The assessment of litter quality in broiler chickens: validity, inter-assessor reliability, and intra-assessor repeatability of three visual scoring systems.

IF 1.6 3区 农林科学 Q2 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE
F Mocz, M Berthelot, V Michel, A Contreras-Jodar, M Guinebretière
{"title":"The assessment of litter quality in broiler chickens: validity, inter-assessor reliability, and intra-assessor repeatability of three visual scoring systems.","authors":"F Mocz, M Berthelot, V Michel, A Contreras-Jodar, M Guinebretière","doi":"10.1080/00071668.2024.2410361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>1. This study evaluated the validity, inter-assessor reliability and intra-assessor repeatability of three visual scoring systems for litter quality, one known as the Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol© and two complementary systems for friability and humidity developed by the ClassyFarm initiative.2. In 6 rooms of an experimental barn, 2450 medium-growing broiler chickens were reared on coarse sawdust litter until they reached a body weight of 2.2 kg at 43 days of age, with a stocking density of 33 kg/m<sup>2</sup>.3. Sixty-six litter samples were analysed for litter moisture at two different time points during the broiler chickens' production cycle, and were visually scored using the three systems, two consecutive times, by 7 assessors to analyse their validity, inter-reliability and intra-repeatability according to the litter moisture level.4. The three resulting scores were correlated with the litter moisture (<i>p</i> < 0.001) and correlations were stronger when the litter moisture was above 35%. Similarly, inter-assessor reliability and intra-assessor repeatability were better for all three scoring systems when litter moisture was above 35% than when it was below 35%.5. The ClassyFarm Friability system was the most reliable regardless of litter moisture level. The ClassyFarm Humidity system was the least reliable and repeatable when the litter moisture was below 35%. The Welfare Quality scoring system lay between the two ClassyFarm systems considering inter-assessor reliability, but was as repeatable as the ClassyFarm Friability system.</p>","PeriodicalId":9322,"journal":{"name":"British Poultry Science","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Poultry Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2024.2410361","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

1. This study evaluated the validity, inter-assessor reliability and intra-assessor repeatability of three visual scoring systems for litter quality, one known as the Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol© and two complementary systems for friability and humidity developed by the ClassyFarm initiative.2. In 6 rooms of an experimental barn, 2450 medium-growing broiler chickens were reared on coarse sawdust litter until they reached a body weight of 2.2 kg at 43 days of age, with a stocking density of 33 kg/m2.3. Sixty-six litter samples were analysed for litter moisture at two different time points during the broiler chickens' production cycle, and were visually scored using the three systems, two consecutive times, by 7 assessors to analyse their validity, inter-reliability and intra-repeatability according to the litter moisture level.4. The three resulting scores were correlated with the litter moisture (p < 0.001) and correlations were stronger when the litter moisture was above 35%. Similarly, inter-assessor reliability and intra-assessor repeatability were better for all three scoring systems when litter moisture was above 35% than when it was below 35%.5. The ClassyFarm Friability system was the most reliable regardless of litter moisture level. The ClassyFarm Humidity system was the least reliable and repeatable when the litter moisture was below 35%. The Welfare Quality scoring system lay between the two ClassyFarm systems considering inter-assessor reliability, but was as repeatable as the ClassyFarm Friability system.

肉鸡窝料质量评估:三种视觉评分系统的有效性、评估员之间的可靠性和评估员内部的可重复性。
1.这项研究评估了三种鸡粪质量目测评分系统的有效性、评估员之间的可靠性和评估员内部的可重复性,其中一种称为 "福利质量评估规程"(Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol©),另两种是由 "经典农场"(ClassyFarm)计划开发的易碎性和湿度互补系统。 在一个实验鸡舍的 6 个房间里,2450 只中等生长肉鸡在粗锯末鸡粪上饲养,直到 43 日龄体重达到 2.2 千克,饲养密度为 33 千克/平方米。在肉鸡生产周期的两个不同时间点,对 66 份鸡粪样本进行了水分分析,并由 7 名评估员连续两次使用这三种系统进行目测评分,以根据鸡粪水分水平分析其有效性、可靠性和重复性。 4 得出的三个评分与鸡粪水分相关(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Poultry Science
British Poultry Science 农林科学-奶制品与动物科学
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
5.00%
发文量
88
审稿时长
4.5 months
期刊介绍: From its first volume in 1960, British Poultry Science has been a leading international journal for poultry scientists and advisers to the poultry industry throughout the world. Over 60% of the independently refereed papers published originate outside the UK. Most typically they report the results of biological studies with an experimental approach which either make an original contribution to fundamental science or are of obvious application to the industry. Subjects which are covered include: anatomy, embryology, biochemistry, biophysics, physiology, reproduction and genetics, behaviour, microbiology, endocrinology, nutrition, environmental science, food science, feeding stuffs and feeding, management and housing welfare, breeding, hatching, poultry meat and egg yields and quality.Papers that adopt a modelling approach or describe the scientific background to new equipment or apparatus directly relevant to the industry are also published. The journal also features rapid publication of Short Communications. Summaries of papers presented at the Spring Meeting of the UK Branch of the WPSA are published in British Poultry Abstracts .
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信