Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:12:23.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using a national dairy database to identify herds with poor welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

CH Sandgren ,
A Lindberg  and
LJ Keeling
CH Sandgren*
Affiliation:
Swedish Dairy Association, PO Box 210, SE 101 24, Stockholm, Sweden
A Lindberg
Affiliation:
Swedish Dairy Association, PO Box 210, SE 101 24, Stockholm, Sweden National Veterinary Institute, Department of Disease Control, SE 751 89, Uppsala, Sweden
LJ Keeling
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7068, SE 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden
*
* 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.

This research project was carried out by the Swedish Dairy Association as part of the development of a ‘Scheme for Animal Welfare’. As a first step, on-farm, animal-based measurements on calves, young stock and cows in 55 randomly selected herds were performed. Nine animal-based measurements formed the basis for a classification of welfare at the herd level: cleanliness and body condition in calves, cows and young stock, in combination with lameness, injuries/inflammations and rising behaviour which were recorded for cows only. The threshold (gold standard) for being a case herd with poor welfare, was a score lying among the worst 10% on two or more of the nine welfare measurements. Thirteen of the 55 herds were cases fitting this criterion. As a second step, 65 potential welfare indicators from seven different focus areas in a pre-collected data register were identified by expert opinion. In the final step, the extent to which suggested potential welfare indicators predicted farms’ risk of having poor welfare according to the definition was assessed. The final set of welfare indicators, taken from the national dairy database, included two fertility measures and calf mortality, and it correctly classified 77% of the herds, with a sensitivity of 0.62. The inclusion of cow and young stock mortality led to it correctly classifying 76% of the herds with a sensitivity of 0.77. We propose that this approach could be useful in helping to allocate advisory services to farms at risk of poor welfare.

Keywords

animal basedanimal welfareepidemiologynational dairy databasepre-collected datarisk
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2009 , pp. 523 - 532
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

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
Brolund, L 1985 Cell counts in bovine milk. Causes of variation and applicability for diagnosis of subclinical mastitis. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica Supplement 80: 1–123Google ScholarPubMed
Chaplin, S and Munksgaard, L 2001 Evaluation of a simple method for assessment of rising behaviour in tethered cows. Animal Science 72: 191–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, H and Smith, RF 2000 What is stress and how does it affect reproduction? Animal Reproduction Science 60–61: 743–752Google ScholarPubMed
Dobson, H, Tebble, JE, Smith, RF and Ward, W 2001 Is stress really that important? Theriogenology 55: 65–73Google ScholarPubMed
Emanuelson, U 1988 The national Swedish animal disease recording system. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica Supplement 84: 262–264Google ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D 2004 Applying science to animal welfare standards. Global Conference on Animal Welfare: an OIE Initiative pp 121–134. 23-25 February 2004Google Scholar
Gillund, P, Reksen, O, Karlberg, K, Randby, ÅT, Engeland, I and Lutnæs, B 1999 Utpr⊘ving av en holdvurderingsmetode på NRF-kyr. Norsk Veterinærtidskrift 111: 623–632. [Title translation: Evaluation of a method for body condition scoring of Norwegian Red Dairy Cows]Google Scholar
Gustafsson, AH 1993 Acetone and urea concentration in milk as indicators of the nutritional status and the composition of the diet of dairy cows. Dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Keeling, LJ and Veissier, I 2005 Developing a monitoring system to assess welfare quality in cattle pigs and chickens. Science and Society Improving Animal Welfare. Welfare Quality Conference Proceedings pp 46–50. 17-18 Nov 2005, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Olsson, SO, Baekbo, P, Hansson, SO, Rautala, H and Osteras, O 2001 Disease recording systems and herd health schemes for production diseases. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 42(1): 51–60Google Scholar
Philipsson, J, Eriksson, JÅ and Stålhammar, H 2003 Knowhow transfer in animal breeding, the power of integrated cow data bases for farmer's selection of bulls to improve functional traits in dairy cows. EAAP Cattle Commission Session V. 31 Aug-3 Sept 2003, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Rousing, T 2003 Welfare assessment in dairy cattle herds with loose-housing cubicle systems Development and evaluation of welfare indicators. PhD Thesis, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen and Dept of Animal Health and Welfare, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Rousing, T and Waiblinger, S 2004 Evaluation of on-farm methods for testing the human-animal relationship in dairy herds with cubicle loose housing systems, test-retest and inter-observer reliability and consistency to familiarity of test person Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85: 215–231Google Scholar
Rushen, J, de Passillé, AM, Keyserlingk, MAG and Weary, D 2007 The Welfare of Cattle. Springer: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Sprecher, DJ, Hostetler, DE and Kaneene, JB 1997 A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47: 1179–1187CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swedish Animal Welfare Act 1988 Djurskyddslagen: L1, (Animal Welfare Act: L1) SFS 1988: 534. www/sjv.se, Swedish board of agricultureGoogle Scholar
Thomsen, PT, Kjeldsen, AM, S⊘rensen, JT, Houe, H and Ersb⊘ll, AK 2006 Herd-level risk factors for the mortality of cows in Danish dairy herds Veterinary Record 158: 622–626CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomsen, PT, Østergaard, S, Houe, H and S⊘rensen, JT 2007 Loser cows in Danish dairy herds: Risk factors Preventive Veterinary Medicine 79: 136–154CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veissier, I and Evans, A 2007 Rationale behind the welfare quality assessment of animal welfare. Assuring Animal Welfare: From Societal Concerns to Implementation, Second Welfare Quality Conference Stakeholder Conference pp 9–12. 2-3 May 2002, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF and Main, DCJ 2003 Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. Animal Welfare 12(4)Google Scholar
Winckler, C, Baumgartner, J and Waiblinger, S 2007 Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. Animal Welfare 16(2)Google Scholar
Winckler, C, Capdeville, J, Gebresenbet, G, H⊘rning, B, Roiha, U, Tosi, M and Waiblinger, S 2003 Selection of parameters for on-farm welfare assessment protocols in cattle and buffalo. Animal Welfare 12: 619–624Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: Direct observations and investigation of farm records. The Veterinary Record 153: 197–202CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed