Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:58:21.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationships Between Building Design, Management System and Dairy Cow Welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

V A Bowell ,
L J Rennie ,
G Tierney ,
A B Lawrence  and
M J Haskell
V A Bowell*
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, Bush Estate, Penicuik EH26 0PH, UK
L J Rennie
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, Bush Estate, Penicuik EH26 0PH, UK
G Tierney
Affiliation:
Engineering Resources Group, Environment Division, Donald Hendrie Building, Scottish Agricultural College Auchincruive, Ayr KA6 5HW, UK
A B Lawrence
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, Bush Estate, Penicuik EH26 0PH, UK
M J Haskell
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, Bush Estate, Penicuik EH26 0PH, UK
*
* 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.

As part of a larger on-farm dairy cow welfare and behaviour project, data were collected from 22 commercial dairy farms over two winters (2000-2001 and 2001-2002). A further winter of farm sampling will complete the project (2002-2003), with five types of housing and production systems being assessed: high-, medium- and low-milk-production herds with cubicle housing, high-production herds with zero grazing and cubicle housing, and medium-production herds with straw courts. All cows in one early or mid-lactation group from each farm were observed. For the current analysis, locomotion, cleanliness and body condition were scored for the group, and an audit of building quality was carried out. Analysis of the available data shows that some aspects of building design affect the welfare of dairy cows. A positive correlation was found between mean body condition score of the cows and mean locomotion score (P = 0.047). Body condition score correlated negatively with the number of cows in the group (P = 0.049). Negative correlations were found between locomotion score and the ratio of cubicles to cows (P = 0.033) and between the size of cubicles and leg cleanliness (P = 0.012). Trends were also seen in the relationships between farm type and locomotion score (P = 0.048), production level and locomotion score (P = 0.074) and cow cleanliness and cubicle size (P = 0.061). These results indicate that the quality of the housing and the management system can affect cow welfare. These measures may be useful to include in on-farm welfare assessment schemes.

Keywords

animal welfaredairy cowhousinglamenessmanagementwelfare assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2003 , pp. 547 - 552
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

ADAS 1986 Condition scoring of dairy cows. MAFF Publications: Alnwick, UKGoogle Scholar
Alban, L 1995 Lameness in Danish dairy cows — frequency and possible risk factors. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 22: 213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergsten, C 2001 Effects of conformation and management system on hoof and leg diseases and lameness in dairy cows. Veterinary Clinics of North America — Food Animal Practice 17: 1–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haskell, M J, Rennie, L J, Bowell, V A, Wemelsfelder, F and Lawrence, A B 2003 On-farm assessment of the effect of management and housing type on behaviour and welfare in dairy cattle. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. Animal Welfare 12: 553–556Google Scholar
Hughes, J 2000 Cows and cubicles. In Practice 22: 231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livesey, C T, Harrington, T, Johnston, A M, May, S A and Metcalf, J A 1998 The effect of diet and housing on the development of sole haemorrhages, white line haemorrhages and heel erosions in Holstein heifers. Animal Science 67: 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logue, D N 1996 Productivity, management and disease in dairy cattle. In: Proceedings of the 19th World Buiatrics Congress, Vol 3 pp 83–88. British Cattle Veterinary Association: Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Meat Hygiene Service 1987 Clean livestock policy — operations manual. Ch 4, Annex 12, Amendment No 40. MHS: York, UKGoogle Scholar
Metz, J H M and Wierenga, H K 1987 Behavioural criteria for the design of housing systems for cattle. In: Wierenga, H K and Peterse, D J (eds) Cattle Housing Systems, Lameness and Behaviour. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C J C 1990 Adverse effects on reproductive performance and lameness of feeding grazing dairy cows partially on silage indoors. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 115: 253–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C J C and Schofield, S A 1994 The effect of cubicle and straw yard housing on the behaviour, production and hoof health of dairy cows. Animal Welfare 3: 37–44Google Scholar
Potter, M J and Broom, D M 1990 Behaviour and welfare aspects of cattle lameness in relation to building design. In: Proceedings of the VIth International Symposium of Diseases of the Ruminant Digit pp 80–84. British Cattle Veterinary Association: Liverpool, UKGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J and de Passillé, A M B 1992 The scientific assessment of the impact of housing on animal welfare: a critical review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72: 721–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S S, Ward, W R, Lautenbach, K, Hughes, J W and Murray, R D 1993 Behaviour of first lactation and adult dairy cows while housed and at pasture and its relationship with sole lesions. Veterinary Record 133: 469–474CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wierenga, H K and Hopster, H 1990 The significance of cubicles for the behaviour of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 309–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar