Invited review: associations between variables of routine herd data and dairy cattle welfare indicators

As farm animal welfare is high on the political and societal agendas of many countries, considerable pressure exists to establish audit programs in which farm animal welfare is routinely monitored. On-farm assessment of animal welfare, however, is time-consuming and costly. A promising strategy to monitor animal welfare more efficiently is to first estimate the level of animal welfare on a farm based on routine herd data that are available in national databases. It is not currently known which variables of routine herd data (VRHD) are associated with dairy cattle welfare indicators (WI). Our aim was to identify VRHD that are associated with WI in a literature review. The 27 VRHD used in this review included the main types of data that are currently collected in national herd databases of developed countries, and related to identification and registration, management, milk production, and reproduction of dairy herds. The 34 WI used in this review were based on the Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Cattle. The search yielded associations in 146 studies. Twenty-three VRHD were associated with 16 WI. The VRHD that related to milk yield, culling, and reproduction were associated with the largest number of WI. Few associations were found for WI that referred to behavioral aspects of animal welfare, nonspecific disease symptoms, or resources-based indicators. For 18 WI, associations with VRHD were not significant (n = 5 WI) or no studies were found that investigated associations with VRHD (n = 13 WI). It was concluded that many VRHD have potential to estimate the level of animal welfare on dairy farms. As strengths of associations were not considered in this review, however, the true value of these VRHD should be further explored. Moreover, associations found at the animal level and in an experimental setting might not appear at the farm level and in common practice and should be investigated. Cross-sectional studies using integrated welfare scores at the farm level are needed to more accurately determine the potential of VRHD to estimate levels of animal welfare on dairy farms.     

Development of a benchmarking tool to assess the welfare of dairy cattle on small-scale farms

Public concern about the welfare of farm animals and the livestock industry's awareness of the need to improve animal welfare have led to the implementation of new tools designed to meet this objective. Especially in the case of small-scale farms in marginalized areas, the lack of available data specifically for assessing welfare led to the present study. Its aim was to use animal- and resource-based indicators that are representative of small-scale farms, to establish an index and develop a benchmarking tool that can be used to dynamically evaluate the welfare of cattle on farms with different husbandry systems and provide farmers, veterinarians, extension officers, and stakeholders with reliable information that can be used as a decision support tool. For this reason, 1,891 cows from 204 herds housed in freestall (n = 111) and tiestall (n = 93) husbandry systems in South Tyrol (Northern Italy) were evaluated. The results showed that 17.6% of herds (36 farms) had an average score below 60 (out of 100), which means that immediate intervention should be adopted to improve welfare. South Tyrolean dairy farms performed well in terms of lameness, skin alterations, avoidance behavior, number and space of lying areas, and dystocia occurrence scores, whereas water supply, cow cleanliness status, claw conformation, and getting-up behavior offered significant potential for improvement. Significant differences were observed between housing systems scoring less than 60 out of 100 points in 9.9% (n = 11) and 26.9%, (n = 25), of the herds kept in freestalls and tiestalls, respectively. A slight difference was found when comparing the percentage of herds with high scores, which corresponded to 30.6% (n = 34) of herds housed in freestalls and 22.6% (n = 21) of herds housed in tiestall housing systems. In addition, it was shown that animals reared on farms with tiestalls more often had problems with body condition, cleanliness, and skin alterations. All individual welfare indicators in the top 25% of herds had scores above 80, indicating that this may be an attainable target for freestall and tiestall herds, respectively, to promote good dairy cow welfare. The overall aim must be to adopt measures to increase the scores on all farms closer to this level.     

Exploring the value of routinely collected herd data for estimating dairy cattle welfare

Routine on-farm assessment of dairy cattle welfare is time consuming and, therefore, expensive. A promising strategy to assess dairy cattle welfare more efficiently is to estimate the level of animal welfare based on herd data available in national databases. Our aim was to explore the value of routine herd data (RHD) for estimating dairy cattle welfare at the herd level. From November 2009 through March 2010, 7 trained observers collected data for 41 welfare indicators in a selected sample of 183 loose-housed and 13 tethered Dutch dairy herds (herd size: 10 to 211 cows) using the Welfare Quality protocol for cattle. For the same herds, RHD relating to identification and registration, management, milk production and composition, and fertility were extracted from several national databases. The RHD were used as potential predictors for each welfare indicator in logistic regression at the herd level. Nineteen welfare indicators were excluded from the predictions, because they showed a prevalence below 5% (15 indicators), or were already listed as RHD (4 indicators). Predictions were less accurate for 7 welfare indicators, moderately accurate for 14 indicators, and highly accurate for 1 indicator. By forcing to detect almost all herds with a welfare problem (sensitivity of at least 97.5%), specificity ranged from 0 to 81%. By forcing almost no herds to be incorrectly classified as having a welfare problem (specificity of at least 97.5%), sensitivity ranged from 0 to 67%. Overall, the best-performing prediction models were those for the indicators access to at least 2 drinkers (resource based), percentage of very lean cows, cows lying outside the supposed lying area, and cows with vulvar discharge (animal based). The most frequently included predictors in final models were percentages of on-farm mortality in different lactation stages. It was concluded that, for most welfare indicators, RHD have value for estimating dairy cattle welfare. The RHD can serve as a prescreening tool for detecting herds with a welfare problem, but this should be followed by a verification of the level of welfare in an on-farm assessment to identify false-positive herds. Consequently, the number of farm visits needed for routine welfare assessments can be reduced. The RHD also hold value for continuous monitoring of dairy cattle welfare. Prediction models developed in this study, however, should first be validated in additional field studies.     

The effects of herd size on the welfare of dairy cows in a pasture-based system using animal- and resource-based indicators

Animal welfare assessments were conducted on 50 Australian pasture-based dairy farms of varying herd sizes: 16 small (<300 cows), 15 medium-sized (300–500 cows), 11 large (501–750 cows), and 10 very large (751+ cows). A protocol based on elements of Welfare Quality adapted for Australian conditions was developed to assess the broad categories of good feeding, housing, health, and appropriate behavior. Farm records, body condition scores, integument injuries, fecal plaques, avoidance distance of humans, and fecal pat scoring for acidosis assessment were undertaken. The mean maximum kilograms of grain fed per day significantly increased with herd size, from 5.2 ± 0.38 (small), 7.7 ± 0.29 (medium-sized), 8.8 ± 0.45 (large), to 10.1 ± 0.80 kg (very large). Acidosis was not related to herd size based on either farm records or fecal pat scoring. All cows had access to water for more than 12 h in a 24-h period. More larger farms had water points on the farm tracks or at the dairy. Very large farms (90%) were more likely than others (36–39%) to provide water suitable for human consumption. Integument lesions were not related to herd size and were uncommon; 56 and 84% of farms had no cows with lesions or hairless areas, respectively, and no farm had >6% integument lesions. Heat stress is an important welfare risk in Australia. All farms had some form of cooling strategy; shade in all paddocks was more common on smaller farms (>90%) than others (<75%). Sprinklers were more common on large or very large farms (>80%) than others (<65%). Mastitis and lameness were the most common health conditions, followed by dystocia, downer cows, and gastrointestinal diseases. Prevalence of lameness, mastitis, downer cows, dystocia, and gastrointestinal disease were not related to farm size. Larger farms were more likely to have electronic infrastructure to monitor or electronically draft cows for inspection. We found wide variation in the avoidance distance of humans, but this was not related to farm size. Larger farms had longer walking distances to pasture and longer time away from pasture, which could affect the time available for behaviors such as lying down. Animal welfare risks differ on Australian farms compared with housed cattle. As animal welfare is multidimensional, both animal- and resource-based indicators can be useful. Animal-based indicators have strengths in that, when measured accurately, they genuinely reflect the outcome being measured, but they also have weaknesses in that the point-estimate of a disease prevalence on a given day may not be representative of other times of year or differences in case definition may exist when farm records are used. Similarly, resource-based indicators have strengths in that they may be applicable to longer periods, but weaknesses because the fact a resource is present does not guarantee it is being used. Identifying the major risks to animal welfare on individual farms and ensuring a plan is in place to effectively manage them should be an important element of any on-farm animal welfare assessment protocol.     

Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle—Key concepts and the role of science

Concerns about the welfare of animals typically include 3 questions: is the animal functioning well (e.g., good health, productivity, etc.), is the animal feeling well (e.g., absence of pain, etc.), and is the animal able to live according to its nature (e.g., perform natural behaviors that are thought to be important to it, such as grazing)? We review examples, primarily from our own research, showing how all 3 questions can be addressed using science. For example, we review work showing 1) how common diseases such as lameness can be better identified and prevented through improvements in the ways cows are housed and managed, 2) how pain caused by dehorning of dairy calves can be reduced, and 3) how environmental conditions affect cow preferences for indoor housing versus pasture. Disagreements about animal welfare can occur when different measures are used. For example, management systems that favor production may restrict natural behavior or can even lead to higher rates of disease. The best approaches are those that address all 3 types of concerns, for example, feeding systems for calves that allow expression of key behaviors (i.e., sucking on a teat), that avoid negative affect (i.e., hunger), and that allow for improved functioning (i.e., higher rates of body weight gain, and ultimately higher milk production).     

Effects of changing freestall area on lameness,lying time,and leg injuries on dairy farms in Alberta,Canada

Cow comfort is of increasing importance in the dairy industry, due to an increased focus on animal welfare. However, whether producer changes to the cows' environment affect cow comfort has not been well characterized. Our objectives were to: (1) quantify the effect of freestall area changes on the prevalence of lameness, leg injuries, and average lying time; and (2) compare cow comfort outcomes on farms that had never had an assessment of cow comfort to farms that had had a previous assessment of cow comfort. A sample of 60 Holstein-Friesian cows were selected on each of 15 farms that made changes to the freestall area after an assessment of cow comfort (change, CHG); 15 farms that did not make changes to the freestall area after an assessment of cow comfort (no change, NC); and 14 farms that had yet to be evaluated (new farms, NF). Cows in NC and NF were lame 1.50 and 1.71 times more often, respectively, than cows on CHG farms. Additionally, daily lying time was 0.33 and 0.62 h/d lower in NC and NF, respectively, than on CHG farms. The prevalence of hock and knee injuries was not different among the 3 groups of farms. No differences were detected in the parameters of interest when comparing NF with NC farms; therefore, we concluded that the NC group was not biased by a previous assessment of cow comfort. Farms in the CHG group had a lower prevalence of lame cows and greater lying time than the NC and NF groups.     

Associations between herd characteristics and reproductive efficiency in dairy herds

Dairy herds worldwide are experiencing a decline in reproductive efficiency at the same time as management methods are changing. This study aimed to investigate the extent to which herd-level characteristics were associated with reproductive performance. Data from herds using artificial insemination (AI) in the Swedish Official Milk Recording Scheme that had more than 45 cows were included in the study (total of 2,728 herds). Reproductive performance was measured as the average for each herd for the calving interval, calving to first AI interval, calving to last AI interval, number of AI per animal submitted for AI, and culling attributed to reproductive problems. Herds with mainly Swedish Holstein cows had longer calving intervals, calving to first AI, and calving to last AI compared with herds with mainly Swedish Red and White cows. Large herds had shorter calving to first AI but a greater number of AI than small herds, whereas small herds had greater culling attributed to reproductive problems than large herds. Low-yielding herds had longer calving intervals, calving to first AI, and calving to last AI and had greater culling attributed to reproductive problems than high-yielding herds, whereas herds with high milk yields had a greater number of AI than low-yielding herds. Herds with automatic milking systems had shorter calving intervals, calving to first AI, and calving to last AI and had lesser odds for culling attributed to reproductive problems when compared with herds with ordinary pipeline milking systems. Herds that used Advanced Feed Advisory Services had shorter calving to first AI but a greater number of AI and greater culling attributed to reproductive problems. Herds using TMR had longer calving intervals and calving to last AI than herds that did not. Herds with tie stalls had longer calving intervals, calving to first AI, and calving to last AI, and organic herds had shorter calving intervals, calving to first AI, and calving to last AI compared with conventional herds. We found that herds with do-it-yourself inseminations had longer calving intervals and calving to first AI. Our study showed numerous associations between herd characteristics and reproductive performance. When allocating advisory service resources to improve reproductive performance, the focus should be on herd characteristics that are easy to influence, such as TMR and do-it-yourself inseminations.     

Short communication: Breed differences affecting dairy cattle welfare in traditional alpine tie-stall husbandry systems

The aim of this investigation was to compare the prevalence of indicators of poor welfare among 5 Italian cattle breeds (Italian Holstein-Friesian, Italian Bruna, Pezzata Rossa Italiana, Grigia Alpina, and Pezzata Rossa d’Oropa) kept in tie-stalls in the Italian Alps under similar housing and management conditions. We recorded the presence of integument alterations (hairless patch areas, lesion/swollen areas, or overgrown claws) and lameness in 612 cows. Additionally, we checked 834 cows for the presence of physical malformations (“open” shoulders). In general, the prevalence of welfare problems showed a decreasing trend from the more productive to the less productive breeds. Local breeds (Grigia Alpina and Pezzata Rossa d’Oropa) showed a significantly lower prevalence of welfare problems compared with the other 3 breeds, whereas Italian Holstein-Friesian usually had the highest percentage of individuals with problems. No differences were found between Pezzata Rossa Italiana and Italian Bruna, both of which showed fewer problems than Italian Holstein-Friesian. The effect of the breed significantly affected the welfare of dairy cows in tie-stalls in alpine traditional husbandry systems. The prevalence of the negative welfare indicators studied was lower in local breeds, which are better adapted to local breeding conditions. Our results indicate an urgent need to promote changes in the criteria used for genetic selection in the dairy industry and underline the importance of maintaining the diversity of local breeds, which should be carefully chosen for each specific environmental condition.     

Consultancy to dairy farmers relating to animal health and herd health management on small- and medium-sized farms

The objectives of this study were to obtain information about animal health challenges for dairy farmers of small- and medium-sized herds and about the fields in which consultancy services should be improved. The hyperlink to an internet-based survey was sent to 9,021 farmers in Austria. The survey included questions about the participants and their farms, about who is consulting with the farmers with regard to animal health, feeding, sire selection, construction of barns and animal husbandry, about animal health issues farmers find most challenging, and about their demands for improved consultancy services. The questionnaire was completed anonymously. Analyses were stratified by milk yield (categorized) and whether farmers worked full-time or part-time. The overall response rate was 11.3% (n = 1,018). The majority of farms kept less than 20 cows (54.0%) or 20 to 50 cows (40.1%). With regard to animal health, the veterinarian was the most important consultant for the majority of farmers (84.6%). On issues related to feeding, sire selection, and stable construction, the veterinarian was seen as a less important consultant than specialists in these fields (20.4, 11.6, and 7.9% suggested the veterinarian as an important consultant in these areas). The survey indicated that reproductive disorders, udder disease, poor conception rate, lameness, and calf diarrhea represent the most important challenges to farmers. Of these, concerns about calf diarrhea were affected by milk yield of the herds and management. More high- than low-yielding farms (11.7 vs. 6.4%) and more full-time than part-time managed herds (9.6 vs.4.3%) regarded calf diarrhea as an important problem. Farmers would welcome improved consultancy with regard to fertility, feeding, and sire selection. The results indicated which animal health issues farmers find particularly challenging and displayed which areas farmers require improved consultancy services. Veterinarians and organizations offering consultancy should take the results into consideration in improving or adapting their advisory services.     

Time budgets of lactating dairy cattle in commercial freestall herds

The aim of this study was to examine the time budgets of 205 lactating dairy cows housed in 16 freestall barns in Wisconsin and to determine the relationships between components of the time budget and herd- and cow-level fixed effects using mixed models. Using continuous video surveillance, time lying in the stall, time standing in the stall, time standing in the alleys (including drinking), time feeding, and time milking (time out of the pen for milking and transit) during a 24-h period were measured for each cow. In addition, the number of lying bouts and the mean duration of each lying bout per 24-h period were determined. Time milking varied between cows from 0.5 to 6.0 h/d, with a mean ± standard deviation of 2.7 ± 1.1 h/d. Time milking was influenced significantly by pen stocking density, and time milking negatively affected time feeding, time lying, and time in the alley, but not time standing in the stall. Locomotion score, either directly or through an interaction with stall base type (a rubber crumb-filled mattress, MAT, or sand bedding, SAND), influenced pen activity. Lame cows spent less time feeding, less time in the alleys, and more time standing in the stalls in MAT herds, but not in SAND herds. The effect of lameness on lying time is complex and dependent on the time available for rest and differences in resting behavior observed between cows in MAT and SAND herds. In MAT herds, rest was characterized by a larger number of lying bouts of shorter duration than in SAND herds (mean = 14.4; confidence interval, CI: 12.4 to 16.5 vs. mean = 10.2; CI: 8.2 to 12.2 bouts per d, and mean = 1.0; CI: 0.9 to 1.1 vs. mean = 1.3, CI: 1.2 to 1.4 h bout duration for MAT and SAND herds, respectively). Lameness was associated with an increase in time standing in the stall and a reduction in the mean (CI) number of lying bouts per day from 13.2 (CI: 12.3 to 14.1) bouts/d for nonlame cows to 10.9 (CI: 9.30 to 12.8) bouts/d for moderately lame cows, and an overall reduction in lying time in MAT herds compared with SAND herds (11.5; CI: 10.0 to 13.0 vs. 12.7; CI: 11.0 to 14.3 h/d, respectively). These results show that time out of the pen milking, stall base type, and lameness significantly affect time budgets of cows housed in freestall facilities.     

Preference and usage of pasture versus free-stall housing by lactating dairy cattle

The aim of the current study was to assess if cows preferred pasture or indoor housing, and how diurnal and environmental factors affected this preference. Lactating dairy cows (n = 5 groups, each containing 5 cows) were sequentially housed either in a free-stall barn on pasture, or given the choice between the 2 environments. Each group was tested 3 times under each condition, for a total of 21 d, to assess the effects of varying climatic conditions (outdoor temperature ranged from 9.9 to 28.2°C and daily rainfall from 0 to 65 mm/d over the course of the experiment). When provided the choice, cows spent on average (± SD) 13.0 ± 0.6 h/d on pasture, mainly at night. The time cows spent on pasture during the day decreased with the temperature-humidity index (R² = 0.55); time on pasture at night decreased with rainfall (R² = 0.12). When provided a choice, cows spent more of their lying time on pasture (69.4 ± 0.02% of the total lying time/d) than indoors in the free-stalls. Cows also spent more time in total lying down when provided a choice than when confined to pasture [0.6 h/d more lying time; standard error of the difference (SED) = 0.21 h/d] and spent even more time lying down when confined indoors (1.1 h/d more time; SED = 0.21 h/d). Cows used the indoor housing especially for feeding; feeder use peaked when cows returned from morning and afternoon milkings. However, cows with free access to pasture spent 1.0 h/d (SED = 0.09 h/d) less time eating the TMR available indoors, resulting in a decline in intake of 2.9 kg of dry matter/d (SED = 0.36 kg of dry matter/d). How cows used the indoor housing differed when cows were provided a choice; for example, cows spent a greater percentage of their time indoors at the feed alley both during the day (47% of the total time spent indoors, versus 41% for cows confined indoors, SED = 0.02%) and at night (22 vs. 5%, SED = 0.04%). In conclusion, under the housing and environmental conditions tested, cows showed a strong preference for access to pasture at night and for access to indoor housing during the day when temperature and humidity increased.     

On-farm deaths of dairy cows are associated with features of freestall barns

On-farm death (OFD) of a dairy cow is always a financial loss for a farmer, and potentially a welfare issue that has to be addressed within the dairy industry. The aim of this study was to explore the associations between OFD of dairy cows, housing, and herd management in freestall barns. To achieve the goal, we followed 10,837 cows calving in 2011 in 82 herds. Data were gathered with observations and a structured interview during farm visits and from a national dairy herd improvement database. The hazard of OFD was modeled with a shared frailty survival model, with SAS 9.3 PHREG procedure (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). The study population was 58% Ayrshire and 42% Holstein cows. The median herd size and mean milk yield in the study herds were 116 cows and 9,151 kg of milk per cow per year. The overall probability of OFD was 6.0%; 1.8% of the cows died unassisted and 4.2% were euthanized. Variation in OFD percentage between individual herds was large, from 0 to 16%, accounting for 0 to 58% of all removals in the herds. Keeping close-up dry cows in their own group was associated with higher hazard of OFD [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.37] compared with keeping them in the same pen with far-off dry cows. Higher hazard on OFD was observed when barns had only one kind of calving pen; single (HR = 2.09) or group pens (HR = 1.72), compared with having both of those types. The hazard of OFD was lower if the whole herd was housed in barns or pens that had only 1 type of feed barrier at the feed bunk, namely post-and-rail (HR = 0.51) or a type with barriers between the cow's heads (HR = 0.49), compared with having 2 types. Lower OFD hazard was observed with wider than 340 cm of walking alley next to the feeding table (HR = 0.75), and with housing a whole herd in pens with only 1 type of walking alley surface, specifically slatted (HR = 0.53) or solid (HR = 0.48), compared with having both types. The hazard of OFD was higher with stalls wider than 120 cm (HR = 1.38) compared with narrower stalls. The hazard of OFD was also associated with breed, parity, and calving season. This study identified many factors that contribute to the incidence of OFD of dairy cows. The solutions for reducing on-farm mortality include housing, management, and breeding choices that are most probably herd specific.     

Random herd curves in a test-day model for milk, fat, and protein production of dairy cattle in The Netherlands

With random regression models, genetic parameters of test-day milk production records of dairy cattle can be estimated directly from the data. However, several researchers that used this method have reported unrealistically high variances at the borders of the lactation trajectory and low genetic correlations between beginning and end of lactation. Recently, it has been proposed to include herd-specific regression curves in the random regression model. The objective was to study the effect of including random herd curves on estimated genetic parameters. Genetic parameters were estimated with 2 models; both included random regressions for the additive genetic and permanent environmental effect, whereas the second model also included a random regression effect for herd x 2-yr period of calving. All random regressions were modeled with fourth-order Legendre polynomials. Bayesian techniques with Gibbs sampling were used to estimate all parameters. The data set comprised 857,255 test-day milk, fat, and protein records from lactations 1, 2, and 3 of 43,990 Holstein cows from 544 herds. Genetic variances estimated by the second model were lower in the first 100 d and at the end of the lactation, especially in lactations 2 and 3. Genetic correlations between d 50 and the end of lactation were around 0.25 higher in the second model and were consistent with studies where lactation stages are modeled as different traits. Subsequently, estimated heritabilities for persistency were up to 0.14 lower in the second model. It is suggested to include herd curves in a random regression model when estimating genetic parameters of test-day production traits in dairy cattle.     

Ranking experts' preferences regarding measures and methods of assessment of welfare in dairy herds using Adaptive Conjoint Analysis

Welfare in dairy herds can be addressed using different concepts. The difficulty is to extract which measures are the most important to practically address welfare at the herd level and the methods to assess traits considered most important. Therefore, the preferences of 24 acknowledged European welfare experts were ranked regarding 70 measures suitable to assess dairy cattle welfare at herd level using the Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA; Sawtooth Software, Inc., Sequim, WA) technique. The experts were selected on the basis of 3 criteria: at least 5 yr experience in animal welfare research; recent scientific publications in the field of animal welfare; and, at the most, 3 animal species including dairy cattle as their field of expertise. The 70 traits were ranked by using the median ACA questionnaire utility scores and the range between the answers of the 24 experts. A high utility score with a low range between the answers of the experts was considered as suitable to assess welfare at farm level. Measures meeting these criteria were prevalence of lameness cases (107.3 ± 11.7), competition for feed and water (96.4 ± 13.9), and number of freestalls per 10 cows (84.8 ± 13.3). Based on the utility score alone, these former measures were replaced by stereotypic behavior (111.7 ± 17.1), prevalence of lameness cases (107.3 ± 11.7), body condition score (108.0 ± 18.9), and hock lesions (104.7 ± 16.1). Subsequently, to demonstrate that the ACA technique can be used to rank either well-known or inconclusive methods of assessment, the methods for the traits lameness cases and the hygiene of the calving pen were ranked using another 2 ACA questionnaires. The results are based on the opinions of selected, internationally acknowledged dairy cattle welfare experts within the European Union. In the future, other parties like dairy farmers and farmers’ organization should be included to achieve consensus about the most suitable traits applicable in practice. The currently investigated traits do not always apply to all dairy husbandry systems across the world, but are based on a system that includes indoor housing during winter. It is concluded that ACA is a useful technique to rank the different scientific opinions of experts regarding suitable traits and methods of assessment of dairy cattle at the herd level.     

Invited review: Lying time and the welfare of dairy cows

Adequate time lying down is often considered an important aspect of dairy cow welfare. We examine what is known about cows' motivation to lie down and the consequences for health and other indicators of biological function when this behavior is thwarted. We review the environmental and animal-based factors that affect lying time in the context of animal welfare. Our objective is to review the research into the time that dairy cows spend lying down and to critically examine the evidence for the link with animal welfare. Cows can be highly motivated to lie down. They show rebound lying behavior after periods of forced standing and will sacrifice other activities, such as feeding, to lie down for an adequate amount of time. They will work, by pushing levers or weighted gates, to lie down and show possible indicators of frustration when lying behavior is thwarted. Some evidence suggests that risk of lameness is increased in environments that provide unfavorable conditions for cows to lie down and where cows are forced to stand. Lameness itself can result in longer lying times, whereas mastitis reduces it. Cow-based factors such as reproductive status, age, and milk production influence lying time, but the welfare implications of these differences are unknown. Lower lying times are reported in pasture-based systems, dry lots, and bedded packs (9 h/d) compared with tiestalls and freestalls (10 to 12 h/d) in cross-farm research. Unfavorable conditions, including too few lying stalls for the number of cows, hard or wet lying surfaces, inadequate bedding, stalls that are too small or poorly designed, heat, and rain all reduce lying time. Time constraints, such as feeding or milking, can influence lying time. However, more information is needed about the implications of mediating factors such as the effect of the standing surface (concrete, pasture, or other surfaces) and cow behavior while standing (e.g., being restrained, walking, grazing) to understand the effect of low lying times on animal welfare. Many factors contribute to the difficulty of finding a valid threshold for daily lying time to use in the assessment of animal welfare. Although higher lying times often correspond with cow comfort, and lower lying times are seen in unfavorable conditions, exceptions occur, namely when cows lie down for longer because of disease or when they spend more time standing because of estrus or parturition, or to engage in other behaviors. In conclusion, lying behavior is important to dairy cattle, but caution and a full understanding of the context and the character of the animals in question is needed before drawing firm conclusions about animal welfare from measures of lying time.     

Trained-user opinion about Welfare Quality measures and integrated scoring of dairy cattle welfare

The Welfare Quality (WQ) protocol for on-farm dairy cattle welfare assessment describes 27 measures and a stepwise method for integrating values for these measures into 11 criteria scores, grouped further into 4 principle scores and finally into an overall welfare categorization with 4 levels. We conducted an online survey to examine whether trained users' opinions of the WQ protocol for dairy cattle correspond with the integrated scores (criteria, principles, and overall categorization) calculated according to the WQ protocol. First, the trained users' scores (n = 8–15) for reliability and validity and their ranking of the importance of all measures for herd welfare were compared with the degree of actual effect of these measures on the WQ integrated scores. Logistic regression was applied to identify the measures that affected the WQ overall welfare categorization into the “not classified” or “enhanced” categories for a database of 491 European herds. The smallest multivariate model maintaining the highest percentage of both sensitivity and specificity for the “enhanced” category contained 6 measures, whereas the model for “not classified” contained 4 measures. Some of the measures that were ranked as least important by trained users (e.g., measures relating to drinkers) had the highest influence on the WQ overall welfare categorization. Conversely, measures rated as most important by the trained users (e.g., lameness and mortality) had a lower effect on the WQ overall category. In addition, trained users were asked to allocate criterion and overall welfare scores to 7 focal herds selected from the database (n = 491 herds). Data on all WQ measures for these focal herds relative to all other herds in the database were provided. The degree to which expert scores corresponded to each other, the systematic difference, and the correspondence between median trained-user opinion and the WQ criterion scores were then tested. The level of correspondence between expert scoring and WQ scoring for 6 of the 12 criteria and for the overall welfare score was low. The WQ scores of the protocol for dairy cattle thus lacked correspondence with trained users on the importance of several welfare measures.     

Interrelationships between herd-level reproductive performance measures based on intervals from initiation of the breeding program in year-round and seasonal calving dairy herds

In year-round calving herds, reproductive performance has traditionally been described in relation to each cow's calving date. This research described reproductive performance in year-round and seasonal calving dairy herds using herd-level measures based on interval from each cow's initiation of breeding program date, and assessed interrelationships between such measures. A large, prospective, single cohort study, implemented in 1997 and 1998, included 29,327 cows from 167 Australian dairy herds. Herd reproductive performance was described using 2 measures of primary importance to herd managers: the proportion of cows that became pregnant by 6 wk after their initiation of breeding program date (6-wk pregnancy rate) and the proportion of cows that were nonpregnant 21 wk after their initiation of breeding program date (21-wk nonpregnancy rate). Measures that contribute to these primary measures (secondary measures) were calculated for each herd for both the first and second 3-wk periods of each cow's breeding program; submission rates were calculated as proportions of cows that were inseminated at least once in the 3-wk period, and conception rates were calculated as the proportions of inseminations in the 3-wk period that resulted in pregnancy. The individual herd was the unit of analysis. The study results indicate that high submission rates are essential if herd reproductive performance is to be achieved. Six-week pregnancy rate was predicted to increase by 6 to 8 percentage points following a 10-percentage-point increase in submission rates in both 3-wk periods, and by 6 to 10 percentage points following a 10-percentage-point increase in conception rates. Submission rates were more variable than conception rates, indicating that managers may be able to achieve large increases in submission rates more easily than substantial increases in conception rates. However, the predicted benefits of increasing submission rates were greatest when conception rates were high and vice versa, highlighting the need to improve both submission and conception rates when both are low. The study results indicate that some herd managers can concurrently achieve high submission and conception rates.     

Comparison of selected animal observations and management practices used to assess welfare of calves and adult dairy cows on organic and conventional dairy farms

Differences in adoption of selected practices used in welfare assessment and audit programs were contrasted among organic (ORG; n = 192) herds and similarly sized conventional grazing herds (CON-GR; n = 36), and conventional nongrazing herds (CON-NG; n = 64). Criteria from 3 programs were assessed: American Humane Association Animal Welfare Standards for Dairy Cattle, Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM), and the Canadian Codes of Practice (CCP). Data were collected by trained study personnel during a herd visit and included information about neonatal care, dehorning, pain relief, calf nutrition, weaning, record keeping, use of veterinarians, and animal observations. Associations of management type (ORG, CON-GR, or CON-NG) with adoption of selected practice were assessed. Almost all farms (97%) met criteria suggested for age at weaning but fewer CON-NG farmers weaned calves at ≥5 wk of age compared with ORG and CON-GR farmers. Only 23% of farms met program requirements for use of pain relief during dehorning, and fewer CON-NG farmers used pain relief for calves after dehorning compared with ORG and CON-GR farmers. Calves on ORG farms were fed a greater volume of milk and were weaned at an older age than calves on CON-GR and CON-NG farms. Calves on CON-GR farms were dehorned at a younger age compared with calves on ORG and CON-NG farms. The calving area was shared with lactating cows for a larger proportion of ORG herds compared with conventional herds. About 30% of herds met welfare program criteria for body condition score but only about 20% met criteria for animal hygiene scores. The least proportion of cows with hock lesions was observed on ORG farms. Regular use of veterinarians was infrequent for ORG herds. Results of this study indicate that most of the organic and conventional farms enrolled in this study would have been unlikely to achieve many criteria of audit and assessment programs currently used in the US dairy industry.     

Refinement of international recommendations for cubicles,based on the identification of associations between cubicle characteristics and dairy cow welfare measures

Maladjusted cubicles for dairy cattle may cause increased skin alterations, lameness, and dirtiness. The International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering has produced several recommendations for cubicle design, but a previous study showed that not all of them seem efficient. Here, we aim to refine and complete these recommendations. We collected data on 76 dairy farms (2,404 cows). We modeled the association between combinations of cubicle properties (e.g., type of bedding litter) and dimensions (e.g., cubicle width) relative to cow size, and prevalence of cow skin alterations, lameness, and dirtiness. We used weighted multivariable logistic regression models to predict the presence of skin alteration on the carpus; the neck, shoulder, and back; the flank, side, and udder; and the tarsus or hindquarters. We also evaluated the presence of lameness as well as the dirtiness of the lower hind legs including hocks; the hindquarters, upper hind legs, and flank; the cow rear including tail; and the udder. The risk factors highlighted led us to recommend (1) position cubicles in a way that leaves more than 1 m of clearance from any obstacle in front of the cubicle; (2) if there is an obstacle on the lateral plane (i.e., where the cubicle partition is) in front ahead of the cow, put the obstacle in front of the fore knees; (3) if there is an obstacle in front of the cow on the median plane (e.g., neck or front rail), the position the obstacle between 1.25 and 1.5 of the cow length from the curb and between 1.0 and 1.25 of its height; (4) use curb height between 0.11 and 0.15 of cow height with no sharp edges on the curb; (5) use round or at least has no sharp edges brisket board; (6) use a stone-free soil instead of concrete or use a mattress thicker than 1 cm, with microrelief, and a soft fixing area at the curb, (7) litter with straw (rather than nothing or sawdust) and keep it dry. This risk factor analysis should be followed by experiments in controlled environments to further validate these conclusions and used to update the International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering recommendations.