Animal welfare outcomes and associated risk indicators on Austrian dairy farms: A cross-sectional study.

In 2017, an Austrian dairy company implemented a third-party animal-based assessment of health and welfare to stimulate welfare improvements on farms. Using this cross-sectional data set, we aimed at identifying prevailing welfare problems and associations thereof with main farm and management characteristics. Welfare outcome measures regarding body condition, cleanliness, diarrhea, integument alterations, claw condition, lameness, rising behavior, and avoidance distance toward humans were assessed by 13 trained observers. Data from health recordings and farm characteristics, such as housing system, feeding regimen, and pasture access, were collected via a questionnaire. Analyses included outcome measures from 23,749 individual cows on 1,221 farms [median (M) herd size = 19, interquartile range (IQR) = 16]. Herd-level prevalence of the outcome measures showed a high between-farm variability with highest median values for dirty lower hind leg (M = 46%, IQR = 47), signs of diarrhea (M = 28%, IQR = 39), and hairless patches on the tarsal joint (M = 21%, IQR = 36). Median prevalence of severe welfare problems, such as very lean cows, lesions, lameness, or mastitis treatments, were low compared with previously reported findings (very lean: 0%, IQR = 0; lesion tarsus: 0%, IQR = 4; moderately lame loose-housed: 7%, IQR = 16; mastitis treatments: 10%, IQR = 16). On half of the farms, at least 83% (IQR = 25) of the assessed cows could be touched in a standardized approach test, indicating a good human-animal relationship. Using generalized linear models, we found frequent associations with welfare outcome measures for the amount of milk delivered per cow (e.g., lower risk of very lean cows or dirty hind legs but higher risk of mastitis treatments or antibiotic dry-off with increasing milk delivery), housing system (e.g., loose-housed animals were at lower risk of lesions on the tarsal joint than animals kept in tiestalls, but at higher risk of being classified as very fat), and assessment period (winter vs. summer period). Beneficial associations were consistently found for an increasing number of days with access to pasture (e.g., body condition, integument alterations, lameness) as well as organic compared with conventional farming (e.g., integument alterations, claw health, lameness). Although the latter associations may be especially important for advisory services, in policy making, or when engaging with the public, other farm or management characteristics require careful attention, as they may have both beneficial as well as adverse impacts on welfare, calling for good management skills to avoid undesired effects.

Schenkenfelder J ，Winckler C 《-》

To meet or not to meet welfare outcome thresholds: a case-control study in dairy cow herds.

Recently published thresholds allow classifying dairy cattle herds according to target, caution and alert ranges for welfare outcomes. Such normative thresholds provide one way to transparently assess production practices and are a straightforward communication tool with farmers. In an ordinal response case-control study, we investigated associations of animal, management and resource-related indicators with the risk of exceeding thresholds of prevalence for lameness, claw disorders, integument alterations and leg cleanliness. To this end, we used cumulative logistic regression models on 264 tethered and 392 loose-housed Austrian dairy herds. In tethered herds, the risk indicator average lactation milk yield was positively associated with the probability to exceed thresholds for integument alteration prevalence but negatively regarding leg cleanliness. Associations were also found for operation type regarding integument alterations (lower risk on organic vs conventional farms), for herd size regarding lameness (negative association) and dirty upper hind leg (positive association), and for percentage of fifth or higher parity cows in the herd regarding dirty lower hind leg (positive association). Stall type was identified as risk indicator regarding claw disorders (lower risk of long vs short stands). In loose housing systems, none of the analysed risk indicators was associated with the probability to exceed thresholds for total lameness and claw disorder prevalence. Negative associations with the probability to exceed caution or alert thresholds were identified for lifetime milk yield (dirty upper hind leg), lactation milk yield (dirty upper and lower hind leg), percentage of cows in the herd with a fat-protein-ratio <1 (integument alterations), and percentage of cows in the herd with a fat-protein-ratio >1.5 (dirty upper hind leg). Pasture access showed negative (severe lameness, integument alterations) and herd size positive associations (severe lameness) with the probability to exceed thresholds. Deep litter cubicles compared to raised cubicles with rubber mats showed a lower probability to exceed thresholds (integument alterations, dirty lower hind leg) as well as solid rubber compared to concrete slatted flooring in alleyways (integument alterations). Assessments carried out during the pasture period compared to during winter housing were associated with a lower risk of exceeding thresholds for leg cleanliness measures in both, tethered and loose-housed herds, and for integument alteration prevalence in tethered herds. In conclusion, no principal risk indicator was identified which consistently determined the probability of exceeding predefined thresholds of considered welfare outcomes. Nevertheless, outcome-specific factors show sufficient impact on the categorisation of farms according to prevalence ranges.

Schenkenfelder J ，Winckler C 《-》

Effects of cubicle characteristics on animal welfare indicators in dairy cattle.

Gieseke D ，Lambertz C ，Gauly M 《-》

Housing, management characteristics, and factors associated with lameness, hock lesion, and hygiene of lactating dairy cattle on Upper Midwest United States dairy farms using automatic milking systems.

The objectives of this cross-sectional study were to describe housing and management practices on farms using automatic milking systems (AMS) in 2 states of the upper Midwest and to evaluate the association of various housing and management factors with 3 measures of animal welfare: prevalence of lameness, severe hock lesions, and dirty cows. Fifty-four farms were visited once to collect facility measurements and observations, interview the dairy producer, and score cows for locomotion, hock lesions, and hygiene. Median number of AMS units/farm was 2 (interquartile range = 1; range = 1 to 8). Factors concerning labor were the most commonly cited reason by dairy producers for making the transition to the AMS; additional commonly cited factors were an improvement in lifestyle and human health. Number of cows fetched per AMS, or manually brought to the AMS if not milked voluntarily, was 4.7 ± 2.3 cows/AMS per day (8% of cows) for free traffic flow farms and 3.3 ± 1.8 cows/AMS per day (5% of cows) for guided traffic flow farms. Cow resting surface was significantly associated with prevalence of lameness and severe lameness. Farms with sand-bedded freestalls (17.2%) and bedded packs (17.4%) had significantly lower lameness prevalence (score ≥3 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 = normal locomotion) than farms with mattress freestalls (30.5%), waterbeds (25.0%), and mattresses with access to pasture (22.6%). Farms with mattresses and access to pasture had similar lameness prevalence to farms with waterbeds, but were lower than farms with mattresses only. A somewhat similar result was found for severe lameness prevalence (score ≥4 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 = normal locomotion); farms with sand-bedded freestalls (2.8%), bedded packs (0.0%), and mattress freestalls with access to pasture (1.5%) had significantly lower prevalence than farms with mattresses (7.1%) or waterbeds (10.8%). Severe hock lesion prevalence (score = 3 on a 1 to 3 scale, with 1 = normal, 3 = swelling) in herds with sand-bedded freestalls, waterbeds, and bedded packs were similar and significantly lower than the prevalence in mattress-based freestalls. Cows housed in sand-bedded freestalls had significantly lower prevalence of dirty cows (score = 3 or 3.5 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 = clean) than those housed on mattresses and waterbeds, and had significantly lower prevalence of severely dirty cows (score = 4, 4.5 or 5 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 = clean) than all other housing systems except waterbeds, which was similar. Manure removal system (manual, automatic, or slatted floor) was significantly associated with prevalence of severely dirty cows; farms with manual scraping had lower prevalence of severely dirty cows than farms where alley scraping was practiced automatically or slatted floors were used. Dairy producers using AMS appeared to be successful with a variety of facility designs and management practices. Cow resting surface in AMS herds was associated with some animal health and welfare measurements.

Salfer JA ，Siewert JM ，Endres MI 《-》

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.

Beggs DS ，Jongman EC ，Hemsworth PH ，Fisher AD ... -  《-》