The effect of free-stall versus strawyard housing and access to pasture on dairy cow locomotor activity and time budget

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.

The effect of activity on some milking parameters in holstein cows

The study was conducted on 41-second lactation Holstein cows of German origin. The shelter type is a semi-open field type and the research period is 12 months. The activities in the first 100 days of lactation per day were 451.4 ± 133.5, and in the second 100 days, it was determined at 420.78 ± 118.0. The activities are divided into 3 parts within 24 hours (at night, during the day between two milkings, and in the evening). While there was no statistical difference between days 100 and 200 of lactation, the lowest activity was recorded at night and the highest activity during the day. The conductance, milk flow, and milking duration of the milk were within the normal range in the first 100 and 200 days and no statistical difference between them could be determined. Mean daily milk yield was 28.28 ± 3.86 kg for the first 100 days and 25.15 ± 3.61 kg for the following 100 days, and the difference was found to be significant (P

Sensor based time budgets in commercial Dutch dairy herds vary over lactation cycles and within 24 hours

Cows from 8 commercial Dutch dairy farms were equipped with 2 sensors to study their complete time budgets of eating, rumination, lying, standing and walking times as derived from a neck and a leg sensor. Daily sensor data of 1074 cows with 3201 lactations was used from 1 month prepartum until 10 months postpartum. Farms provided data over a 5 year period. The final models (lactational time budget and 24h time budget) showed significant effects of parity, farm and calving season. When primiparous cows were introduced in the lactational herd, they showed a decrease in lying time of 215 min (95% CI: 187–242) and an increase in standing time of 159 min (95% CI: 138–179), walking time of 23 min (95% CI: 20–26) and rumination time of 69 min (95% CI: 57–82). Eating time in primiparous cows increased from 1 month prepartum until 9 months in lactation with 88 min (95% CI: 76–101) and then remained stable until the end of lactation. Parity 2 and parity 3+ cows decreased in eating time by 30 min (95% CI: 20–40) and 26 min (95% CI: 18–33), respectively, from 1 month before to 1 month after calving. Until month 6, eating time increased 11 min (95% CI: 1–22) for parity 2, and 24 min (95% CI: 16–32) for parity 3+. From 1 month before calving to 1 month after calving, they showed an increase in ruminating of 17 min (95% CI: 6–28) and 28 min (95% CI: 21–35), an increase in standing time of 117 min (95% CI: 100–135) and 133 min (95% CI: 121–146), while lying time decreased with 113 min (95% CI: 91–136) and 130 min (95% CI: 114–146), for parity 2 and 3+, respectively. After month 1 in milk to the end of lactation, lying time increased 67 min (95% CI: 49–85) for parity 2, and 77 min (95% CI: 53–100) for parity 3+. Lactational time budget patterns are comparable between all 8 farms, but cows on conventional milking system (CMS) farms with pasture access appear to show higher standing and walking time, and spent less time lying compared to cows on automatic milking system (AMS) farms without pasture access. Every behavioral parameter presented a 24h pattern. Cows eat, stand and walk during the day and lie down and ruminate during the night. Daily patterns in time budgets on all farms are comparable except for walking time. During the day, cows on CMS farms with pasture access spent more time walking than cows on AMS farms without pasture access. The average 24h pattern between parities is comparable, but primiparous cows spent more time walking during daytime compared to older cows. These results indicate a specific behavioral pattern per parameter from the last month prepartum until 10 months postpartum with different patterns between parities but comparable patterns across farms. Furthermore, cows appear to have a circadian rhythm with varying time budgets in the transition period and during lactation.

A Retrospective Case Study into the Effect of Hoof Lesions on the Lying Behaviour of Holstein-Friesian in a Loose-Housed System

Simple Summary

Lameness is a substantial welfare and economic problem in production animals. It can alter indicators of welfare such as lying time. Lying down is very important for cows, and they are highly motivated to perform this behaviour for 12 h or more per day. Conversely, cows that lie down too much or are uncomfortable standing may miss an opportunity to feed or drink if there is competition from sound (non-lame) cows. This study monitored different lesions that cause lameness in cattle through the use of accelerometers. The lesions included sole ulcers, sole haemorrhage, white line disease, interdigital hyperplasia and phelgmon, and digital dermatitis. Leg-based activity monitors that track the cows’ lying behaviour and mobility were used. From these data, it was found that cows with lesions on the foot spent longer lying down than those with no lesions, and cows with lesions in the soft tissue spent less time lying down than those with foot lesions. Trimming the cows’ feet altered the lying times of the cows with foot lesions and returned them closer to those of cows with no lesions.

Abstract

The association between hoof lesions and lying behaviour was assessed on a Holstein–Friesian dairy farm in England. Twenty-nine cows were included in the study. Cows with claw horn disruption lesions (CHDL, n = 8), soft tissue lesions (STL, n = 6), and no lesions (NL, n = 15) were assessed. Data were collected on parity, days in milk (DIM), and mobility scores. Cows were trimmed and treated, and lesions were recorded by a professional foot trimmer. Lying behaviour was assessed before and after claw trimming. The milking herd (n = 96) prevalence of lameness was 32.3%. Mobility was scored using the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) Mobility Scoring system. Mobility scores were significantly different across lesions groups (p = 0.022). CHDL cows had a mean mobility score of 2.0 ± 0.9 (mean ± SD), STL were scored 1.2 ± 1.3, and NL cows were 0.9 ± 0.7. CHDL were associated with longer lying times (15.00 ± 1.04 h/d; p = 0.0006) and shorter standing times (9.68 ± 2.38 h/d; p = 0.0351) compared with NL lying times (11.77 ± 1.67 h/d) and standing times (12.21 ± 1.67 h/d). STL cows spent significantly less time lying (11.30 ± 2.44; p = 0.0013) than CHDL but not NL cows. No significant differences were found with any of the other lying behaviours. After trimming, CHDL cows spent significantly less time lying down than before trimming (13.66 ± 0.98; p = 0.0125). Cows with NL spent significantly more time lying down (12.57 ± 1.90; p = 0.0398) and had a shorter minimum lying bout duration (0.17 ± 0.09; p = 0.0236) after trimming. In conclusion, lying behaviour in dairy cattle was impacted by type of hoof lesions and hoof trimming.

Organic Dairy Cattle: Do European Union Regulations Promote Animal Welfare?

Animal welfare is an emerging concept in EU law; with the advent of specific regulations intending to protect animals. The approach taken by European lawmakers is to provide "minimum standards" for conventional farming; argued by some as failing to adequately protect animals. In contrast, the EU organic farming regulations aim to "establish a sustainable management system for agriculture" and promote "high animal welfare standards". The first aim of this review was to identify key areas where there are clear improvements in quality of life for dairy cattle housed under the EU organic regulations when compared to the conventional EU regulations. Using the available scientific evidence, our second aim was to identify areas where the organic regulations fail to provide clear guidance in their pursuit to promote high standards of dairy cattle welfare. The greater emphasis placed on natural living conditions, the ban of some (but unfortunately not all) physical mutilations combined with clearer recommendations regarding housing conditions potentially position the organic dairy industry to achieve high standards of welfare. However, improvements in some sections are needed given that the regulations are often conveyed using vague language, provide exceptions or remain silent on some aspects. This review provides a critical reflection of some of these key areas related to on-farm aspects. To a lesser extent, post farm gate aspects are also discussed.