably purely private, inaccessible nature of such states is not an inherent property of these states, but derives from their misguided conception as ‘causal objects’ in mechanistic models of behaviour. This inevitably endows subjective experience with a ‘hidden’ status. However, subjective experience should be approached on its own conceptual grounds, i.e. as a perspective, in terms of ‘what-it-is-like-to-be’ a particular individual animal. Neither behaviour nor subjective experience then can be regarded as causal objects; they form an integrated, dynamic, expressive whole. The animal is perceived as an agent, whose perspective on a given situation is manifest in the way in which it interacts with and pays attention to that situation. In this framework, concepts of subjective experience such as enthusiasm, timidity, fear or contentedness, may be defined as categories of ‘attentional style’. Testing the scientific validity and reliability of such categories requires development of a qualitative methodology for the measurement of behaviour. Starting-points for such a method are put forward for discussion.

Qualitative Assessment of Animal Behaviour as an On-Farm Welfare-monitoring Tool

There is a growing need to monitor the health and welfare of farm animals, and to develop methods which do so efficiently and reliably. A crucial problem with current methods is the integration of separate measurements taken during farm visits into accurate judgements of an animals overall welfare state. This paper proposes that the qualitative assessment of animal behaviour may serve as an integrative methodology which could guide the interpretation of other, more detailed welfare measurements. Recent research has demonstrated qualitative behaviour assessment to be reliable and repeatable under controlled experimental conditions. The paper concludes with a discussion of ways in which this method may be adapted for practical on-farm use.

Diversity of behaviour during novel object tests is reduced in pigs housed in substrate-impoverished conditions

Modern intensive farming conditions lack the diversity of substrates present in more natural environments and offer young animals fewer opportunities for interaction. Evidence exists that this may affect the organization of interactive patterns of behaviour, but shifts in behavioural diversity have not been measured directly. We investigated the effect of the substrate in the home pen on the diversity of behaviour in young growing pigs, Sus scrofa. Over 5 months, 26 pigs were housed singly in either substrate-impoverished (SI) or substrate-enriched (SE) conditions. Once every month we recorded the behaviour of these pigs in detail both in the home pens and in two novel object tests. In addition, we calculated the diversity of behaviour shown by SI and SE pigs in the home pen and in the novel object tests, using a relative behavioural diversity index. In the two novel object tests, SI pigs were less mobile than SE pigs and focused their behaviour on particular substrates. In addition, SI pigs showed less diverse behaviour than SE pigs. Our results show that the less diverse behaviour of SI pigs previously recorded in their home pens persists under novel conditions, supporting the hypothesis that substrate-impoverished housing conditions structurally affect the organization of behaviour in young growing pigs. Copyright 2000 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

The Effect of Substrate-Enriched and Substrate-Impoverished Housing Environments on the Diversity of Behaviour in Pigs

In intensive farming situations, growing animals are housed in relatively barren environments. The lack of opportunity to perform substrate-interactive and manipulative behaviour patterns may affect the expression and organization of these behaviours. However, making direct comparisons of the behaviour expressed in environments of differing physical complexity is difficult. In this experiment a relative diversity index was used to compare the behavioural repertoires of pigs housed in two different environments for a period of five months. One group of pigs (substrate-enriched) had straw, forest bark and branches added to the standard pens and the other group (substrate-impoverished) did not. The pigs were individually housed, and their behaviour was focal sampled in these pens on one day each month. It was shown that the relative diversity of manipulative behaviour shown by the pigs in the substrate-impoverished environment was lower than in the pigs in the substrate-enriched environment (p < 0.05). The relative diversity of the whole behavioural repertoire shown by the pigs in the substrate-impoverished environment also tended to be lower than that in the substrate-enriched environment (p = 0.06). It is concluded that this may be due to a difference between the two groups in motivation to interact with and manipulate objects, or a function of the manipulable quality of the substrates available to them. Alternatively, exposure to substrate-impoverished environments may interfere with the ability to express manipulative behaviour. Both situations pose a threat to the welfare of growing pigs resident in barren environments.

Experience in Substrate-Enriched and Substrate-Impoverished Environments Affects Behaviour of Pigs in a T-Maze Task

Previous research showed that pigs reared in substrate-impoverished conditions performed a smaller proportion of their total behavioural repertoire in their home pens (showed lower behavioural diversity), than pigs reared in substrate-enriched conditions. This study examined whether these differences were the result of fundamental changes in behavioural organisation. A T-maze task was used to test the hypothesis that substrate-impoverished pigs are prone to develop fixed, unvarying behaviour which may underlie their reduced behavioural diversity. They were predicted to be poorer at reversing previous response patterns in the maze, and less able to alter their behaviour in response to a novel (distracting) stimulus. Female pigs were housed singly for five months in substrate-impoverished pens with bare concrete floors (N = 10) or substrate-enriched pens with straw and other foraging material (N = 10). The pigs were then trained to negotiate a T-maze to reach a food source. There were no differences in responses to a distracting stimulus in the start arm of the maze but, contrary to expectation, substrate-enriched pigs were less able to change their behaviour when the route to food was switched. Thus, the hypothesis was not supported. During training trials, substrate-enriched pigs moved fairly rapidly to the food

Welfare assessment: correlations and integration between a Qualitative Behavioural Assessment and a clinical/ health protocol applied in veal calves farms

Abstract This study is aimed at finding correlations and possible integration among Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA) and a specific protocol of clinical/health evaluation. Both welfare assessment methods were based on direct animal observation and were applied in 24 Italian veal calves farms at 3 weeks (wks) of rearing. Principal component analysis (PCA) summarized 20 QBA descriptors on two main components (PC1 and PC2) with eigenvalues above 4 and explaining 29.6 and 20.3% of the variation respectively. PCA on residuals obtained after correcting for housing condition yielded highly similar results, indicating that the rearing environment of the calves was not an important determinant of the observer reliability of QBA. A relationship was found between QBA PC2 and the presence of signs of cross-sucking recorded during the clinical visit (presence PC2=1.11 vs. absence PC2=-1.55, P<0.001). There were no other relations between the quantitative clinical measures and QBA PC’s. The frequency of farmer, veterinarian, or industry technician visits to the veal unit significantly affected QBA PC1 and PC2 scores. These results suggest that the 2 methods provide complementary types of information and can each make valid a contribution to an integrated animal welfare monitoring scheme.

Life in captivity: its lack of opportunities for variable behaviour

In “Life in a variable world”, Mike Appleby asserts that environmental stimulation forms a large and infinitely variable continuum. This property is reflected in the organisation of behaviour; Appleby argues that there are no distinct optimal states or ‘needs’ towards which an animal’s behaviour is directed. Animals merely respond towards the range of stimuli available to them, sometimes in adaptive, sometimes in maladaptive fashion. The distinction between natural and artificial environments, and normal and abnormal behaviour, thus loses much of its meaning. Well-being becomes a relative value, emerging out of a complex multiplicity of underlying factors affecting the animal’s behaviour. This would make it impossible to predict with any amount of certainty under which circumstances well-being may or may not arise. Appleby therefore proposes that an external frame of reference is needed to establish desirable features of environmental design. He concludes that cost-benefit analysis may provide the ‘optimal’ logical framework for informed decision-making on problems of animal welfare. The value of this paper is that it puts forward variability and complexity as issues which, in an animal welfare context, need in-depth consideration in their own right. The interaction of animals with their environment, the paper argues, is too multifaceted and complex to warrant a definition of welfare in terms of distinct ‘needs’. Such an argument is timely, given the growing scientific interest in animal cognition and decision-making. It also may positively affect practical issues of environmental design, implying that man-made housing environments, though artificial by definition, could be made sufficiently complex to generate a satisfactory level of welfare. This may stimulate institutions which formerly felt forced to create wildlife safari parks on their premises (with all the accompanying resentment), to take a more constructive attitude in designing appropriate housing systems. Despite my sympathy with the overall theme of the paper, however, I do not agree

Validating the Use of Qualitative Behavioral Assessment as a Measure of the Welfare of Sheep During Transport

We tested the application of qualitative behavioral assessment (QBA) as a welfare assessment tool. Sheep were exposed to road transport treatments, and behavioral expressions were compared between experimental treatments and validated by correlation with physiological measures. We compared journeys differing in ventilation (closed vs. open-sided trailer), flooring (grip vs. nongrip flooring), and driving styles (stop–start vs. continuous driving). Blood samples were collected immediately before loading and after unloading; heart rate and core body temperatures were recorded continuously. Continuous video footage was edited to show individual sheep to observers for QBA using free-choice profiling (observers used their own descriptive terms). There was significant consensus in observers’ scores for the sheep in each experiment (p < .001). Observers distinguished between sheep exposed to flooring (p = .014) or driving-style (p = .005) treatments, but not between ventilation treatments. QBA scores were compared (p < .05) with plasma leptin, glucose, and insulin-like growth factor-1 concentrations; white blood cell profiles; red blood cell counts; hematocrit; body temperatures; and heart rate variability. Observer assessments reflected treatment differences, and correlations between behavioral expression and physiological responses were found.

Qualitative behavioural assessment of the motivation for feed in sheep in response to altered body condition score

Qualitative behavioural assessment (QBA) has been used to quantify the expressive behaviour of animals, and operant tests have been used to quantify measures of behavioural need. In this study we compared measures of behavioural expression and behaviour in operant tests. We examined the behavioural expression of pregnant ewes of body condition score (BCS) 2 and 3. The ewes were exposed to a feed motivation test in which they received a food reward. Pregnant ewes (48–70 days gestation) were assessed during a food motivation test after they had been maintained at BCS 3 (n = 7) or given a decreasing plane of nutrition that resulted in slow loss of 1 BCS unit (over 10–12 weeks; n = 7) or a fast loss of 1 BCS unit (over 4–6 weeks; n = 7). The feed motivation test involved ewes having the opportunity to approach a food reward and then being moved a given distance away from the reward by an automatic gate; they could then subsequently return to the feeder. Continuous video footage of each ewe during one cycle of the gate (approaching and returning from the food reward) was shown in random order to 11 observers who used their own descriptive terms (free-choice profiling methodology; FCP) to score the animals using QBA. Data of the assessment were analysed with generalised Procrustes analysis (GPA), a multivariate statistical technique associated with FCP. The research group also quantified the feeding behaviour of sheep in the same clips. These behaviours included how sheep approached the feeder, behaviours exhibited at the feeder, and how sheep returned from the feeder. There was consensus amongst observers in terms of their assessment of behavioural expression of the sheep (P < 0.001). The GPA found three main dimensions of assessed behavioural expression in the sheep, which together explained 44% of the variation observed. GPA dimension 1 differed between the three treatment groups (P < 0.05): ewes maintained at BCS 3 scored low on GPA dimension 1 (i.e. were described as more calm/bored/comfortable) compared with ewes that had a slow declining BCS (described as more interested/anxious/excited). GPA dimension 2 scores were not significantly different between treatment groups. However, quantitative behaviours exhibited by sheep during the clips were correlated with qualitative behavioural assessments made by the observers. Animals that spent more time ‘sniffing and looking for more feed’ were attributed lower GPA 2 scores (described as more hungry/searching/excited) (P < 0.05), and animals that ‘did not walk directly to the food reward (but stopped along the way)’ were attributed significantly higher GPA 2 scores (more curious/intimidated/uneasy) (P < 0.01). GPA dimension 3 scores also did not differ between the treatment groups; however, sheep that had a higher number of feeding events during the entire 23-h feed motivation test were attributed lower GPA dimension 3 scores (they were described as more hungry/bold/interested) (P < 0.05), and sheep that consumed a larger amount of the feed reward were attributed higher GPA dimension 3 scores (more curious/concerned/reserved) (P < 0.05). We conclude that QBA is a valuable method of assessing sheep behavioural expression under the conditions tested, in that it provided an integrative characterisation of sheep behavioural expression that was in agreement with quantitative behavioural measures of feeding.