Effects of abrupt housing changes on the welfare of Piedmontese cows

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.

Comparison of Cattle Housing Systems Based on the Criterion of Damage to Barn Equipment and Construction Errors

Simple Summary

As a result of many years of use, dairy cattle barns are subject to gradual wear and degradation. Damage to technical equipment can be identified in many areas in the barn. These areas are used by dairy cattle, so it is important to recognize the problem of damage and the associated health risks for animals. The problem of damage to internal equipment (e.g., damage to the floor, partitions between lying stalls, feed ladders, drinking bowls) applies to both tie-stall and freestall barns, which are the most common in dairy farms. Such premises became an inspiration to compare barns with a tie-stall system, a freestall system and their individual areas (lying, feeding, milking and social) in terms of the amount of damage but also construction errors. Most damage per one barn was found in the feeding area of objects with a tie-stall housing system. More cow health problems (e.g., laminitis, hoof problems) were identified in the barns with the freestall housing system. Equipment failures and construction errors may disrupt efficient and animal-safe dairy production in the barn. The results of the research study may be an incentive for farmers to check the barns in terms of their technical wear.

Abstract

Dairy cattle housing systems are the subject of numerous studies, in which a strong emphasis is placed on the comparison of animal welfare, animal behavior, production indicators and labor inputs. Dairy cattle housing systems are linked to specific livestock buildings, which is a prerequisite for undertaking studies comparing barns and their technical equipment. The aim of the study was to compare barns with two types of housing systems, i.e., tie-stall and freestall, including the identification of technical wear in various areas used by animals. This objective was linked to the assessment of animal health problems in livestock facilities. The research covered 38 dairy farms, 19 of which kept cows in the tie-stall system and 19 in the freestall system. The barns in these farms were examined for technical damage and construction errors, assessed in four areas: lying, feeding, milking and social. The research results confirmed significant differences in the degree of damage to technical equipment in individual areas of barns and between barns with tie-stall and freestall housing systems. The conclusions indicate the need to link the degradation of barns and their technical equipment, as well as design errors with the evaluation of dairy cattle welfare in future studies.

Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle housed in tiestalls compared to less-restrictive housing types: A systematic review

Many dairy cattle worldwide are housed in tiestalls, meaning that they are tethered by the neck to individual stalls. On some farms, tied cattle are permitted seasonal access to pasture, but otherwise their movements are restricted compared with cows housed in freestall barns or other loose housing systems. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the scientific literature pertaining the welfare of tied dairy cattle through comparison with less-restrictive housing systems. Articles identified by PubMed and Web of Science underwent a 5-phase screening process, resulting in the inclusion of 102 papers. These papers addressed measures of welfare related to affective state, natural behavior, and health (with the lattermost category subdivided into hoof and leg disorders, lameness, mastitis, transition disease, and other diseases or conditions). Health was the most researched topic (discussed in 86% of articles); only 19% and 14% of studies addressed natural behavior and affective state, respectively. Our review highlights different health benefits for tethered and loose cattle. For example, tied cattle experience reduced prevalence of white line disease and digital dermatitis, whereas loose cattle experience fewer leg lesions and injuries. The prevalence of mastitis, transition diseases, and other conditions did not differ consistently across housing types. We found that the expression of certain natural behaviors, particularly those associated with lying down (e.g., time spent kneeling, unfulfilled intentions to lie down), were impaired in tiestalls. Articles addressing affective state found benefits to loose housing, but these studies focused almost exclusively on (1) physiological measurements and (2) cow comfort, a concept that lacks a consistent operational definition across studies. We call for future research into the affective state of tied cattle that extends beyond these explorations and employs more sophisticated methodologies.