Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:11:45.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing dairy cow welfare at the beginning and end of the indoor period using the Welfare Quality® protocol

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

S de Graaf ,
B Ampe  and
FAM Tuyttens
S de Graaf
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
B Ampe
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
FAM Tuyttens*
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Welfare Quality® (WQ) project developed protocols as international standards for farm animal welfare assessment. For dairy cattle, the WQ protocol may be performed any time during the indoor period when the herd has no access to pasture. However, timing of welfare assessments during the indoor period might influence the outcome, as pasture access influences many welfare aspects and such effects are likely to carry over to the beginning of the indoor period. In order to test this hypothesis, we assessed ten herds at both the beginning and end of the same indoor period. Assessment at the end of the indoor period resulted in a higher prevalence of the following welfare measures: severely lame cows, mild integument alterations, coughs per cow per hour, diarrhoea, and vulvar discharge. In addition, at the end of the indoor period, the mortality rate was higher and the Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) score was worse, but there were fewer cows with dirty udders and mean time to lie down was lower. This led to worse scores on the criterion and principle levels of WQ integration, but resulted in a lower welfare categorisation for one of the herds only. The better scores for several aspects of health and for the QBA at the beginning of the indoor period not only confirm the carryover of positive effects of access to pasture, but also imply a need for careful consideration of the timing and frequency of WQ assessments of herds that are housed outdoors for part of the year.

Keywords

animal welfaredairy cattlepasturingwelfare assessmentWelfare Quality®
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , May 2017 , pp. 213 - 221
Copyright
© 2017 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Algers, B, Bokkers, EAM, Boivin, X, Brörkens, N, Canali, E, Dalmau, A, De Rosa, G, Forkman, B, Heutinck, LFM, Keeling, LJ, Knierim, U, Laister, S, Leach, KA, Lensink, BJ, Leruste, H, Lolli, S, MacKintosh, N, Miljard, F, Minero, M, Napolitano, F, Plesch, G, Quast, R, Regner, AM, Chulze-Westerath, H, Schmied, C, van der Werf, JTN, van Reenen, CG, Velarde, A, Waiblinger, S, Wemelsfelder, F, Westin, R, Whay, HR, Winckler, C, Windschnurer, I, Wolthuis-Fillerup, M, Zegner, K and Zucca, D 2009 Assessment of animal welfare measures for dairy cattle, beef bulls and veal calves. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Andreasen, SN and Forkman, B 2012 The welfare of dairy cows is improved in relation to cleanliness and integument alter-ations on the hocks and lameness when sand is used as stall sur-face. Journal of Dairy Science 95: 4961–4967. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-5169Google Scholar
Bartlett, PC, Miller, GY, Lance, SE and Heider, LE 1992 Environmental and managerial determinants of somatic cell counts and clinical mastitis incidence in Ohio dairy herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 14: 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-5877(92)90016-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bielfeldt, JC, Badertscher, R, Tölle, KH and Krieter, J 2005 Risk factors influencing lameness and claw disorders in dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 95: 265–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenninkmeyer, C, Dippel, S, Brinkmann, J, March, S, Winckler, C and Knierim, U 2013 Hock lesion epidemiology in cubicle housed dairy cows across two breeds, farming systems and countries. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 109: 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.10.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruun, J, Ersbøll, AK and Alban, L 2002 Risk factors for metri-tis in Danish dairy cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 54: 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(02)00026-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buijs, S, Ampe, B and Tuyttens, FAM 2016 Sensitivity of the Welfare Quality® broiler chicken protocol to differences between intensively reared indoor flocks: which factors explain overall classification? Animal 15: 1–10Google Scholar
Burow, E, Rousing, T, Thomsen, PT, Otten, ND and Sørensen, JT 2013 Effect of grazing on the cow welfare of dairy herds evaluated by a multidimensional welfare index. Animal 7:834–842. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112002297CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burow, E, Thomsen, PT, Sørensen, JT and Rousing, T 2011 The effect of grazing on cow mortality in Danish dairy herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 100: 237–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.04.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, NB 2002 The influence of barn design on dairy cow hygiene, lameness and udder health. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference Proceedings of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners pp 97–103. 26 September 2002, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Corazzin, M, Piasentier, E, Dovier, S and Bovolenta, S 2010 Effect of summer grazing on welfare of dairy cows reared in mountain tie-stall barns. Italian Journal of Animal Science 9: e59. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2010.e59Google Scholar
de Pinho Manzi, M, Nóbrega, DB, Faccioli, PY, Troncarelli, MZ, Menozzi, BD and Langoni, H 2012 Relationship between teat-end condition, udder cleanliness and bovine subclinical mas-titis. Research in Veterinary Science 93: 430–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.05.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, M, Bokkers, EAM, van Schaik, G, Botreau, Rl, Engel, B, Dijkstra, T and de Boer, IJM 2013 Evaluating results of the Welfare Quality® multi-criteria evaluation model for classification of dairy cattle welfare at the herd level. Journal of Dairy Science 96: 6264–6273. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6129CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Federale Overheidsdienst Economie 2016 Landbouwcijfers 2015. http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/modules/publications/statistiques/economie/do wnloads/agriculture_-_chiffres_d_agricole_de_2015.jspGoogle Scholar
Heath, CAE, Browne, WJ, Mullan, S and Main, DCJ 2014 Navigating the iceberg: reducing the number of parameters within the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for dairy cows. Animal 8: 1978–1986. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114002018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herlin, A 1997 Comparison of lying area surfaces for dairy cows by preference, hygiene and lying down behaviour. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Resources 27: 189–196Google Scholar
Hernandez-Mendo, O, Von Keyserlingk, MAG, Veira, DM and Weary, DM 2007 Effects of pasture on lameness in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 1209–1214. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)71608-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2009 On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future per-spectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach. Animal Welfare 18: 451–458Google Scholar
Krohn, CC and Munksgaard, L 1993 Behaviour of dairy cows kept in extensive (loose housing/pasture) or intensive (tie stall) environments II. Lying and lying-down behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(93)90066-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, JR and Koch, GG 1977 The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lombard, JE, Tucker, CB, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Kopral, CA and Weary, DM 2010 Associations between cow hygiene, hock injuries and free stall usage on US dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 4668–4676. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3225CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olmos, G, Boyle, L, Hanlon, A, Patton, J, Murphy, JJ and Mee, JF 2009a Hoof disorders, locomotion ability and lying times of cubicle-housed compared to pasture-based dairy cows. Livestock Science 125: 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.04.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olmos, G, Mee, JF, Hanlon, A, Patton, J, Murphy, JJ and Boyle, L 2009b Peripartum health and welfare of Holstein-Friesian cows in a confinement-TMR system compared to a pasture-based system. Animal Welfare 18: 467–476Google Scholar
Onyiro, OM and Brotherstone, S 2008 Genetic analysis of locomotion and associated conformation traits of Holstein-Friesian dairy cows managed in different housing systems. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 322–328. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0514CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutherford, KM, Langford, FM, Jack, MC, Sherwood, L, Lawrence, AB and Haskell, MJ 2009 Lameness prevalence and risk factors in organic and non-organic dairy herds in the United Kingdom. The Veterinary Journal 180: 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2008.03.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutherford, KMD, Langford, FM, Jack, MC, Sherwood, L, Lawrence, AB and Haskell, MJ 2008 Hock injury prevalence and associated risk factors on organic and nonorganic dairy farms in the United Kingdom. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 2265–2274. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0847Google ScholarPubMed
Shrout, PE and Fleiss, JL 1979 Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin 86: 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuyttens, FAM, de Graaf, S, Heerkens, JL, Jacobs, L, Nalon, E, Ott, S, Stadig, L, Van Laer, E and Ampe, B 2014 Observer bias in animal behaviour research: can we believe what we score, if we score what we believe? Animal Behaviour 90: 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USDA 2007 Part II: changes in the US dairy cattle industry, 1991-2007. USDA APHIS Veterinary Services Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Fort Collins, Colorado, USAGoogle Scholar
Washburn, SP, White, SL, Green, JT Jr and Benson, GA 2002 Reproduction, mastitis, and body condition of seasonally calved Holstein and Jersey cows in confinement or pasture systems. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 105–111. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74058-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality®: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar