Re-direction of maternal behaviour in dairy cows

Caring animals and the ways we wrong them

Many nonhuman animals have the emotional capacities to form caring relationships that matter to them, and for their immediate welfare. Drawing from care ethics, we argue that these relationships also matter as objectively valuable states of affairs. They are part of what is good in this world. However, the value of care is precarious in human-animal interactions. Be it in farming, research, wildlife 'management', zoos, or pet-keeping, the prevention, disruption, manipulation, and instrumentalization of care in animals by humans is ubiquitous. We criticize a narrow conception of welfare that, in practice, tends to overlook non-experiential forms of harm that occur when we interfere with caring animals. Additionally, we point out wrongs against caring animals that are not just unaccounted for but denied by even an expansive welfare perspective: The instrumentalization of care and caring animals in systems of use can occur as a harmless wrong that an approach purely focused on welfare may, in fact, condone. We should therefore adopt an ethical perspective that goes beyond welfare in our dealings with caring animals.

Welfare of dairy cows

This Scientific Opinion addresses a European Commission's mandate on the welfare of dairy cows as part of the Farm to Fork strategy. It includes three assessments carried out based on literature reviews and complemented by expert opinion. Assessment 1 describes the most prevalent housing systems for dairy cows in Europe: tie-stalls, cubicle housing, open-bedded systems and systems with access to an outdoor area. Per each system, the scientific opinion describes the distribution in the EU and assesses the main strengths, weaknesses and hazards potentially reducing the welfare of dairy cows. Assessment 2 addresses five welfare consequences as requested in the mandate: locomotory disorders (including lameness), mastitis, restriction of movement and resting problems, inability to perform comfort behaviour and metabolic disorders. Per each welfare consequence, a set of animal-based measures is suggested, a detailed analysis of the prevalence in different housing systems is provided, and subsequently, a comparison of the housing systems is given. Common and specific system-related hazards as well as management-related hazards and respective preventive measures are investigated. Assessment 3 includes an analysis of farm characteristics (e.g. milk yield, herd size) that could be used to classify the level of on-farm welfare. From the available scientific literature, it was not possible to derive relevant associations between available farm data and cow welfare. Therefore, an approach based on expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) was developed. The EKE resulted in the identification of five farm characteristics (more than one cow per cubicle at maximum stocking density, limited space for cows, inappropriate cubicle size, high on-farm mortality and farms with less than 2 months access to pasture). If one or more of these farm characteristics are present, it is recommended to conduct an assessment of cow welfare on the farm in question using animal-based measures for specified welfare consequences.

Impact of Stationary Brush Quantity on Brush Use in Group-Housed Dairy Heifers

Our objectives were to evaluate the effect of stationary brush quantity on brush use and competition in weaned dairy heifers naïve to brushes. Sixty-three Holstein heifers (95 ± 5.7 days old) were housed in groups of eight (with the exception of 1 group of 7) with two or four stationary brushes (n = 4 groups/treatment). Brush-directed behaviors of grooming, oral manipulation, and displacements were recorded continuously for all heifers 0–6, 18–24, 120–126 and 138–144 h after brush exposure. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate the effects of brush quantity and exposure duration. Total brush use and competition were not affected by brush quantity, but heifers with access to more brushes used them for longer bouts, suggesting greater opportunity for uninterrupted use. Total brush use was greater in the first and final 6 h observation periods, which was driven by the greatest duration of oral manipulation and grooming in those respective periods. The continued use of brushes by all heifers in the final period indicates the importance of providing appropriate outlets for these natural behaviors to promote animal welfare. The effect of brush quantity on bout characteristics suggests that brush use was less restricted with four compared to two brushes per eight heifers.

Postpartum Stressors Cause a Reduction in Mechanical Brush Use in Dairy Cows

Dairy cows are often subjected to multiple post-partum stressors but how these stressors impact cows' affective states remain poorly understood. Negative affective states are often associated with reduced expression of low-resilience behaviors, so we explored whether cows would reduce their use of a brush after calving. Before calving, cows were offered the opportunity to use a mechanical brush once a week for 10 min. In Experiment 1, we explored whether cows reduced their use of a mechanical brush after parturition (compared to prepartum values) when subjected to the myriad of stressors typically experienced by cows at this time. In Experiment 2, we assessed the effect of cow-calf separation. Results from Experiment 1 showed that cows displayed a reduced brush use following parturition compared to the week before calving. In Experiment 2, we showed that cows given more time to bond with their calf, and who were separated more recently from their calf, showed a more pronounced reduction in brush use. Cows provided part-time contact with their calf for 29 days also reduced their brush use when they were permanently separated from their calf on day 30 after calving. These results suggest that cows experienced anhedonia and point to new directions for research on dairy cow affective states.

Stationary brush use in naive dairy heifers

Weaned dairy heifers are often housed in environments with few appropriate outlets for grooming or oral manipulation. Our objective was to characterize brush use by naive heifers, including patterns over time. In phase 1, groups of 4 heifers (n = 13 groups, 146.4 ± 9.1 d old, mean ± standard deviation; SD) were introduced to a bedded pack pen with 4 wall-mounted brushes (25.4 × 6.0 cm with 3.8-cm-long bristles). On d 1, 2, and 6 of exposure, continuous video recordings were used to observe 2 focal heifers per group for brush use (oral manipulation, grooming, and the sum of total brush use; all averaged at the group level). Latency to use a brush upon entering the pen was 3.4 ± 4.9 min (mean ± SD; range: 0.1 to 17.8 min among individuals). Heifers used the brushes for oral manipulation (39.7 ± 17.5% of brush use, mean ± SD) and grooming (60.3 ± 17.5%), primarily of their heads (89.9 ± 5.4% of grooming). In phase 2, heifers were moved in pairs (n = 13 pairs/treatment) to freestall pens either with (brush treatment) or without (control) brushes mounted inside the stalls for the first 5 d of phase 2 (d 8-12 of the study); on the last day (d 13 of the study), brushes were provided in both treatments. On d 8 (brush treatment) and 13 (both treatments), one focal heifer/pen was recorded for the same behaviors as in phase 1. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate brush use patterns across days (phase 1: d 1, 2, and 6; phase 2 brush treatment: d 8 vs. 13) and between treatments on d 13. In phase 1, brush use was greatest on d 1 [45.9 min; 95% confidence interval (CI): 33.2-63.3 min, back-transformed from natural-log values], decreased on d 2 (25.0 min, 95% CI: 18.4-34.0 min), but then remained steady until d 6 (21.0 min, 95% CI: 15.4-28.5 min); the initial reduction in total brush use was due to changes in grooming, but oral manipulation remained relatively static. In phase 2, heifers in the brush treatment showed similar usage on d 8 versus d 13 (3.8 vs. 3.7 min, 95% CI: 1.9-6.8 vs. 1.9-6.5 min). Compared with heifers with continuous brush access on d 8-12, those in the control treatment showed more brush use on d 13, both for oral manipulation (6.6 vs. 2.5 min, 95% CI: 3.8-11.1 vs. 1.3-4.5 min) and grooming (3.5 vs. 1.2 min, 95% CI: 1.9-5.7 vs. 0.5-2.3 min). Our study is the first to characterize stationary brush use in weaned dairy heifers. We conclude that, despite lacking previous experience, heifers use brushes for both grooming and oral manipulation.

Early weaning: new insights on an ever-persistent problem in the dairy industry

It is common practice in the dairy industry to separate the calf from the cow immediately after parturition, and in most parts of the world calves are housed individually during the milk-feeding period. Early and abrupt separation has major implications for the calf's physical and psychological development. In this Research Reflection short review we present and discuss the main housing systems and management practices regarding early weaning in today's dairy industry. Main benefits and disadvantages are critically addressed, and possible future research suggested. Furthermore, major policy issues related to consumers, scientific recommendations and economic performance of farms have been identified, as well as future drivers for more viable housing solutions for neonatal calves. This review serves as an introduction and preamble to the second section of this Special Issue, which is dedicated to cow-calf contact management systems.

Invited review: A systematic review of the effects of prolonged cow-calf contact on behavior, welfare, and productivity

Separation of calves from cows within hours or days of birth is common on dairy farms. Stakeholders have conflicting perspectives on whether this practice is harmful or beneficial for the animals' welfare and production. Our objective was to critically evaluate the scientific evidence for both acute and long-term effects of early separation versus an extended period of cow-calf contact. The outcomes investigated were the behavior, welfare (excluding physical health), and performance (milk yield and growth, respectively) of dairy cows and calves. Primary research papers were found through targeted Web of Science searches, the reference lists of recent reviews for each topic, and the reference lists of papers identified from these sources. Studies were included if they were published in English, the full text was accessible, and they compared treatments with and without contact between dairy cows and calves for a specified period. Early separation (within 24 h postpartum) was found to reduce acute distress responses of cows and calves. However, longer cow-calf contact typically had positive longer-term effects on calves, promoting more normal social behavior, reducing abnormal behavior, and sometimes reducing responses to stressors. In terms of productivity, allowing cows to nurse calves generally decreased the volume of milk available for sale during the nursing period, but we found no consistent evidence of reduced milk production over a longer period. Allowing a prolonged period of nursing increased calf weight gains during the milk-feeding period. In summary, extended cow-calf contact aggravates the acute distress responses and reduces the amount of saleable milk while the calves are suckling, but it can have positive effects on behaviors relevant to welfare in the longer term and benefit calf growth. The strength of these conclusions is limited, however, given that relatively few studies address most of these effects and that experimental design including timing of contact and observations are often inconsistent across studies. Few studies presented indicators of long-term welfare effects other than abnormal and social behavior of the calves.

Short communication: Detection of lameness in dairy cows using a grooming device

Lameness in dairy cattle is a common welfare problem with significant economic implications. All too often, appropriate treatment is delayed or neglected due to insufficient detection of lame cows. Brush usage is considered a low-resilience activity; that is, one that typically decreases when energy resources are limited or when the cost involved in the activity increases, such as during sickness and stress. The aim of this study was to determine the association between brush usage and different degrees of lameness. Locomotion scores of 209 lactating Holstein dairy cows were collected individually once a week for 14 consecutive weeks, using a 5-point visual assessment scoring system (1 = nonlame, 2 = uneven gait, 3 = mild lameness, 4 = lameness, 5 = severe lameness). Daily brush usage was collected automatically from 3 cowsheds of similar size and structure located on a commercial dairy farm. In each of the 3 cowsheds, 2 brushes were installed, one next to the feed bunk, and the other away from the feed bunk (on the opposite side of the cowshed). Linear and generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to evaluate the association between locomotion scores and daily measures of brush usage. We found a significant interaction between locomotion score and brush location (near to/distant from feed bunk) on the daily proportion of cows using the brush at least once and on daily duration of brush usage. Specifically, we showed that lame and severely lame cows did not use brushes that were installed away from the feed bunk but continued to use brushes that were installed next to the feed bunk. Brush usage by cows with uneven gait (locomotion score 2) or with mild lameness (locomotion score 3) did not differ from that of nonlame cows (locomotion score 1). The results of this study suggest that monitoring of daily usage of brushes located away from the feed bunk could be a useful method for detecting lameness and severe lameness in dairy cows. However, the use of this method to detect mild lameness or cases of abnormal gait is, at this stage, less promising.

Calves Use an Automated Brush and a Hanging Rope When Pair-Housed

Simple Summary

Improving calf housing is growing in interest as standard management meets only the basic needs of calves. In an observational study, we found that young calves interacted with an automated brush and a rope when given the opportunity. There was less variation in how much calves preferred the brush to the rope. Some calves used the rope as much as or more than the brush. We suggest that rope is a feasible, cheap, and farmer-friendly environmental enrichment option for housed calves; nonetheless, provision of multiple enrichment options should be considered to encourage use and meet individual calf preferences.

Abstract

Calf housing often only meets the basic needs of calves, but there is a growing interest in providing enrichments. This study described the behaviour of calves when they were given the opportunity to interact with two commonly available enrichment items. Female and male calves (approximately 11 days old) were pair-housed in 8 identical pens fitted with an automated brush and a hanging rope. Frequency and duration of behaviours were recorded on 3 separate days (from 12:00 until 08:00 the following day. Calves spent equal time using the brush and rope (27.1 min/day), but there was less variation in the use of the brush as opposed to the rope (coefficient of variation, CV: 23 vs. 78%, respectively). Calves had more frequent (94 bouts, CV: 24%) and shorter (17.8 s/bout, CV: 24%) brush use bouts compared to fewer (38 bouts, CV: 43%) and longer (38.3 s/bout, CV: 53%) rope use bouts. There was a diurnal pattern of use for both items. Frequency of play was similar to rope use, but total time playing was 8% of rope and brush use. Variability among calves suggested that individual preference existed; however, the social dynamics of the pair-housed environment were not measured and therefore could have influenced brush and rope use. Multiple enrichment items should be considered when designing improvements to calf housing.