Assessing dairy cow welfare during the grazing and housing periods on spring-calving, pasture-based dairy farms

Animal-based welfare indicators for dairy cows and their validity and practicality: a systematic review of the existing literature

Animal welfare is of increasing importance, with consumers preferring animal products made with ethical practices due to growing awareness. This shift highlights the need for reliable methods to evaluate welfare. This systematic review aims to assess the validity of current animal-based welfare indicators for dairy cows to aid farmers and agricultural professionals in evaluating and improving welfare amidst the lack of a clear legislative definition. The literature search spanned five databases: CAB Direct, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and Livivo, covering publications in English and German from 2011 to 2021. Specific search terms were employed, and abstracts were screened for relevance. Publications were categorized based on exclusion criteria, with a final verification process conducted by three independent scientists. Research highlights correlations between welfare measures, farm characteristics and innovative indicators like hair cortisol concentration. Farming systems and housing methods significantly affect welfare, with pasture-based systems generally resulting in reduced lameness and improved behavior. Proper housing design and management practices are important, as they influence indicators like lameness and cleanliness. Heart rate variability and heart rate monitoring provide insights into dairy cow stress levels during milking and other stressors, making them valuable for welfare assessment. Biomarker research emphasizes the need to balance productivity and health in breeding strategies, as high milk production alone does not indicate good welfare. Behavioral studies and the human-animal relationship are key to understanding welfare. Precision Livestock Farming offers real-time assessment capabilities, although validation is needed. Stress physiology is complex, and while cortisol measurement methods are promising, further research is necessary. Assessment tools like the Animal Needs Index and routine herd data analysis are valuable for identifying welfare concerns. Key findings highlight the WQ® protocol's effectiveness and versatility, the challenge of its time demands, and the DCF protocol's promise for more practical and efficient welfare assessments. Commercial animal welfare audits should prioritize easily observable indicators and herd records due to logistical constraints in measuring biomarkers or heart rate variability. This focus on easily accessible indicators, such as body condition score, lameness, claw health, cleanliness, and somatic cell count allows effective welfare assessments, enabling prompt action to enhance wellbeing.

Invited review: Prevalence, risk factors, treatment, and barriers to best practice adoption for lameness and injuries in dairy cattle-A narrative review

Lameness and leg injuries are both painful and prevalent across the dairy industry, and are a major welfare concern. There has been a considerable amount of research focused on investigating the risk factors associated with lameness and injuries and how they might be prevented and treated. The objectives of this narrative review were to summarize herd-level prevalence estimates, risk factors, strategies for prevention, control, and treatment of these conditions, and the barriers to best practice adoption for lameness and injuries on dairy farms. There is a relatively high within-herd prevalence of lameness on dairy farms globally, with a recent systematic review estimating the mean prevalence at 22.8%. Similarly, there is a relatively high prevalence of hock injuries, with within-herd estimates ranging from 12% to 81% of cows affected. Knee and neck injuries have been reported to be less common, with 6% to 43% and 1% to 33%, respectively. Numerous risk factors have been associated with the incidence of lameness, notably housing (e.g., access to pasture, bedding depth, bedding type, flooring type, stall design), management (e.g., stall cleanliness, frequency of trimming, holding times, stocking density), and cow-level (e.g., body condition, parity, injured hocks) factors. Risk factors associated with hock injuries can be similarly classified into housing (e.g., bedding type and depth, outdoor access, parlor type, stall design), management (e.g., bedding depth, cleanliness), and cow (e.g., parity, days in milk, lameness) factors. Key preventative approaches for lameness include routine preventative and corrective hoof trimming, improving hoof cushioning and traction through access to pasture or adding rubber flooring, deep-bedded stalls, sand bedding, ensuring appropriate stocking densities, reduced holding times, and the frequent use of routine footbaths. Very little research has been conducted on hock, knee, and neck injury prevention and recovery. Numerous researchers have concluded that both extrinsic (e.g., time, money, space) and intrinsic (e.g., farmer attitude, perception, priorities, and mindset) barriers exist to addressing lameness and injuries on dairy farms. There are many diverse stakeholders in lameness and injury management including the farmer, farm staff, veterinarian, hoof trimmer, nutritionist, and other advisors. Addressing dairy cattle lameness and injuries must, therefore, consider the people involved, as it is these people who are influencing and implementing on-farm decisions related to lameness prevention, treatment, and control.

The prevalence of damaged tails in New Zealand dairy cattle

AIMS

To undertake a survey of the prevalence of tail deviations, trauma and shortening on a representative selection of New Zealand dairy farms, and to assess whether sampling based on milking order could be used instead of random sampling across the herd to estimate prevalence.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional observational study, with 200 randomly selected farms enrolled across nine regions of New Zealand via selected veterinary practices (one/region). Veterinary clinics enrolled 20-25 farms each depending on region, with 1-2 trained technicians scoring per region. All cows (n = 92,348) present at a milking or pregnancy testing event were tail scored using a modified version of the New Zealand Veterinary Association Industry Scoring System. Palpated lesions were recorded as deviated (i.e. non-linear deformity), shortened (tail shorter than normal) or traumatic (all other lesions). The location of lesions was defined by dividing the tail into three equal zones: upper, middle and lower. A cow could have more than one lesion type and location, and/or multiple lesions of the same type, but for the prevalence calculation, only the presence or absence of a particular lesion was assessed. Prevalence of tail damage calculated using whole herd scoring was compared to random sampling across the herd and sampling from the front and back of the milking order. Bootstrap sampling with replacement was used to generate the sampling distributions across seven sample sizes ranging from 40-435 cows.

RESULTS

When scoring all cows, the median prevalence for deviation was 9.5 (min 0.9, max 40.3)%; trauma 0.9 (min 0, max 10.7)%, and shortening was 4.5 (min 1.3, max 10.8)%. Deviation and trauma prevalence varied between regions; the median prevalence of deviations ranged from 6% in the West Coast to 13% in Waikato, and the median prevalence of all tail damage from 7% in the West Coast to 29% in Southland. Sampling based on milking order was less precise than random sampling across the herd. With the latter and using 157 cows, 95% of prevalence estimates were within 5% of the whole herd estimate, but sampling based on milking order needed > 300 cows to achieve the same precision.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The proportion of cows identified as having damaged tails was consistent with recent reports from New Zealand and Ireland, but at 11.5%, the proportion of cows with trauma or deviation is below acceptable standards. An industry-wide programme is needed to reduce the proportion of affected cows.

Effects of increased grazing intensity during the early and late grazing periods on the welfare of spring-calving, pasture-based dairy cows

The objective of this study was to identify potential effects of increased grazing intensity, characterized by differing pasture availability and stocking rate, on indicators of welfare during both early and late grazing periods. Seventy spring-calving, pasture-based Holstein-Friesian and cross-bred dairy cows, averaging 35 ± 16 d in milk on the first day of data collection, were assigned to 3 treatments (20-26 cows/treatment) representing a range in grazing intensity: LO (high pasture availability, 980 kg DM/ha opening cover, 2.75 cows/ha, 90:10% pasture:concentrate diet), MOD (medium pasture availability, 720 kg DM/ha opening cover, 2.75 cows/ha, 90:10% pasture:concentrate diet), and HI (low pasture availability, 570 kg DM/ha opening cover, 3.25 cows/ha, 80:20% pasture:concentrate diet); representative of current, best practice and proposed production levels respectively for this system. Welfare indicators were locomotion score, digital dermatitis and white line disease, rumen fill, ocular and nasal discharge, integument damage to the neck-back and hock regions, and lying time. Data were collected during a 5-wk early grazing period in spring (EG) and a 7-wk late grazing period in autumn (LG). Average daily lying time was recorded for 8 to 10 focal cows per treatment. Results demonstrated only minor treatment effects. Cows on MOD [odds ratio (OR) = 3.11] and HI (OR = 1.95) were more likely to display nasal discharge compared with LO. Cows on MOD tended to have more damage to the skin on the neck-back region than LO (OR = 4.26). Total locomotion score (maximum = 25) was greater on LOW (7.1 ± 0.20) compared with HI (6.5 ± 0.19). Average lame cow prevalence for EG and LG respectively was 15.3 ± 3.12% and 39.2 ± 3.00% (LO), 20.0 ± 2.58% and 24.2 ± 5.69% (MOD), and 14.9 ± 4.79% and 17.0 ± 3.44% (HI). Cows on HI were less likely to have impaired walking speed than either LO (OR = 0.24) or MOD (OR = 0.29). Cows on both HI (OR = 0.36) and MOD (OR = 0.40) were less likely to display impaired abduction or adduction compared with those on LO. An interaction between treatment and period revealed longer lying times for cows on LO (10.6 h/d ± 0.39) compared with both MOD and HI (8.7 ± 0.43 and 8.4 ± 0.41 h/d) during EG only. The greatest effects were across grazing periods, with all indicators except rumen fill and locomotion score demonstrating improvements from EG to LG. This suggests cows were able to cope well with increasing levels of grazing intensity, and that regardless of treatment, a greater number of days on pasture led to improvements in welfare indicators.

Development of a benchmarking tool to assess the welfare of dairy cattle on small-scale farms

Public concern about the welfare of farm animals and the livestock industry's awareness of the need to improve animal welfare have led to the implementation of new tools designed to meet this objective. Especially in the case of small-scale farms in marginalized areas, the lack of available data specifically for assessing welfare led to the present study. Its aim was to use animal- and resource-based indicators that are representative of small-scale farms, to establish an index and develop a benchmarking tool that can be used to dynamically evaluate the welfare of cattle on farms with different husbandry systems and provide farmers, veterinarians, extension officers, and stakeholders with reliable information that can be used as a decision support tool. For this reason, 1,891 cows from 204 herds housed in freestall (n = 111) and tiestall (n = 93) husbandry systems in South Tyrol (Northern Italy) were evaluated. The results showed that 17.6% of herds (36 farms) had an average score below 60 (out of 100), which means that immediate intervention should be adopted to improve welfare. South Tyrolean dairy farms performed well in terms of lameness, skin alterations, avoidance behavior, number and space of lying areas, and dystocia occurrence scores, whereas water supply, cow cleanliness status, claw conformation, and getting-up behavior offered significant potential for improvement. Significant differences were observed between housing systems scoring less than 60 out of 100 points in 9.9% (n = 11) and 26.9%, (n = 25), of the herds kept in freestalls and tiestalls, respectively. A slight difference was found when comparing the percentage of herds with high scores, which corresponded to 30.6% (n = 34) of herds housed in freestalls and 22.6% (n = 21) of herds housed in tiestall housing systems. In addition, it was shown that animals reared on farms with tiestalls more often had problems with body condition, cleanliness, and skin alterations. All individual welfare indicators in the top 25% of herds had scores above 80, indicating that this may be an attainable target for freestall and tiestall herds, respectively, to promote good dairy cow welfare. The overall aim must be to adopt measures to increase the scores on all farms closer to this level.

Characterising sustainability certification standards in dairy production

Despite the increasing use of private certification standards to meet the demand for sustainable dairy production, research into these standards is lacking. In this paper, we characterised sustainability certification standards currently used in dairy production. A literature search for dairy sustainability initiatives revealed one hundred-and-sixteen possible standards. In total, 19 of these were determined to qualify as 'sustainability certification standards' based on our selection criteria and were available in English or Dutch language. The standards were analysed using publicly available documents of the most recent version. The analysis included three key components: (i) general characteristics of the standard (such as the geographic origin, year founded, most recent updates), (ii) a thematic coverage analysis of the sustainability themes covered in each standard and (iii) evaluation of the inherent trade-offs within each standard utilising the opposing aspects of credibility, accessibility, and continuous improvement (the 'devil's triangle'). The comparison of general characteristics of the 19 standards revealed a wide variation in the characteristics of standards such as organisation type (i.e. nongovernmental organisations, individual dairy processor or other dairy sector actors), the number of indicators included, but also in the sustainability themes they cover, and how they balance the credibility, accessibility, and continuous improvement. The environmental pillar is most frequently and comprehensively addressed, whereas the economic pillar is least frequently and least comprehensively addressed. The 'devil's triangle' trade-off analysis revealed that credibility and accessibility, from the standard's perspective, are often transparently described and assured within the documents of standards. In contrast, continuous improvement is infrequently focused upon by standards. Overall, the variability in standards may allow farmers to choose a standard that aligns with his/her conviction or stage of development but might also create consumer or farmer mistrust in standards.

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.

Hoof lesions in partly housed pasture-based dairy cows

Lameness is a symptom of a painful disorder affecting the limbs, which impacts dairy cow welfare and productivity. Lameness is primarily caused by hoof lesions. The prevalence of different lesion types can differ depending on environmental conditions and farm management practices. The aims of this observational study were to establish the cow-level and herd-level lesion prevalence during both housing and grazing periods in a partly housed, pasture-based system, establish the prevalence of lesions always associated with pain ("alarm" lesion), identify the lesions associated with a higher lameness score, determine relationships between lesions, and identify risk factors for digital dermatitis. On 98 farms during the grazing period and on 74 of the same farms during the housing period, every cow was lameness scored (0-3 lameness scoring scale), and the hind hooves of lame cows (score 2 and 3) were examined (maximum 20 cows per visit) and the prevalence of each lesion type recorded. To gather data on potential predictors for the risk factor analysis, a questionnaire with the farmer was conducted on lameness management practices and infrastructure measurements were taken at each visit. Cow-level data were also collected (e.g., parity, breed, milk yield, and so on). Noninfectious lesions were found to be more prevalent than infectious lesions in this system type. The most prevalent lesion types during both grazing and housing periods were white line separation, sole hemorrhages and overgrown claws; all remaining lesions had a cow-level prevalence of less than 15%. The cow-level prevalence of alarm lesions was 19% during the grazing period and 25% during the housing period; the most prevalent alarm lesion was sole ulcers during both periods. We found significantly more foreign bodies within the hoof sole (grazing = 14%, housing = 7%) and overgrown claws (grazing = 71%, housing = 55%) during the grazing period compared with the housing period. Cows with foul of the foot, sole ulcer, white line abscess, toe necrosis or an amputated claw had higher odds of being more severely lame, compared with mildly lame. The strongest correlation between lesions were between toe necrosis and digital dermatitis (r = 0.40), overgrown claws and corkscrew claws (r = 0.33), and interdigital hyperplasia and digital dermatitis (r = 0.31) at herd level. At the cow level, the strongest correlation was between overgrown claws and corkscrew claws (r = 0.27), and digital dermatitis and heel erosion (r = 0.22). The farmers' perception of the presence of digital dermatitis (and lameness) was significantly correlated with the actual presence of digital dermatitis recorded. Additional risk factors for the presence of digital dermatitis were cow track and verge width near the collecting yard, and stone presence on the cow tracks. Results from this study help further our understanding of the causes of lameness in partly housed, pasture-based dairy cows, and can be used to guide prevention and treatment protocols.

Risk factors associated with indicators of dairy cow welfare during the housing period in Irish, spring-calving, hybrid pasture-based systems

In a dairy production system where cows are grazing for a large portion of their lactation, little attention has been afforded to investigating multiple indicators of welfare for risk factors associated with the housing period. Yet regardless of the length of the housing period, cows still experience the positive and negative welfare impacts of both indoor and outdoor environments in a hybrid system. Thus, the objective of this study was to identify risk factors for indicators of dairy cow welfare during the housing period in a spring-calving, hybrid pasture-based system. Herd-level scores for seven indicators of welfare (locomotion, body condition, ocular and nasal discharge, integument damage, tail injury and human avoidance response) were collected from 82 Irish dairy farms during the housing period (October - February). Data were analysed using multiple beta regression or zero-inflated beta regression to identify associations between these welfare indicators and measured herd-level housing, resource and management factors. Thirty-six unique risk factors were associated with one or more welfare indicators (P < 0.05). Analyses identified two risk factors for body condition < 3.0 and four for body condition > 3.5, the target range during the housing period. Four risk factors were identified for each of ocular discharge, nasal discharge and avoidance response of > 1 m from human approach. Six risk factors each were associated with the proportion of lame cows and integument damage to the head-neck-back or hindquarter regions. The greatest number of risk factors, 12, were associated with tail injury (broken, lacerated or incomplete tails). Risk factors associated with multiple indicators of welfare were cow comfort index (tail lacerations and hindquarter integument damage), cubicle width (broken and incomplete tails), shed floor slipperiness (lameness and head-neck-back integument damage), shed light-level (tail lacerations, avoidance response and below target body condition), shed passage width (broken tails and head-neck-back integument damage) and presence (incomplete tails) or absence (broken tails) of a collecting yard backing gate. With the large number of risk factors associated with tail injury, continued research is necessary to identify causes and determine prevention methods to contribute to improved overall welfare of dairy cows. Housing features meeting recommended guidelines from the literature were frequently associated with greater negative indicators of welfare. In light of this, housing guidelines may benefit from regular re-evaluation to ensure facilities meet the welfare needs of cows during the housing period.

Lameness prevalence and management practices on Irish pasture-based dairy farms

Background

Lameness is a painful disease, which negatively impacts dairy cow production and welfare. The aim of this observational study was to determine herd lameness prevalence, describe current lameness management practices and identify the presence of established risk factors for lameness on Irish pasture-based dairy farms. Farms were visited once during grazing (99 farms) and again during housing (85 farms). Lameness scoring was carried out at each visit (AHDB 0–3 scale); cows were classified as lame if they scored two or three. Farm management practices and infrastructure characteristics were evaluated via farmer questionnaires and direct measurements of farm infrastructure.

Results

Median herd-level lameness prevalence was 7.9% (interquartile range = 5.6 – 13.0) during grazing and 9.1% (interquartile range = 4.9 – 12.0) during housing; 10.9% of cows were lame at a single visit and 3.5% were lame at both visits (chronically lame or had a repeat episode of lameness). Fifty-seven percent of farmers were not familiar with lameness scoring and only one farm carried out lameness scoring. Only 22% of farmers kept records of lame cows detected, and 15% had a lameness herd health plan. Twenty-eight percent of farmers waited more than 48 h to treat a lame cow, and 21% waited for more than one cow to be identified as lame before treating. Six percent of farmers carried out routine trimming and 31% regularly footbathed (> 12 times per year). Twelve percent put severely lame cows in a closer paddock and 8% stated that they used pain relief to treat severely lame cows. Over 50% of farms had at least one cow track measurement that was classified as rough or very rough, and cow tracks were commonly narrow for the herd size. On 6% of farms, all cubicle beds were bare concrete (no matting or bedding) and on a further 6% of farms, there was a combination of cubicles with and without matting or bedding. On 56% of farms, all pens contained less than 1.1 cubicles per cow and on 28% of farms, a proportion of pens contained less than 1.1 cubicles per cow.

Conclusions

Overall, this study identified infrastructure and management practices which could be improved upon. The comparatively low lameness prevalence demonstrated, compared to fully housed systems, also highlights the benefits of a pasture-based system for animal welfare; however, there remains scope for improvement.

The frequency of tail damage amongst cows from a sample of New Zealand dairy farms participating in an animal welfare programme

AIMS

To explore factors associated with the frequency of tail damage in dairy cows on 29 New Zealand farms participating in an animal welfare monitoring programme.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Herd-level tail score data were collected at the cow level and then summarised at the herd level as counts for each lactation over the period 1June 2014 to 31 May 2018. A cow's tail was considered damaged if there was evidence of any injury that deformed the anatomical structure involving either bone or soft tissue and could include loss of use. There were four categories for tail scoring. Fracture or dislocation of tail bones, was considered as a deviation (score 1). When the tail had been docked above the top of the cow's udder, this was considered as docked short tail (score 2). When there was evidence of soft tissue trauma (score 3) or bone damage but no fracture (score 4), this was recorded as damaged (other). Tails were scored for each whole dairy herd. Tail scoring was performed by trained veterinarians or veterinary technicians. The primary outcome variable was counts of deviated tails (DT). Other outcome variables were docked short, damaged (other) and total tail injuries (TTI) which was a summation of all tail injuries. The potential predictor variables were, area, season, farm, region, replacement rate and herd size. A mixed effects negative binomial or Poisson regression was fitted to the count data.

RESULTS

A total of 29 farms contributed data for tail scoring, with 54,831 cows individually scored. The unadjusted regional prevalence of TTI, ranged from 3.5% (64/1,835) in Taranaki in 2014-2015 to 28.7% (1,434/4,988) in Southland/Otago in 2017-2018. The unadjusted regional herd prevalence of DT ranged from 2.1% (280/6,862) in Taranaki (2014-2015) to 13.2% (4,627/30,165) in Southland /South Otago (2017-2018). The incident rate ratio (IRR) of DT in 2015-2016 was 1.74 (95% CI = 1.20-2.53; p = 0.003) times the incident rate for the reference group (2014-2015). The IRR for TTI in 2015-2016 was 1.70 (95% CI = 1.60-1.81; p = 0.001) times the incident rate for the reference group (2014-2015.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This is the first quantitative study of the frequency of tail damage within New Zealand dairy farms, and whilst variable between region, indicates that the frequency is increasing. Opportunities exist to better understand the causes of tail injuries and to improve animal welfare.

Benchmarking Based on Regularly Recorded Claw Health Data of Austrian Dairy Cattle for Implementation in the Cattle Data Network (RDV)

While benchmarking is already used for the assessment of performance gaps in cattle herd management and welfare concerns, its application to quantifying claw health performance is relatively new. The goal here was to establish a benchmarking system for claw health in Austrian dairy cattle. We used electronically registered claw health data of cows from 512 dairy herds documented by professional hoof trimmers, culling data from the same herds, and locomotion scores taken at regular milk performance testings in 99 dairy herds during 2020. Mean, median and the 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles of the incidences of risk of lameness, 13 common claw lesions, and the annual culling risk directly related to claw and limb disorders were used as key performance indicators. Only validated data sets were used and participating trimmers and locomotion scorers had to pass interobserver reliability tests with weighted Cohen's kappa values ≥ 0.61 indicating substantial interobserver agreement. This claw health benchmarking system is intended to be used henceforth in the transnational cattle data network (RDV) by all participating farmers and is also available for veterinarians and consultants, with the agreement of respective farmers.

Historical Evolution of Cattle Management and Herd Health of Dairy Farms in OECD Countries

This work aimed to review the important aspects of the dairy industry evolution at herd level, interrelating production with health management systems. Since the beginning of the industrialization of the dairy cattle sector (1950s), driven by the need to feed the rapidly growing urban areas, this industry has experienced several improvements, evolving in management and technology. These changes have been felt above all in the terms of milking, rearing, nutrition, reproductive management, and design of facilities. Shortage of labor, emphasis on increasing farm efficiency, and quality of life of the farmers were the driving factors for these changes. To achieve it, in many areas of the world, pasture production has been abandoned, moving to indoor production, which allows for greater nutritional and reproductive control of the animals. To keep pace with this paradigm in milk production, animal health management has also been improved. Prevention and biosecurity have become essential to control and prevent pathologies that cause great economic losses. As such, veterinary herd health management programs were created, allowing the management of health of the herd as a whole, through the common work of veterinarians and farmers. These programs address the farms holistically, from breeding to nutrition, from prevention to consultancy. In addition, farmers are now faced with a consumer more concerned on animal production, valuing certified products that respect animal health and welfare, as well as environmental sustainability.

Current Consumer Perceptions of Animal Welfare across Different Farming Sectors on the Island of Ireland

Simple Summary

The well-being and welfare of animals on farms is a topic of interest to many people. On the island of Ireland, this issue has received increased attention because of political and governance changes, including Brexit and COVID-19. Policy-makers and industry are considering labelling schemes to inform the food consumer about welfare standards on farms. Focus groups and an online survey were carried out with members of the public on the island of Ireland to explore their awareness, perceptions, and attitudes toward farm animal welfare standards on farms in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Most consumers believed farm animal welfare standards were high, although different farming sectors were rated differently: beef and dairy farms were viewed more positively, and pig and poultry farms were viewed less positively. The living conditions of the animal, size and intensity of the farm, national standards and schemes, and visibility all influenced perceptions of welfare standards. The public also expressed a lack of knowledge and information on the topic. In developing new policies and labelling schemes, it is important to be apprised of the current awareness, attitudes, and perceptions that the public has regarding farm animal welfare standards, as identified in the current paper.

Abstract

There has been increased public interest and concerns in issues such as farm animal welfare (FAW) on the island of Ireland, stoked in part by political and governance changes, such as Brexit and COVID-19. Front-of-pack food labelling represents a primary information channel for many people. In advance of considering formalised food labelling schemes, specifically relating to FAW, it is important to ensure an up-to-date understanding of current consumer perceptions of FAW. With this aim, the current study utilised a mixed methodology. Nine focus group discussions (n = 41) and an online survey (n = 972) with food consumers in Ireland and Northern Ireland explored perceptions of FAW. Results suggest that overall perceptions of FAW are high, and consumers perceive FAW to have improved in the last decade. Quantitative (ANOVA) and qualitative results show variations in perception of FAW between sectors. Results from the focus group discussions identified factors underlying consumers’ perception of FAW: the living conditions of the animal, size and intensity of the farm, national standards and schemes, and visibility. Information insufficiencies and knowledge gaps were identified. The findings are discussed in relation to policy implications for the role of public engagement, front-of-pack welfare labelling, and quality assurance schemes.

Cow- and herd-level risk factors for lameness in partly housed pasture-based dairy cows

Lameness in dairy cows is a major animal welfare concern and has substantial economic impact through reduced production and fertility. Previous risk factor analyses have focused on housed systems, rather than those where cows were grazed for the majority of the year and housed only for the winter period. Therefore, the aim of this observational study was to identify a robust set of cow-level and herd-level risk factors for lameness in a pasture-based system, based on predictors from the housing and grazing periods. Ninety-nine farms were visited during the grazing period (April 2019-September 2019), and 85 farms were revisited during the housing period (October 2019-February 2020). At each visit, all lactating cows were scored for lameness (0 = good mobility, 1 = imperfect mobility, 2 = impaired mobility, 3 = severely impaired mobility), and potential herd-level risk factors were recorded through questionnaires and infrastructure measurements. Routine cow-level management data were also collected. Important risk factors for lameness were derived though triangulation of results from elastic net regression, and from logistic regression model selection using modified Bayesian information criterion. Both selection methods were implemented using bootstrapping. This novel approach has not previously been used in a cow-level or herd-level risk factor analysis in dairy cows, to the authors' knowledge. The binary outcome variable was lameness status, whereby cows with a lameness score of 0 or 1 were classed as non-lame and cows with a score of 2 or 3 were classed as lame. Cow-level risk factors for increased lameness prevalence were age and genetic predicted transmitting ability for lameness. Herd-level risk factors included farm and herd size, stones in paddock gateways, slats on cow tracks near the collecting yard, a sharper turn at the parlor exit, presence of digital dermatitis on the farm, and the farmers' perception of whether lameness was a problem on the farm. This large-scale study identified the most important associations between risk factors and lameness, based on the entire year (grazing and housing periods), providing a focus for future randomized clinical trials.