Reliability and inter-test relationship of tests for on-farm assessment of dairy cows’ relationship to humans

Intensity of oestrus signalling is the most relevant indicator for animal well-being in high-producing dairy cows

Full signalling of oestrous behaviour is vital for proper timing of AI and good reproductive performance, currently jeopardized by shorter observations of oestrus behaviour. Alternative indicators including progesterone (P(4)) recordings on-farm are tested. Oestrous intensity of 37 heifers (H) and 30 1st-parity dairy cows (C(1)) either Swedish Red (32) or Swedish Holstein (35) with high genetic potential for milk production, was studied in relation to AI. P(4)-levels in blood or milk were monitored on-farm at 0, 7, and 20 d post-AI with a portable ELISA reader (eProCheck(800)). Avoidance distance and body condition were scored at day 7, and pregnancy diagnosed by P(4) (day 20) and trans-rectal palpation (day 50). More heifers (46%) than C(1)-cows (10%) showed standing oestrus (strongest intensity, P < 0.05), leading to higher pregnancy rate at d50 (72% versus 37% for C1, P < 0.01) and calving rate (H: 64%, C1: 33%, P < 0.05). Avoidance distances were short (<1 m), reflecting good human-animal interaction. Visually-recorded standing oestrus yielded 4.8 fold higher odds of pregnancy, respectively 4.6-fold higher odds of calving. On-farm P4-recordings had complementary value yet less accuracy. Intensity of oestrus signalling relates to animal well-being, reflected in pregnancy-to-term being a good indicator for optimal welfare in high-producing dairy cattle.

From "Animal Machines" to "Happy Meat"? Foucault's Ideas of Disciplinary and Pastoral Power Applied to 'Animal-Centred' Welfare Discourse

Simple Summary

This paper considers some recent developments in ‘animal-centred’ welfare science, which acknowledges the sentience of ‘farmed’ animals, alongside the emergence of a market for ‘happy meat’, which offers assurances of care and consideration for ‘farmed’ animals to concerned consumers. Both appear to challenge the instrumental ‘machine’ model characteristic of ‘factory farming’. However, in both cases, this paper argues that these discourses of consideration for the well-being of ‘farmed’ animals work to appease and deflect ethical concerns while facilitating the continued exploitation of ‘farmed’ animals.

Abstract

Michel Foucault's work traces shifting techniques in the governance of humans, from the production of ‘docile bodies’ subjected to the knowledge formations of the human sciences (disciplinary power), to the facilitation of self-governing agents directed towards specified forms of self-knowledge by quasi-therapeutic authorities (pastoral power). While mindful of the important differences between the governance of human subjects and the oppression of nonhuman animals, exemplified in nonhuman animals' legal status as property, this paper explores parallel shifts from disciplinary to pastoral regimes of human-‘farmed’ animal relations. Recent innovations in ‘animal-centred’ welfare science represent a trend away from the ‘disciplinary’ techniques of confinement and torture associated with ‘factory farms’ and towards quasi-therapeutic ways of claiming to know ‘farmed’ animals, in which the animals themselves are co-opted into the processes by which knowledge about them is generated. The new pastoral turn in ‘animal-centred’ welfare finds popular expression in ‘happy meat’ discourses that invite ‘consumers’ to adopt a position of vicarious carer for the ‘farmed’ animals who they eat. The paper concludes that while ‘animal-centred’ welfare reform and ‘happy meat’ discourses promise a possibility of a somewhat less degraded life for some ‘farmed’ animals, they do so by perpetuating exploitation and oppression and entrenching speciesist privilege by making it less vulnerable to critical scrutiny.

Can stroking during milking decrease avoidance distances of cows towards humans?

This study investigated whether short-time stroking of loose-housed dairy cows in the daily farm routine could improve the cow-human relationship and consequently decrease avoidance distances, and whether this effect was persistent. Thirty-one cows (from two different breeds: Holstein Friesian and German Red Pied) received either a treatment (STROKING; n = 15) or no treatment (CONTROL; n = 16). In the STROKING group, each animal was stroked during morning and evening milking by an unfamiliar individual (experimenter) for 3 min over a 5-day period (Treatment 1) and again, 4 weeks later, over a 3.5-day period (Treatment 2). CONTROL animals could observe the experimenter during milking. Before and after treatment, the experimenter recorded the avoidance distances of cows (distance of first withdrawal when approached from the front) at the feeding place (AVOIDfeed) and in the barn (AVOIDbarn). Prior to Treatment 1, CONTROL and STROKING animals did not differ in AVOIDfeed or in AVOIDbarn. After Treatment 1, AVOIDfeed was significantly lower in STROKING animals compared to CONTROL animals. With regard to AVOIDbarn, no significant difference was found between STROKING animals and CONTROL animals after Treatment 1. After 4 weeks, before Treatment 2, CONTROL and STROKING animals did not differ significantly anymore in AVOIDfeed. After Treatment 2, AVOIDfeed was again significantly lower in STROKING animals than in CONTROL animals. Also, in the barn, (AVOIDbarn), STROKING animals avoided the experimenter less than CONTROL animals after Treatment 2. In terms of within-group evolution of avoidance distances, AVOIDfeed of CONTROL animals did not decrease in the course of the two treatments. Only after Treatment 2 were avoidance distances at the feeding place of STROKING animals significantly lower than initial avoidance distances. AVOIDbarn of CONTROL animals decreased after Treatment 1 but did not decrease significantly after Treatment 2. AVOIDbarn of STROKING animals decreased significantly after Treatment 1 and again after Treatment 2. It is suggested that short-time stroking during milking can affect the responses of cows to humans positively, although our results question the amount of contact necessary: even more contact might be required for lasting effects.