FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2022; 12(24); 3588; doi: 10.3390/ani12243588

Application of QBA to Assess the Emotional State of Horses during the Loading Phase of Transport.

Abstract: To identify feasible indicators to evaluate animals' emotional states as a parameter to assess animal welfare, the present study aimed at investigating the accuracy of free choice profiling (FCP) and fixed list (FL) approach of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) in horses during the loading phase of transport. A total of 13 stakeholders were trained to score 2 different sets of videos of mixed breed horses loaded for road transport, using both FCP and FL, in 2 sessions. Generalized Procustes Analysis (GPA) consensus profile explained a higher percentage of variation (80.8%) than the mean of 1000 randomized profiles (41.2 ± 1.6%; = 0.001) for the FCP method, showing an excellent inter-observer agreement. GPA identified two main factors, explaining 65.1% and 3.7% of the total variation. Factor 1 ranging from 'anxious/ to 'calm/relaxed', described the valence of the horses' emotional states. Factor 2, ranging from 'bright' to 'assessing/withdrawn', described the arousal. As for FL, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) first and second components (PC1 and PC2, respectively), explaining on average 59.8% and 12.6% of the data variability, had significant agreement between observers. PC1 ranges from relaxed/confident to anxious/frightened, while PC2 from alert/inquisitive to calm. Our study highlighted the need for the use of descriptors specifically selected, throughout a prior FCP process for the situation we want to evaluate to get a good QBA accuracy level.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2022-12-19 PubMed ID: 36552507PubMed Central: PMC9774137DOI: 10.3390/ani12243588Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research focuses on understanding how to evaluate the emotional states of horses during the loading phase of transport using methods such as free choice profiling (FCP) and a fixed list (FL), as part of a Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA). It concluded that both methods display good inter-observer agreement, but for optimum accuracy, the descriptors should be specifically selected and tailored according to the situation to be evaluated.

Understanding the Research

  • The research aimed to find reliable ways to assess the emotional condition of horses during the transport loading phase, which can be a distressing event for many animals. This study contributed towards improving animal welfare by allowing for a better understanding of their emotions.
  • Two methods were used to assess the behavior of the horses: free choice profiling (FCP) and a fixed list (FL) approach. These are both practices of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA), a method to evaluate animal welfare considering both the physical and emotional state of the animals.

Explaining the Methodology

  • Thirteen stakeholders were trained to view and score two sets of videos featuring mixed breed horses being loaded for transport. The videos were assessed using both FCP and FL methodologies in two separate sessions.
  • The data was then analyzed using Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA). GPA was used for the FCP method and it explained a higher percentage of variation (80.8%) compared to the random profiles, indicating a strong agreement among the observers.
  • For the FL method, PCA was used and it showed that the first and second components (PC1 and PC2) explained an average of 59.8% and 12.6% of the data variability, with a significant agreement between observers.

Results and Conclusion

  • The results showed two main factors describing the valence of the horses’ emotional states ranging from ‘anxious’ to ‘calm/relaxed’, and the arousal ranging from ‘bright’ to ‘assessing/withdrawn’.
  • For the FL method, PC1 ranged from relaxed/confident to anxious/frightened, while PC2 ranged from alert/inquisitive to calm.
  • The study concluded that the use of descriptors that are specially selected for a certain situation enhances the accuracy of a QBA. It emphasizes that a careful choice of descriptors is important in accurately assessing animals’ emotional state and therefore their welfare.

Cite This Article

APA
Dai F, Riva MG, Dalla Costa E, Pascuzzo R, Chapman A, Minero M. (2022). Application of QBA to Assess the Emotional State of Horses during the Loading Phase of Transport. Animals (Basel), 12(24), 3588. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12243588

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 12
Issue: 24
PII: 3588

Researcher Affiliations

Dai, Francesca
  • Equine Independent Researcher, 20010 Milan, Italy.
Riva, Maria Giorgia
  • Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria e Scienze Animali (DIVAS), Università degli Studi di Milano, Via dell'Università 6, 26900 Lodi, Italy.
Dalla Costa, Emanuela
  • Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria e Scienze Animali (DIVAS), Università degli Studi di Milano, Via dell'Università 6, 26900 Lodi, Italy.
Pascuzzo, Riccardo
  • Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Via Celoria 11, 20133 Milan, Italy.
Chapman, Alana
  • World Horse Welfare, Anne Colvin House, Snetterton, Norwich NR16 2LR, UK.
Minero, Michela
  • Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria e Scienze Animali (DIVAS), Università degli Studi di Milano, Via dell'Università 6, 26900 Lodi, Italy.

Grant Funding

  • Registered charity no: 206658 and SC038384 / World Horse Welfare

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 63 references
  1. World Horse Welfare, Eurogroup for Animals. Removing the Blinkers: The Health and Welfare of European Equidae in 2015.. 2015.
  2. Broom DM. The effects of land transport on animal welfare.. Rev Sci Tech 2005 Aug;24(2):683-91.
    doi: 10.20506/rst.24.2.1605pubmed: 16358519google scholar: lookup
  3. Trunkfield HR, Broom DM. The welfare of calves during handling and transport.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1990;28:135–152.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(90)90050-Ngoogle scholar: lookup
  4. Tateo A, Padalino B, Boccaccio M, Maggiolino A, Centoducati P. Transport stress in horses: Effects of two different distances.. J. Vet. Behav. 2012;7:33–42.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.04.007google scholar: lookup
  5. Šímová V, Večerek V, Passantino A, Voslářová E. Pre-transport factors affecting the welfare of cattle during road transport for slaughter—A review.. Acta Vet. Brno. 2016;85:303–318.
    doi: 10.2754/avb201685030303google scholar: lookup
  6. Ferguson DL, Rosales-Ruiz J. Loading the problem loader: the effects of target training and shaping on trailer-loading behavior of horses.. J Appl Behav Anal 2001 Winter;34(4):409-23.
    doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-409pmc: PMC1284337pubmed: 11800182google scholar: lookup
  7. White A, Reyes A, Godoy A, Martínez R. Effects of transport and racing on ionic changes in thoroughbred race horses.. Comp Biochem Physiol A Comp Physiol 1991;99(3):343-6.
    doi: 10.1016/0300-9629(91)90011-Zpubmed: 1678332google scholar: lookup
  8. Leadon DP. Transport stress and the equine athlete.. Equine Vet. Educ. 1995;7:253–255.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3292.1995.tb01240.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  9. Ferlazzo A, Fazio E, Murania C, Piccione G. Physiological Responses of Stallion to Transport Stress. Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology; Berlin, Germany. 28 July 1993; pp. 544–546.
  10. Stockman CA, Collins T, Barnes AL, Miller D, Wickham SL, Beatty DT, Blache D, Wemelsfelder F, Fleming PA. Qualitative behavioural assessment and quantitative physiological measurement of cattle naïve and habituated to road transport.. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2011;51:240–249.
    doi: 10.1071/AN10122google scholar: lookup
  11. Fazio E, Medica P, Cravana C, Giacoppo E, Ferlazzo A. Physiological variables of horses after road transport.. Animal 2009 Sep;3(9):1313-8.
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731109004777pubmed: 22444908google scholar: lookup
  12. Aronica V, Medica P, Cusumano F, Fazio E. Effect of Transport Stress and Influence of Distance, Age and Breed on the Thyroid Function of Horses. Proceedings of the SISVET Annual Meeting; Rimini, Italy. 20–22 September 2001; pp. 56–57.
  13. Padalino B, Maggiolino A, Boccaccio M, Tateo A. Effects of different positions during transport on physiological and behavioral changes of horses.. J. Vet. Behav. 2012;7:135–141.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.09.003google scholar: lookup
  14. Perry E, Cross TL, Francis JM, Holscher HD, Clark SD, Swanson KS. Effect of Road Transport on the Equine Cecal Microbiota.. J Equine Vet Sci 2018 Sep;68:12-20.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2018.04.004pubmed: 31256882google scholar: lookup
  15. Dai F, Dalla Costa A, Bonfanti L, Caucci C, Di Martino G, Lucarelli R, Padalino B, Minero M. Positive Reinforcement-Based Training for Self-Loading of Meat Horses Reduces Loading Time and Stress-Related Behavior.. Front Vet Sci 2019;6:350.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00350pmc: PMC6802606pubmed: 31681807google scholar: lookup
  16. Padalino B, Raidal SL, Knight P, Celi P, Jeffcott L, Muscatello G. Behaviour during transportation predicts stress response and lower airway contamination in horses.. PLoS One 2018;13(3):e0194272.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194272pmc: PMC5863983pubmed: 29566072google scholar: lookup
  17. Waran NK. The behaviour of horses during and after transport by road.. Equine Vet. Educ. 1993;5:129–132.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3292.1993.tb01019.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  18. Lassen J, Sandøe P, Forkman B. Happy pigs are dirty!—Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare.. Livest. Sci. 2006;103:221–230.
    doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.008google scholar: lookup
  19. Robbins J, Franks B, von Keyserlingk MAG. 'More than a feeling': An empirical investigation of hedonistic accounts of animal welfare.. PLoS One 2018;13(3):e0193864.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193864pmc: PMC5846737pubmed: 29529090google scholar: lookup
  20. Vigors B. Citizens' and Farmers' Framing of 'Positive Animal Welfare' and the Implications for Framing Positive Welfare in Communication.. Animals (Basel) 2019 Apr 4;9(4).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9040147pmc: PMC6523948pubmed: 30987330google scholar: lookup
  21. Battini M, Barbieri S, Vieira A, Can E, Stilwell G, Mattiello S. The Use of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment for the On-Farm Welfare Assessment of Dairy Goats.. Animals (Basel) 2018 Jul 19;8(7).
    doi: 10.3390/ani8070123pmc: PMC6071242pubmed: 30029507google scholar: lookup
  22. Wickham SL, Collins T, Barnes AL, Miller DW, Beatty DT, Stockman CA, Blache D, Wemelsfelder F, Fleming PA. Validating the use of qualitative behavioral assessment as a measure of the welfare of sheep during transport.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2015;18(3):269-86.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2015.1005302pubmed: 25695526google scholar: lookup
  23. Wickham S. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of Sheep during Transport.. Ph.D. Thesis. Murdoch University; Perth, Australia: 2011.
  24. Stockman CA, Collins T, Barnes AL, Miller D, Wickham SL, Beatty DT, Blache D, Wemelsfelder F, Fleming PA. Flooring and driving conditions during road transport influence the behavioural expression of cattle.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013;143:18–30.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.003google scholar: lookup
  25. Collins T, Stockman CA, Barnes AL, Miller DW, Wickham SL, Fleming PA. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment as a Method to Identify Potential Stressors during Commercial Sheep Transport.. Animals (Basel) 2018 Nov 15;8(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani8110209pmc: PMC6262568pubmed: 30445737google scholar: lookup
  26. Wickham SL, Collins T, Barnes AL, Miller DW, Beatty DT, Stockman C, Blache D, Wemelsfelder F, Fleming PA. Qualitative behavioral assessment of transport-naive and transport-habituated sheep.. J Anim Sci 2012 Dec;90(12):4523-35.
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-3451pubmed: 22829616google scholar: lookup
  27. Rousing T, Wemelsfelder F. Qualitative assessment of social behaviour of dairy cows housed in loose housing systems.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006;101:40–53.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.12.009google scholar: lookup
  28. Wemelsfelder F, Millard F, de Rosa G, Napolitano F. Qualitative behaviour assessment.. In: Assessment of animal welfare measures for layers and broilers. Welf. Qual. Rep. 2009;9:113–119.
  29. Wemelsfelder F, Hunter EA, Mendl MT, Lawrence AB. The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2000 Apr 3;67(3):193-215.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00093-3pubmed: 10736529google scholar: lookup
  30. Fleming PA, Clarke TA, Wickham SL, Stockman CA, Barnes AL, Collins TA, Miller DW. The contribution of qualitative behavioural assessment to appraisal of livestock welfare.. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016;56:1569.
    doi: 10.1071/AN15101google scholar: lookup
  31. Mendl M, Burman OH, Paul ES. An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood.. Proc Biol Sci 2010 Oct 7;277(1696):2895-904.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0303pmc: PMC2982018pubmed: 20685706google scholar: lookup
  32. Brscic M, Wemelsfelder F, Tessitore E, Gottardo F, Cozzi G, van Reenen CG. Welfare assessment: Correlations and integration between a Qualitative Behavioural Assessment and a clinical/ health protocol applied in veal calves farms.. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009;8:601–603.
    doi: 10.4081/ijas.2009.s2.601google scholar: lookup
  33. Ceballos MC, Góis KCR, Sant’Anna AC, Wemelsfelder F, Paranhos da Costa M. Reliability of qualitative behavior assessment (QBA) versus methods with predefined behavioral categories to evaluate maternal protective behavior in dairy cows.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021;236:105263.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105263google scholar: lookup
  34. Brscic M, Dam Otten N, Contiero B, Kirchner MK. Investigation of a Standardized Qualitative Behaviour Assessment and Exploration of Potential Influencing Factors on the Emotional State of Dairy Calves.. Animals (Basel) 2019 Oct 2;9(10).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9100757pmc: PMC6826544pubmed: 31581609google scholar: lookup
  35. Phythian C, Michalopoulou E, Duncan J, Wemelsfelder F. Inter-Observer Reliability of Qualitative Behavioural Assessments of Sheep.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013;144:73–79.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.011google scholar: lookup
  36. Phythian CJ, Michalopoulou E, Cripps PJ, Duncan JS, Wemelsfelder F. On-farm qualitative behaviour assessment in sheep: Repeated measurements across time, and association with physical indicators of flock health and welfare.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016;175:23–31.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.11.013google scholar: lookup
  37. Wemelsfelder F, Hunter AE, Paul ES, Lawrence AB. Assessing pig body language: agreement and consistency between pig farmers, veterinarians, and animal activists.. J Anim Sci 2012 Oct;90(10):3652-65.
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2011-4691pubmed: 22745187google scholar: lookup
  38. Duijvesteijn N, Benard M, Reimert I, Camerlink I. Same Pig, Different Conclusions: Stakeholders Differ in Qualitative Behaviour Assessment.. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 2014;27:1019–1047.
    doi: 10.1007/s10806-014-9513-zgoogle scholar: lookup
  39. Rutherford KM, Donald RD, Lawrence AB, Wemelsfelder F. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of emotionality in pigs.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2012 Jul;139(3-4):218-224.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.04.004pmc: PMC3417235pubmed: 22915833google scholar: lookup
  40. Grosso L, Battini M, Wemelsfelder F, Barbieri S, Minero M, Dalla Costa E, Mattiello S. On-Farm Qualitative Behaviour Assessment of Dairy Goats in Different Housing Conditions.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016;180:51–57.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.04.013google scholar: lookup
  41. Minero M, Tosi M, Canali E, Wemelsfelder F. Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of the Response of Foals to the Presence of an Unfamiliar Human.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009;116:74–81.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.07.001google scholar: lookup
  42. Napolitano F, De Rosa G, Braghieri A, Grasso F, Bordi A, Wemelsfelder F. The Qualitative Assessment of Responsiveness to Environmental Challenge in Horses and Ponies.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008;109:342–354.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.03.009google scholar: lookup
  43. Minero M, Dalla Costa E, Dai F, Murray LAM, Canali E, Wemelsfelder F. Use of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment as an indicator of welfare in donkeys.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016;174:147–153.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.10.010google scholar: lookup
  44. Dai F, Dalla Costa E, Murray LM, Canali E, Minero M. Welfare Conditions of Donkeys in Europe: Initial Outcomes from On-Farm Assessment.. Animals (Basel) 2016 Jan 8;6(1).
    doi: 10.3390/ani6010005pmc: PMC4730122pubmed: 26761034google scholar: lookup
  45. Wemelsfelder F. How Animals Communicate Quality of Life: The Qualitative Assessment of Behaviour.. Anim. Welf. 2007;16:25–31.
  46. Arena L, Wemelsfelder F, Messori S, Ferri N, Barnard S. Development of a fixed list of terms for the Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of shelter dogs.. PLoS One 2019;14(10):e0212652.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212652pmc: PMC6777901pubmed: 31584954google scholar: lookup
  47. Muri K, Stubsjøen SM. Inter-observer reliability of Qualitative Behavioural Assessments (QBA) of housed sheep in Norway using fixed lists of descriptors.. Anim. Welf. 2017;26:427–435.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.26.4.427google scholar: lookup
  48. Wemelsfelder F, Mullan S. Applying ethological and health indicators to practical animal welfare assessment.. Rev Sci Tech 2014 Apr;33(1):111-20.
    doi: 10.20506/rst.33.1.2259pubmed: 25000783google scholar: lookup
  49. Wemelsfelder F, Hunter TEA, Mendl MT, Lawrence AB. Assessing the “whole animal”: A free choice profiling approach.. Anim. Behav. 2001;62:209–220.
    doi: 10.1006/anbe.2001.1741google scholar: lookup
  50. Welfare Quality Consortium. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. 2009.
  51. Welfare Quality Consortium. Assessment Protocol for Poultry (Broilers, Laying Hens). Lelystad: Welfare Quality® Consortium. 2009.
  52. Welfare Quality Consortium. Welfare Quality® Assessment protocol for pigs. 2009.
  53. AWIN. AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Sheep. 2015.
    doi: 10.13130/AWIN_sheep_2015google scholar: lookup
  54. AWIN. AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Goats. 2015.
    doi: 10.13130/AWIN_GOATS_2015google scholar: lookup
  55. AWIN. AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Donkeys. 2015.
    doi: 10.13130/AWIN_donkeys_2015google scholar: lookup
  56. AWIN. AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Horses. 2015.
    doi: 10.13130/AWIN_horses_2015google scholar: lookup
  57. Eliasson K, Palm P, Nyman T, Forsman M. Inter- and intra- observer reliability of risk assessment of repetitive work without an explicit method.. Appl Ergon 2017 Jul;62:1-8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2017.02.004pubmed: 28411720google scholar: lookup
  58. Napolitano F, De Rosa G, Grasso F, Wemelsfelder F. Qualitative behaviour assessment of dairy buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012;141:91–100.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.08.002google scholar: lookup
  59. Walker J, Dale A, Waran N, Clarke N, Farnworth M, Wemelsfelder F. The assessment of emotional expression in dogs using a Free Choice.. Anim. Welf. 2010;19:75–84.
  60. Clarke T, Pluske JR, Fleming PA. Are observer ratings influenced by prescription? A comparison of Free Choice Profiling and Fixed List methods of Qualitative Behavioural Assessment.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016;177:77–83.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.01.022google scholar: lookup
  61. Arena L, Wemelsfelder F, Messori S, Ferri N, Barnard S. Application of Free Choice Profiling to assess the emotional state of dogs housed in shelter environments.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017;195:72–79.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.06.005google scholar: lookup
  62. Fernandes J, Blache D, Maloney SK, Martin GB, Venus B, Walker FR, Head B, Tilbrook A. Addressing Animal Welfare through Collaborative Stakeholder Networks.. Agriculture 2019;9:132.
    doi: 10.3390/agriculture9060132google scholar: lookup
  63. LeGuin E, Raber K, Tucker TJ. The Culture of the Horse: Status, Disciplin, and Identity in the Early Modern World.. Palgrave Macmillan; New York, NY, USA: 2005. Man and Horse in Harmony; pp. 175–196.

Citations

This article has been cited 2 times.
  1. Czycholl I, Skovlund CR, Forkman B. Literature review of the use of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment with a fixed list of terms. Front Vet Sci 2025;12:1588346.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1588346pubmed: 41585521google scholar: lookup
  2. Zanusso F, Contiero B, Normando S, Gottardo F, De Benedictis GM. Qualitative behavioral assessment of dogs with acute pain. PLoS One 2024;19(6):e0305925.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305925pubmed: 38905274google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,780 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.