Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T03:03:34.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of welfare indicators in dairy farms offering pasture at differing levels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2019

L. Armbrecht ,
C. Lambertz Open the ORCID record for C. Lambertz [Opens in a new window] ,
D. Albers  and
M. Gauly
L. Armbrecht
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
C. Lambertz*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, 39100 Bozen, Italy
D. Albers
Affiliation:
Chamber of Lower Saxony, Field Testing Station for Grassland Management and Cattle Farming, 26121 Oldenburg, Germany
M. Gauly
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, 39100 Bozen, Italy
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In terms of animal welfare, farming systems of dairy cows are perceived positively by consumers when compared to pigs or poultry. A main reason is that the majority of consumers associate dairy farming with pasture, which in turn they relate with benefits for animal health and welfare. However, holistic scientific assessments of the effects of pasturing on animal welfare are rare. Hence, it was the aim to study the animal welfare level in 61 German loose housing dairy farms by using the measures of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle (WQP). Data were collected twice per farm at the end of the pasture season (July to October) and approximately 6 months later at the end of the barn season (December to April). Farms were classified based on the duration cows had access to pasture per day during the pasture season: group 1 (G1)>10 h; group 2 (G2) 6 to 10 h; group 3 (G3)<6 h and group 4 (G4) without pasture access. The average herd size was 129 Holstein-Friesian or Red-Holstein cows (range 58 to 527). In addition to WQP data, performance data were gathered from routine herd data recordings. The indicators were aggregated to criteria applying the scoring system of the WQP. G4 received lower scores at the first than at the second visit for the criterion absence of hunger, while there were no differences between visits in the other groups (P=0.58 – group×farm visit effect). All pasturing groups were scored better at the end of the pasture season than G4 for the criterion comfort around resting (P<0.01). Compared with G1 for both farm visits and G2 for the end of the barn season, G4 reached inferior scores for the criterion absence of injuries, including indicators such as hairless patches, lesions, and swellings and lameness. At both assessments G2 was scored higher than the other groups for the criterion absence of diseases (P=0.04). In conclusion, pasture access had positive effects only on selected welfare indicators, however, these effects were not maintained throughout the barn season.

Keywords

dairy cowspasture accessanimal-based measuresanimal healthwelfare indicators
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 10 , October 2019 , pp. 2336 - 2347
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Algers, B, Bertoni, G, Broom, D, Hartung, J, Lidfors, L, Metz, J, Munksgaard, L, Pina, TN, Oltenacu, P, Rehage, J and Rushen, J 2009. Scientific report on the effects of farming systems on dairy cow welfare and disease. Report of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. Annex to the EFSA Journal 1143, 114–284.Google Scholar
Andreasen, SN, Wemelsfelder, F, Sandoe, P and Forkman, B 2013. The correlation of qualitative behavior assessments with Welfare Quality® protocol outcomes in on-farm welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 143, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armbrecht, L, Lambertz, C, Albers, D and Gauly, M 2018. Does access to pasture affect claw condition and health in dairy cows? Veterinary Record 182, 79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burow, E, Rousing, T, Thomsen, PT, Otten, D and Sørensen, JT 2013a. Effect of grazing on the cow welfare of dairy herds evaluated by a multidimensional welfare index. Animal 7, 834–842.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burow, E, Thomsen, PT, Rousing, T and Sørensen, JT 2013b. Daily grazing time as a risk factor for alterations at the hock joint integument in dairy cows. Animal 7, 160–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coignard, M, Guatteo, R, Veissier, I, Lehébel, A, Hoogveld, C, Mounier, L and Bareille, N 2013. Does milk yield reflect the level of welfare in dairy herds? The Veterinary Journal 199, 184–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Graaf, S, Ampe, B, Buijs, S, Andreasen, SN, De Boyer des, R, van Eerdenburg, FJCM, Haskell, MJ, Kirchner, MK, Mounier, L, Radeski, M, Winckler, C, Bijttebier, J, Lauwers, L, Verbeke, W and Tuyttens, FAM 2018. Sensitivity of the integrated Welfare Quality® scores to changing values of individual dairy cattle welfare measures. Animal Welfare 27, 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Graaf, S, Ampe, B and Tuyttens, FAM 2017. Assessing dairy cow welfare at the beginning and end of the indoor period using the Welfare Quality® protocol. Animal Welfare 26, 213–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, M, Bokkers, EAM, van Schaik, G, Boltreau, R, 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, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dippel, S, Doleza, M, Brenninkmeyer, C, Brinkmann, J, March, S, Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2009. Risk factors for lameness in cubicle housed Austrian Simmental dairy cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 90, 102–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleischer, P, Metzner, M, Beyerbach, M, Hoedemaker, M and Klee, W 2001. The relationship between milk yield and the incidence of some diseases in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 2025–2035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forkman, B and Keeling, LJ 2009. Assessment of animal welfare measures for dairy cattle, beef bulls and veal calves. Welfare Quality® Reports 11, 297.Google Scholar
Gieseke, D, Lambertz, C and Gauly, M 2018. Relationship between herd size and animal welfare in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanswohl, N and Sanftleben, P 2006. Analyse und Bewertung von Hoch- und Tiefboxen für Milchrinder aus arbeitswirtschaftlicher, ethologischer, hygienischer und ökonomischer Sicht. Research Paper of Research Institute of Agriculture and Fisheries of Mecklenburg Vorpommern, Germany. Retrieved on 1 September 2017 from http://www.landwirtschaft-mv.de/Fachinformationen/Tierproduktion/Milcherzeugung/?id=339&processor=processor.sa.lfaforenbeitrag.Google Scholar
Kendall, PE, Nielsen, PP, Webster, JR, Verkerk, GA, Littlejohn, RP and Matthews, RW 2006. The effects of providing shade to lactating dairy cows in a temperate climate. Livestock Science 103, 148–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaus, W 2009. Dairy cows trapped between performance demands and adaptability. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 89, 1107–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krohn, CC and Munksgaard, L 1993. Behaviour of dairy cows kept in extensive (loose housing/pasture) or intensive (tie stall) environments. Applied Animal Behavior Science 37, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambertz, C, Sanker, C and Gauly, M 2014. Climatic effects on milk production traits and somatic cell score in lactating Holstein-Frisian cows in different housing systems. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leisen, E 2014. Weidebasierte Milchviehhaltung in Deutschland. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Grasland- and Pasture-based Milk Production, 21–22 August 2014, Zollikofen, Switzerland, pp. 98–101.Google Scholar
Motupalli, PR, Sinclair, LA, Charlton, GL, Bleach, EC and Rutter, SM 2014. Preference and behavior of lactating dairy cows given free access to pasture at two herbage masses and two distances. Journal of Animal Science 92, 5175–5184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, CJC, Beerda, B, Knierim, U, Waiblinger, S, Lidfors, L, Krohn, CC, Canali, E, Valk, H, Veissier, I and Hopster, H 2013. A review of the impact of housing on dairy cow behaviour, health and welfare. In Livestock housing: modern management to ensure optimal health and welfare of farm animals (eds. A. Aland and T. Banhazi), pp. 37–54. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reijs, J, Daatselaar, C, Helming, J, Jager, J and Beldman, A 2013. Grazing dairy cows in north-west Europe. LEI Report 2013-001. LEI Wageningen UR, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Thomet, P, Ineichen, S and Jörg, H 2014. Züchten von Kühen für eine effiziente graslandbasierte Milchproduktion. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Grasland- and Pasture-Based Milk Production, 21–22 August 2014, Zollikofen, Switzerland, pp. 61–70.Google Scholar
Tucker, CBA, Rogers, AR and Schütz, KE 2008. Effect of solar radiation on dairy cattle behaviour, use of shade and body temperature in a pasture-based system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, de Graaf, S, Heerkens, JLT, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A, de Vliegher, A, Hennessy, D, Isselstein, J and Peyraud, J-L 2015. The future of grazing. In Proceedings of the 3rd Meeting of the EGF Working Group ‘Grazing’. Wageningen UR (University and Research Centre) Livestock Research, Livestock Research Report 906, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, B, Schaub, J, Friedli, K and Hauser, R 2000. Behaviour and leg injuries in dairy cows kept in cubicle systems with straw bedding or soft lying mats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69, 189–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiß, D 2014. Imagewirkung von weidenden Kühen. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Grasland- and Pasture-Based Milk Production, 21–22 August 2014, Zollikofen, Switzerland, pp. 43–48.Google Scholar
Weinrich, R, Kühl, S, Zühlsdorf, A and Spiller, A 2014. Consumer attitudes in Germany towards different dairy housing systems and their implications for the marketing of pasture raised milk. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 17, 205–222.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality 2012. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle applied to dairy cows. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
White, SL, Benson, GA, Washburn, SP and Green, JTJ 2002. Milk production and economic measures in confinement or pasture systems using seasonally calved Holstein and Jersey cows. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 62–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Armbrecht et al. supplementary material

Armbrecht et al. supplementary material 1

Download Armbrecht et al. supplementary material(File)
File 19.6 KB