Sarah L. Wickham

The contribution of qualitative behavioural assessment to appraisal of livestock welfare

Animal welfare is increasingly important for the Australian livestock industries, to maintain social licence to practice as well as ensuring market share overseas. Improvement of animal welfare in the livestock industries requires several important key steps. Paramount among these, objective measures are needed for welfare assessment that will enable comparison and contrast of welfare implications of husbandry procedures or housing options. Such measures need to be versatile (can be applied under a wide range of on- and off-farm situations), relevant (reveal aspects of the animal’s affective or physiological state that is relevant to their welfare), reliable (can be repeated with confidence in the results), relatively economic to apply, and they need to have broad acceptance by all stakeholders. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA) is an integrated measure that characterises behaviour as a dynamic, expressive body language. QBA is a versatile tool requiring little specialist equipment suiting application to in situ assessments that enables comparative, hypothesis-driven evaluation of various industry-relevant practices. QBA is being increasingly used as part of animal welfare assessments in Europe, and although most other welfare assessment methods record ‘problems’ (e.g. lameness, injury scores, and so on), QBA can capture positive aspects of animal welfare (e.g. positively engaged with their environment, playfulness). In this viewpoint, we review the outcomes of recent QBA studies and discuss the potential application of QBA, in combination with other methods, as a welfare assessment tool for the Australian livestock industries.

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.

Characterization of inappetent sheep in a feedlot using radio-tracking technology1

The feeding and drinking behaviours of sheep were monitored using RFID technology at a commercial pre-embarkation feedlot in Western Australia with the aim of characterizing feeding and drinking patterns of inappetent sheep that might allow them to be treated. Feeding and drinking behaviours of sheep were compared with their survival and change in body condition. Patterns of number of visits and the time spent at feed and water troughs were analyzed for a total of 8,206 sheep, representing four consignments that were monitored for a range of 6-31 d. Data for feeding and drinking behaviours were compared for the first 6 d. For animals that were alive at exit, 18.9% of sheep attended the feed trough for less than 0.25 h d-1 (15 min per day) on day 1; this decreased to only 2.4% of sheep by day 6. Of the sheep monitored, 0.93% died (n = 76); Salmonella spp. infection was the leading cause of death (n = 40; 52.6% of all deaths) across all months and was accompanied with inanition. There was marked variability in the average time spent at the feed trough for sheep that died eventually from salmonella/inanition (contributing to the lack of statistical difference in time spent at feed trough between sheep dying from different causes; P = 0.056). Over half (55%) of the animals diagnosed with salmonella/inanition spent an average of less than 0.50 h d-1 (30 min per day) and 45% less than 0.25 h d-1 at the feed trough. There was a negative correlation (r) in time spent at the feed trough overtime for individual sheep that died from salmonella/inanition, indicating that these individuals went off their feed. This pattern was not evident for animals that died from other causes (significant difference in r values between five categories of cause of death; P = 0.040). Characterization of feeding behaviour of sheep that died from salmonella/inanition therefore appears to require more than simply monitoring daily intake. There was no difference in time spent at water troughs between sheep that died or were alive at exit (average 0.30 ± 0.23 h d-1). This study reveals that the patterns of feeding and drinking behaviours during pre-embarkation feedlotting do not readily allow identification of animals that warrant singling out for veterinary care or alternative feed arrangements. This result highlights the need for experienced stockmanship in handling these animals.