V-QBA vs. QBA—How do video and live analysis compare for Qualitative Behaviour Assessment?

Cooke, A.S., Mullan, S., Morten, C., Hockenhull, J., Lee, M.R.F., Cardenas, L.M. and Rivero, M.J. (2022) V-QBA vs. QBA—How do video and live analysis compare for Qualitative Behaviour Assessment? Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 9.

Preview

Text Michael Lee V-QBA vs. UPLOAD. OCR.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (3MB) | Preview

Abstract

Animal welfare is an inextricable part of livestock production and sustainability. Assessing welfare, beyond physical indicators of health, is challenging and often relies on qualitative techniques. Behaviour is a key component of welfare to consider and Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) aims to achieve this by systematically scoring behaviour across specific terms. In recent years, numerous studies have conducted QBA by using video footage, however, the method was not originally developed using video and video QBA (V-QBA) requires validation. Forty live QBAs were conducted, by two assessors, on housed beef cattle to help fill this validation gap. Video was recorded over the assessment period and a second video assessment was conducted. Live and video scores for each term were compared for both correlation and significant difference. Principle component analysis (PCA) was then conducted and correlations and differences between QBA and V-QBA for the first two components were calculated. Of the 20 terms, three were removed due to an overwhelming majority of scores of zero. Of the remaining 17 terms, 12 correlated significantly, and a significant pairwise difference was found for one (“Bored”). QBA and V-QBA results correlated across both PC1 (defined as “arousal”) and PC2 (defined as “mood”). Whilst there was no significant difference between the techniques for PC1, there was for PC2, with V-QBA generally yielding lower scores than QBA. Furthermore, based on PC1 and PC2, corresponding QBA and V-QBA scores were significantly closer than would be expected at random. Results found broad agreement between QBA and V-QBA at both univariate and multivariate levels. However, the lack of absolute agreement and muted V-QBA results for PC2 mean that caution should be taken when implementing V-QBA and that it should ideally be treated independently from live QBA until further evidence is published. Future research should focus on a greater variety of animals, environments, and assessors to address further validation of the method.

Item Type:	Article
Keywords:	animal welfare, animal behaviour, QBA, qualitative behaviour analysis, cattle, livestock, agriculture, zoology
Divisions:	Agriculture and Environment (from 1.08.20)
Depositing User:	Mrs Rachael Giles
Date Deposited:	29 Mar 2022 13:50
Last Modified:	29 Mar 2022 13:50
URI:	https://hau.repository.guildhe.ac.uk/id/eprint/17826

Actions (login required)

Edit Item