English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

V-QBA vs. QBA—How Do Video and Live Analysis Compare for Qualitative Behaviour Assessment?