Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:38:06.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Welfare Indicators for the Social Environment in Cattle Herds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

T Jóhannesson  and
J T Sørensen
T Jóhannesson*
Affiliation:
Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Department of Animal Science and Animal Health, Groennegaardsvej 8, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
J T Sørensen
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Science, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, P O Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
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 social environment is very important for the welfare of animals in loose housing dairy production systems. This article reviews recent literature on the effect of animal density (AD) and regrouping (RG'j on the welfare of cattle and describes the development of feasible indicators for the social environment. Special emphasis is given to the methodological problems that arise when AD and RG are used as welfare indicators in a welfare assessment at the herd level. Various factors affecting estimates of AD were considered, including the size of the animals, correction for very high AD values, pen shape and how best to aggregate the results at herd level and over time. The examination of RG is centred around the effect of early social experience of the animals, the stability of social relationships, and the effect of pen changes.

A range of parameters is suggested for the evaluation of AD and RG as possible welfare indicators. These are based on observational data from 10 Danish dairy herds and related to clinical records from the herd farms. It is concluded that mean AD is not feasible as a welfare indicator at the herd level but the 25th percentile of AD corrected for the liveweight of the animals should be used instead. The two most promising parameters for evaluation of RG are the frequency of combined pen and group changes for a sample of the herd, and the probability of a certain duration of inter-animal relationships. Results from clinical observations correlated with neither AD nor RG.

Keywords

animal densityanimal welfarepen changesregroupingspace
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , August 2000 , pp. 297 - 316
Copyright
© 2000 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Agriculture Canada 1991 Recommended Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Dairy Cattle. Agriculture Canada Publication 1853/E. Communications Branch, Agriculture Canada: Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 1995 Indretning af Stalde til Kvæg - Danske Anbefalinger. Tværfaglig Rapport, 2 Udgave. Landbrugets Rådgivningscenter: Århus, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Bådsgård, N P and Enevoldsen, C 1997 A potential approach to support animal welfare promotion in a Danish veterinary practice context. In: Goodall, E A and Thrusfield, M V (eds) Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine. Proceedings of a Meeting Held at University College, Chester on the 9th-11th of April 1997 pp 108–119. Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine: Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Bådsgård, N P, Enevoldsen, C, Vestergaard, E-M, Sørensen, J T and Vaarst, M 1997 Health as a component in a welfare assessment in swine and cattle herds. In: Sørensen J T (ed) Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Livestock Farming Systems. European Association for Animal Production Publication No 89 pp 256-261. Wageningen Pers: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Bartussek, H 1999 A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61: 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, M 1985 Social space requirements of pigs. In: Zayan, R (ed) Social Space for Domestic Animals pp 116–127. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogner, H 1982 Several minimum requirements, from the standpoint of animal protection, for housing and fattening of calves. In: Signoret, J P (ed) Welfare and Husbandry of Calves pp 107–113. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Bouissou, M F and Andrieu, S 1978 Etablissement des relations préférentielles chez les bovins domestiques. Behaviour 64: 148–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brakel, W J and Leis, R A 1976 Impact of social disorganization on behavior, milk yield, and body weight of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 59: 716–721CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, J D, Rager, D R and Calpin, J P 1997 Animal well-being I. General considerations. Laboratory Animal Science 47: 564–570Google ScholarPubMed
Duncan, J H and Fraser, D 1997 Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby M C and Hughes B 0 (eds) Animal Welfare pp 19–31. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Ekkel, E D, Savenije, B, Schouten, W G P and Tielen, M J M 1996 Health, welfare, and productivity of pigs housed under specific-stress-free conditions in comparison with two-site systems. Journal of Animal Science 74: 2081–2087CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Esmay, M L 1978 Principles of Animal Environment. AVI Publishing Co Inc: Westport, USAGoogle Scholar
Fisher, A D, Crowe, M A, Prendiville, D J and Enright, W J 1997 Indoor space allowance; effects on growth, behaviour, adrenal and immune responses of finishing beef heifers. Animal Science 64: 53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friend, T H, Polan, C, Gwazdauskas, F C and Heald, C W 1977 Adrenal glucocorticoid response to exogenous adrenocorticotropin mediated by density and social disruption in lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 60: 1958–1963CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hasegawa, N, Nishiwaki, A, Sugawara, K and Ito, I 1997 The effects of social exchange between two groups of lactating primiparous heifers on milk production, dominance order, behavior and adrenocortical response. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 51: 15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinch, G N, Thwaites, C J, Lynch, J J and Pearson, A J 1982 Spatial relationships within a herd of young sterile bulls and steers. Applied Animal Ethology 8: 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindhede, J, Sørensen, J T, Jensen, M B and Krohn, C C 1996 Effect of space allowance, access to bedding, and flock size in slatted floor systems on the production and health of dairy heifers. Acta Agricultures Scandinavia. Section A, Animal Science 46: 46–53Google Scholar
Hurnik, J F and Lewis, N J 1991a Research note: body surface area, a reference for space allowance in confinement. Poultry Science 70: 412–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurnik, J F and Lewis, N J 1991b Use of body surface area to set minimum space allowances for confined pigs and cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71: 577–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurnik, J F, Webster, A B and Siegel, P B 1995 Dictionary of Farm Animal Behavior, 2nd edition. Iowa State University Press: Ames, USAGoogle Scholar
Ingvartsen, K L and Andersen, H R 1993 Space allowance and type of housing for growing cattle. A review of performance and possible relation to neuroendocrine function. Acta Agriculturce Scandinavica. Section A, Animal Science 43: 65–80Google Scholar
Jensen, M B, Vestergaard, K S and Krohn, C C 1998 Play behaviour in dairy calves kept in pens: the effect of social contact and space allowance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannesson, T, Sørensen, J T and Munksgaard, L 1997 Production environment as a component in a welfare assessment system in dairy cattle herds. In: Sørensen J T (ed) Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Livestock Farming Systems. European Association for Animal Production Publication No 89 pp 251-255. Wageningen Pers: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Kenny, F J and Tarrant, P V 1987 The behaviour of young Friesian bulls during social re-grouping at an abattoir, influence of an overhead electrified wire grid. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, S G C and Wood-Gush, D G M 1987 The development of behaviour patterns and temperament in dairy heifers. Behavioural Processes 15: 1–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kondo, S and Hurnik, J F 1990 Stabilization of social hierarchy in dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kondo, S, Kawakami, N, Kohama, H and Nishino, S 1984 Changes in activity, spatial pattern and social behavior in calves after grouping. Applied Animal Ethology 11: 217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroff, J 1996 Analyse der Mensch-Nutztier-Interaktion unter Einbeziehung des Modells des ‘Social Support’ am Beispiel Schaf. Unpublished PhD thesis submitted to the Tierärtzlichen Hochschule, Hannover, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Krohn, C C and Konggaard, S P 1980 Undersøgelser over Foderoptagelse og Social Adfærd hos Gruppefodrede Køer i Løsdrift. 490. Beretning fra Statens Husdyrbrugsforsøg. Statens Husdyrbrugsforsøg: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Ladewig, J, Schlichting, M C, Beneke, B and Von Borrell, E 1985 Physiological aspects of social space in heifers and pigs. In: Zayan, R (ed) Social Space for Domestic Animals pp 151–158. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A H 1981 Preslaughter management and dark cutting in the carcasses of young bulls. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 61: 205–208Google Scholar
Mench, J A Swanson, J C and Stricklin, W R 1990 Social stress and dominance among group members after mixing beef cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70: 345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mogensen, L, Krohn, C C, Sørensen, J T, Hindhede, J and Nielsen, L H 1997a Association between resting behaviour and live weight gain in dairy heifers housed in pens with different space allowance and floor type. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mogensen, L, Nielsen, L H, Hindhede, J, Sørensen, J T and Krohn, C C 1997b Effect of space allowance in deep bedding systems on resting behaviour production, and health of dairy heifers. Acta Agricultura Scandinavia. Section A, Animal Science 47: 178–186Google Scholar
Morrison, S R and Prokop, M 1982 Beef cattle performance on slotted floors: Effect of animal weight on space allotment. In: Livestock Environment II. Proceedings of the Second International Livestock Environment Symposium, April 20-23 1982 pp 92–100. American Society of Agricultural Engineers: St Joseph, USAGoogle Scholar
Müller, C, Ladewig, J, Schlichting, M C, Thielscher, H H and Smidt, D 1985 Ethologische und verhaltensphysiologische Beurteilungskriterien für unterschiedliche Bodenbeschaffenheit und Besatzdichte bei weiblichen Jungrindern. In: Aktuelle Arbeiten zur Artgemäßen Tierhaltung pp 37–47. KTBL-Schrift: Darmstadt, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, L H, Mogensen, L, Krohn, C C, Hindhede, J and Sørensen, J T 1997 Resting and social behaviour of dairy heifers housed in slatted floor pens with different sized bedded lying areas. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prafit, D 1984 Reasons and Persons. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J 1971 A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, V and Reinhardt, A 1981 Cohesive relationships in a cattle herd (Bos indiens). Behaviour 77: 121–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P, Munksgaard, L, Bådsgård, N P and Jensen, K H 1997 How to manage the management factor - assessing animal welfare at the farm level. In: Sørensen J T (ed) Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Livestock Farming Systems. European Association for Animal Production Publication No 89 pp 221-230. Wageningen Pers: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Sowerby, M E and Polan, C E 1978 Milk production response to shifting cows between intraherd groups. Journal of Dairy Science 61: 455–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stricklin, W R 1983 Matrilinear social dominance and spatial relationships among Angus and Hereford cows. Journal of Animal Science 57: 1397–1405CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stricklin, W R, Graves, H B and Wilson, L L 1979 Some theoretical and observed relationships of fixed and portable spacing behavior of animals. Applied Animal Ethology 5: 201–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stricklin, W R, Graves, H B, Wilson, L L and Singh, R K 1980 Social organization among young beef cattle in confinement. Applied Animal Ethology 6: 211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stricklin, W R, Zhou, J Z and Gonyou, H W 1995 Selfish animats and robot ethology: using artificial animals to investigate social and spatial behavior. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 187–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, SSL and Shackleton, D M 1990 Effects of mixing unfamiliar individuals and of azaperone on the social behaviour of finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrant, P V 1989 Animal behaviour and environment in the dark-cutting condition in beef- a review. Irish Journal of Food Science and Technology 13: 1–21Google Scholar
Tarrant, P V, Kenny, F J and Harrington, D 1988 The effect of stocking density during 4 hour transport to slaughter on behaviour, blood constituents and carcass bruising in Friesian steers. Meat Science 24: 209–222CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tennessen, T, Price, M A and Berg, R T 1985 The social interaction of young bulls and steers after regrouping. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14: 37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierenga, H K 1990 Social dominance in dairy cattle and the influences of housing and management. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 201–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierenga, H K, Metz, J H M and Hopster, H 1985 The effect of extra space on the behaviour of dairy cows kept in a cubicle house. In: Zayan, R (ed) Social Space for Domestic Animals pp 160–170. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, J Z and Stricklin, W R 1992 The influence of pen shape and group size on crowding when density is constant. Journal of Animal Science 70 (Supplement 1): 174Google Scholar