Scientific Opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare of dairy cows

[Comparison of production data and reasons for culling in Hinterwald, Vorderwald, Fleckvieh and Holstein cows from 1953 to 2021]

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study was to determine the current inventory of Hinterwald cows in Baden Wurttemberg and in Switzerland. A secondary goal was to compare the production data and registered reasons for culling in Hinterwald, Vorderwald, Fleckvieh and Holstein dairy cows in order to determine possible differences between extensive and intensive husbandry practices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The relevant breeding organization data from 1953 to 2021 were obtained and analyzed. The data of the Hinterwald Breed Association of Switzerland were also included in this study because a large population has been established in the past 40 years.

RESULTS

The number of Hinterwald cows used in dairy production has markedly declined in their original area of distribution in the highland zone of the Southern Black Forest. There is reason to fear that the use of this breed on dairy farms may eventually cease. In contrast, an increase in the number of Hinterwald cattle in extensive farming for meat production was seen in the Black Forest region and in Switzerland. Compared with Vorderwald, Holstein and Fleckvieh cows, the milk yield of Hinterwald cows has not increased significantly over the last 60 years, whereas other production data including fertility parameters, udder health, feet and leg scores and longevity have been outstanding. The breed comparison also revealed that the enormous increase in milk yield in the most popular dairy breeds has occurred at the expense of an unacceptably high disease prevalence and an associated shortened lifespan, often under suboptimal husbandry conditions.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The Hinterwald breed has survived as a result of the resilience of many farmers, the financial commitment of private organizations and governmental support. The characteristics of Hinterwald cattle are excellent, making this breed an ideal choice for sustainable farming, which is a necessity in view of climate change. It would appear prudent to preserve and support this breed and others as they represent a valuable gene pool.

Opportunities for Regulatory Authorities to Assess Animal-Based Measures at the Slaughterhouse Using Sensor Technology and Artificial Intelligence: A Review

Animal-based measures (ABMs) are the preferred way to assess animal welfare. However, manual scoring of ABMs is very time-consuming during the meat inspection. Automatic scoring by using sensor technology and artificial intelligence (AI) may bring a solution. Based on review papers an overview was made of ABMs recorded at the slaughterhouse for poultry, pigs and cattle and applications of sensor technology to measure the identified ABMs. Also, relevant legislation and work instructions of the Dutch Regulatory Authority (RA) were scanned on applied ABMs. Applications of sensor technology in a research setting, on farm or at the slaughterhouse were reported for 10 of the 37 ABMs identified for poultry, 4 of 32 for cattle and 13 of 41 for pigs. Several applications are related to aspects of meat inspection. However, by European law meat inspection must be performed by an official veterinarian, although there are exceptions for the post mortem inspection of poultry. The examples in this study show that there are opportunities for using sensor technology by the RA to support the inspection and to give more insight into animal welfare risks. The lack of external validation for multiple commercially available systems is a point of attention.

Using Expert Elicitation for ranking hazards, promoters and animal-based measures for on-farm welfare assessment of indoor reared beef cattle: an Italian experience

On-farm welfare assessment gives the opportunity to monitor and improve the quality of the animal life on the farm. In order to build the first Italian public standard for the welfare of indoor reared beef cattle, a list of 25 potential hazards and 22 potential promoters of beef cattle welfare was judged by a group of national experts by taking into account their negative or positive impacts on the welfare-state of the target population. In addition, the experts were asked to rank a list of 11 animal-based measures for identifying the most appropriate and important for measuring negative welfare outcomes in beef cattle. Based on experts' ratings, an "impact score" (IS_overall) was calculated for the proposed measures. Management hazards and promoters were ranked to have a greater impact on beef cattle welfare than housing factors. Keeping cattle in large (≥ 40 animals) and heterogeneous groups obtained the highest IS_overall among the proposed hazards (IS_overall = 5.54), followed by the presence of animals without free access to drinking water (IS_overall = 4.39) and the use of high-concentrate corn silage diets (concentrate > 80% and fiber < 6%) (IS_overall = 4.39). On the other hand, housing animals in small (≤ 20 animals) and homogeneous groups (IS_overall = 5.41), checking them at least twice a day (IS_overall = 4.62) and rearing cattle in loose housing systems with access to an outdoor area/pasture (IS_overall = 4.27) were ranked among the top 3 promoters. Concerning animal-based measures, experts scored lameness, severe respiratory diseases, body condition scoring and mortality rate to be measures most important for assessing serious welfare impairment.

Obtaining an animal welfare status in Norwegian dairy herds-A mountain to climb

Introduction

Knowing the national status of animal welfare, one can identify welfare problems and set a benchmark against which improvements can be compared. Such a status is potentially invaluable for tangible, sustained animal welfare improvement. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to report the status of animal welfare in Norwegian loose-housed dairy herds as assessed using the Welfare Quality^® Assessment Protocol. Additionally, we investigated if the welfare status varied on a regional basis.

Methods

In total, 155 herds in eight of Norway's eleven counties were assessed by six trained Welfare Quality^® assessors. This article presents the herd prevalences of common welfare issues in dairy production in Norway, as well as integrated welfare scores. To determine whether welfare status varied regionally in Norway, generalized linear modeling was used to estimate the mean welfare score for five regions in the four Welfare Quality^® principles: A. Good feeding, B. Good housing, C. Good health, and D. Appropriate behavior. These estimated mean welfare scores and their 95% confidence intervals were subsequently assessed for significant variation.

Results

Encouraging findings included the low mean herd prevalence of 'very lean' cows (3.0%) and the high proportion of cows (59.8%) which could be touched during avoidance distance testing, indicating a positive relationship between stockpeople and their cattle. Challenges affecting the welfare of Norwegian dairy cows were also identified. Of particular concern were issues related to the cows' environment such as prolonged times needed to complete lying down movements and integument alterations. No herd was completely free of changes to the integument and, on average, 77.9% of each herd were affected either mildly or severely. Animal welfare did not appear to vary much between the five regions assessed. Our investigation revealed significant regional variation between two regions (Trøndelag and Vestlandet North) in only the Welfare Quality^® principle Good housing (p < 0.01).

Discussion

The almost complete absence of regional variation demonstrates that animal welfare status generally varies most at herd level. In conclusion, both welfare challenges and encouraging findings were identified in loose-housed Norwegian dairy herds. To improve animal welfare, herd-specific interventions are most likely to be effective in these herds.

The relationship between common data-based indicators and the welfare of Swiss dairy herds

The assessment of dairy cow welfare has become increasingly important in recent years. Welfare assessments that use animal-based indicators, which are considered the most direct indicators, are time consuming and therefore not feasible for assessments on a large number of farms. One approach to reducing this effort is the use of data-based indicators (DBIs) calculated from routine herd data. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between common DBIs and the welfare of 35 dairy herds to evaluate the feasibility of a data-based welfare prediction method. For this purpose, the WelfareQuality® (WQ) protocol was used to assess the welfare of dairy cows on 35 Swiss farms, for each of which 10 commonly used DBIs were calculated from herd data. Spearman's rank correlations were used to investigate the relationship between DBIs and WQ criteria and measurements. The study found only a few statistically weak associations between DBIs and animal welfare, with no associations for measurements or criteria of resting comfort and appropriate behavior. Thus, the multidimensional welfare definition is insufficiently covered, and the present publication does not support the approach of a purely data-based prediction of dairy welfare status at the farm level. Instead, the regular calculation of DBIs that are indicative of isolated animal welfare problems or metrics of animal health could allow monitoring of these specific areas of animal welfare.

The ClassyFarm System in Tuscan Beef Cattle Farms and the Association between Animal Welfare Level and Productive Performance

Simple Summary

Interest in animal welfare has increased due to the growing ethical sensitivity of consumers and the awareness of its impact on food security and safety. In addition, respecting a high standard of animal welfare helps in the prevention of transmissible infectious diseases and the control of antimicrobial resistance. As a response to these needs, in 2018, the Italian Ministry of Health introduced the ClassyFarm system, which categorizes the level of risk arising from farm animal welfare and provides a specific checklist. This paper investigates the relationship between animal welfare and productive parameters on beef cattle farms. Animal welfare was assessed using the ClassyFarm system checklist for beef cattle. Our results demonstrated the influence of animal welfare on productive performance, suggesting that respecting high animal welfare levels helps to reach the full growth potential of beef cattle.

Abstract

In 2018, the Italian Ministry of Health introduced the ClassyFarm system in order to categorize the level of risk related to animal welfare. The ClassyFarm checklist for beef cattle is divided into four areas: Areas A “Farm management and personnel”; B “Structures and equipment”; C “Animal-based measures”; and “Emergency plan and alert system”. Answers contribute to the final Animal Welfare Score (AWS) and to the score of each area. The aim of this work was to assess the animal welfare level on 10 Tuscan beef cattle farms through the ClassyFarm checklist and to examine the relationship between the level of animal welfare on final weight (FW), carcass weight (CW), weight gain (WG), and average daily gain (ADG). The AWS was divided into four classes, and the scores for each area were divided into three classes. The analysis of variance was applied, and AWS class, sex, and breeding techniques (open and closed cycle) were included in the model. The AWS class and sex had a highly significant influence on all parameters, while the breeding technique did not significantly influence any parameter. Farms classified as excellent presented a higher FW (677.9 kg) than those classified as good and insufficient, and the same trend was found for the ADG. The classes obtained in Areas A and C had a highly significant influence on all the parameters investigated. The classes obtained in Area B significantly influenced FW and WG. In conclusion, the productive response of the animals seemed to benefit from the welfare conditions.

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.

Thirty Years of Changes and the Current State of Swedish Animal Welfare Legislation

Simple Summary

Sweden is often cited as a leading country in animal welfare and related legislation, but some recent changes in the national legislation are seen as lowering the animal welfare requirements in order to improve the competitiveness of Swedish farmers. In this study, we analysed suggested changes to the Swedish welfare legislation between 1988 and 2019 relating to horses, cattle and pigs, including the written motivations, the written stakeholder responses and the actual changes to the final regulations. We used a sample of 77 legal requirements to assess in depth whether the animal welfare level was affected by these changes in the legislation. The results showed that the animal welfare requirements in Sweden for cattle, pigs and horses increased overall during the 30-year study period, but that a number of specific requirements had been relaxed to satisfy interests other than animal welfare. Thus, the new requirements should be evaluated more fully in order to determine whether they serve their purpose in practice.

Abstract

Sweden is often seen as a leading country in animal welfare and legislation, but some recent amendments to the legislation are perceived as relaxing animal welfare requirements in order to improve the competitiveness of the relevant industry and of farmers. In this study, we analysed the suggested and actual changes in the Swedish national animal welfare regulations relating to horses, cattle and pigs between 1988 and 2019 and the consequences for the intended animal welfare level. The regulations and amendments, including the proposals, the written motivations, the stakeholders’ written responses to the proposed amendments and the final amendments, were scrutinised in detail. A sample of 77 requirements was then selected to assess whether and how the animal welfare level was affected by these legislative changes. The results indicated that the animal welfare protection level for cattle, pigs and horses increased overall during the 30-year period, but that a number of specific requirements had been relaxed to meet objectives other than animal welfare. It was more difficult to determine whether animal welfare improved in practice during the same period, due to the lack of systematic evaluations of the consequences of amending the regulations. Future evaluations are needed to evaluate the outcome of new legislative requirements and to monitor whether they serve their purpose in practice.

Best Farming Practices for the Welfare of Dairy Cows, Heifers and Calves

Simple Summary

The evolving change in societal attitudes regarding animal care and use has led to two main streams of thought. On one hand, there is the concept of “animal rights”, emphasizing that animals should have the same rights as humans, and as such should never be used to benefit humans (e.g., for food, clothing, entertainment, education, research, and even pet ownership). Animals should be able to live a life free of human interference and exploitation. On the other hand, many people agree that humans are responsible for animals and for their care; animals can be used to benefit humans if properly cared for, and their needs are met; abuse and neglect are banned. This is the “animal welfare” (AW) point of view, based on humane treatment, ensuring the physical and mental fitness of animals, as required by current EU legislation. Now, the point is that to fulfill the basic requirements of animal welfare animals are ensured a life worth living, especially given that they can feel emotions. In view of ensuring not only compliance with minimum legislative requirements, but also optimal farming conditions (above minimum legislative requirements), growing attention is attributed to best farming practices. In this work, a list of best practices proposed by the Italian National Reference Centre for Animal Welfare (CReNBA) has been collected to ensure a good quality of life for dairy cows, heifers and calves kept in intensive rearing systems.

Abstract

The concept of animal welfare (AW) has many meanings. Traditionally, AW has been considered as freedom from disease and suffering. Nowadays, growing attention goes to the concept of “positive animal welfare” (PAW), which can be interpreted within the concept of quality of life (QoL), thinking about a “balance of positives over negatives” and a “life worth living”. In this vision, where the QoL represents a continuum between positives and negatives, the Italian National Reference Centre for Animal Welfare (CReNBA), within the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna (IZSLER), has developed a welfare assessment protocol for dairy cows, heifers, and calves in loose housing systems, including both animal-based and non-animal-based indicators, in which not only hazards but also benefits are identified. This protocol is part of an integrated monitoring system called “ClassyFarm”, belonging to the Italian Ministry of Health and developed by IZSLER. The aim of this paper is to extrapolate from the mentioned protocol, a list of 38 best farming practices (on managerial and equipment factors) for ensuring a high level of welfare in dairy cattle. All stakeholders (veterinarians, farmers, competent authorities, consumers, etc.) can benefit of these best practices as a guide or toolbox to ensure a life worth living for these animals.

The Relationship between Animal Welfare and Antimicrobial Use in Italian Dairy Farms

Information regarding the relationship between animal welfare (AW) and antimicrobial use (AMU) in dairy cows is limited. The current study aimed to investigate this relationship on Italian farms and to identify potential targets of AMU reduction. The study was performed at 79 Italian dairy farms housing over 15,000 cows during 2019. AW was scored with an on-farm protocol assessing farm management and staff training, housing systems, and animal-based measures. AMU was estimated using a defined daily dose per kg of animal biomass (DDDAit/biomass) for Italy. The median AW score was 73% (range: 56.6-86.8%). The median AMU was 4.8 DDDAit/biomass (range: 0-11.8). No relationship between the total AMU and AW was found. Management and staff training were positively associated with the use of the European Medicines Agency's category B antimicrobials, which are critical for human medicine, and with intramammary products for dry cow therapy. In those farms, antimicrobial stewardship should aim to reduce the category B antimicrobials and selective dry cow therapy. Our results underline the importance of implementing both an integrated monitoring system (AW, AMU, etc.) and antimicrobial stewardship tailored to the specific needs of each dairy farm.

Precision Technologies to Address Dairy Cattle Welfare: Focus on Lameness, Mastitis and Body Condition

Simple Summary

The welfare of farm animals is a growing concern in the EU and across the world. In milk production, there is a strong need to assess the welfare of dairy cows. One of the most sound assessment initiatives has been practiced using protocols developed by the Welfare Quality project. These protocols mainly support the assessment of cow welfare with animal-based indicators. However, evaluating these indicators is time-consuming and expensive, so using precision livestock farming (PLF) solutions is a way forward and is becoming a reality in the dairy industry. This review presents advances in PLF solutions, particularly in the last five years, and for assessing the animal-based indicators of lameness, mastitis, and body condition in dairy cattle farming.

Abstract

Specific animal-based indicators that can be used to predict animal welfare have been the core of protocols for assessing the welfare of farm animals, such as those produced by the Welfare Quality project. At the same time, the contribution of technological tools for the accurate and real-time assessment of farm animal welfare is also evident. The solutions based on technological tools fit into the precision livestock farming (PLF) concept, which has improved productivity, economic sustainability, and animal welfare in dairy farms. PLF has been adopted recently; nevertheless, the need for technological support on farms is getting more and more attention and has translated into significant scientific contributions in various fields of the dairy industry, but with an emphasis on the health and welfare of the cows. This review aims to present the recent advances of PLF in dairy cow welfare, particularly in the assessment of lameness, mastitis, and body condition, which are among the most relevant animal-based indications for the welfare of cows. Finally, a discussion is presented on the possibility of integrating the information obtained by PLF into a welfare assessment framework.

Welfare assessment in dairy cows using hair cortisol as a part of monitoring protocols

Welfare of dairy cows can be assessed using welfare assessment protocols consisting of resource, management and animal-based measures. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol is one of the best-known protocols, which depends almost entirely on animal-based measures. To gain more objective and rapid welfare assessment, new techniques have been developed to measure welfare of animals, such as hair cortisol concentration. As cortisol is released in response to stress, it has long been used as a biomarker of stress in animals. While the precise mechanism of cortisol incorporation into hair is unknown, hair cortisol concentration seems to be a marker of long-term systemic cortisol concentration. Hair cortisol is, therefore, a potential marker of chronic stress and is not likely to be affected by acute stress. Studies on cattle show connections between hair cortisol concentration and factors such as pregnancy, parity, diseases, ectoparasites, body condition score, environmental changes, stocking density and milk yield. Hair cortisol concentration appears to be affected by time of sampling, cow age and breed, UV radiation, season, body region of sampled hair and hair colour. Its concentration also depends on sampling and analytical methods. Hair cortisol is a promising non-invasive tool to evaluate welfare of dairy cows, however, more research is needed to determine the extent of effects on its concentration and the appropriate method of sampling and analysis. Correlations between Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol scores and pooled hair cortisol concentrations have not yet been found, and more research is needed with larger sample size, a standardized protocol of hair sampling, processing and analysis. With proper attention to detail, hair cortisol levels in pooled hair samples might come to be used as a reliable indicator of dairy animal welfare.

Using Expert Elicitation to Abridge the Welfare Quality® Protocol for Monitoring the Most Adverse Dairy Cattle Welfare Impairments

The Welfare Quality® consortium has developed and proposed standard protocols for monitoring farm animal welfare. The uptake of the dairy cattle protocol has been below expectation, however, and it has been criticized for the variable quality of the welfare measures and for a limited number of measures having a disproportionally large effect on the integrated welfare categorization. Aiming for a wide uptake by the milk industry, we revised and simplified the Welfare Quality® protocol into a user-friendly tool for cost- and time-efficient on-farm monitoring of dairy cattle welfare with a minimal number of key animal-based measures that are aggregated into a continuous (and thus discriminative) welfare index (WI). The inevitable subjective decisions were based upon expert opinion, as considerable expertise about cattle welfare issues and about the interpretation, importance, and validity of the welfare measures was deemed essential. The WI is calculated as the sum of the severity score (i.e., how severely a welfare problem affects cow welfare) multiplied with the herd prevalence for each measure. The selection of measures (lameness, leanness, mortality, hairless patches, lesions/swellings, somatic cell count) and their severity scores were based on expert surveys (14–17 trained users of the Welfare Quality® cattle protocol). The prevalence of these welfare measures was assessed in 491 European herds. Experts allocated a welfare score (from 0 to 100) to 12 focus herds for which the prevalence of each welfare measure was benchmarked against all 491 herds. Quadratic models indicated a high correspondence between these subjective scores and the WI (R² = 0.91). The WI allows both numerical (0–100) as a qualitative (“not classified” to “excellent”) evaluation of welfare. Although it is sensitive to those welfare issues that most adversely affect cattle welfare (as identified by EFSA), the WI should be accompanied with a disclaimer that lists adverse or favorable effects that cannot be detected adequately by the current selection of measures.

Cattle Cleanliness from the View of Swedish Farmers and Official Animal Welfare Inspectors

Dirty cattle have been commonly recorded in official animal welfare inspections in Sweden for years. The relevant authorities have initiated work to better understand the causes of dirty cattle, in order to improve compliance and standardize the grounds for categorizing a farm as non-compliant with welfare legislation when dirty animals are present. This study investigated the occurrence of dirty cattle in official animal welfare controls, on Swedish cattle farms, and examined farmers' views on the reasons for non-compliance and on key factors in keeping animals clean. The data used were collected by animal welfare inspectors at the county level during the regular official inspections of 371 dairy and beef cattle farms over two weeks in winter 2020. In addition to completing the usual inspection protocol, the inspectors asked farmers a set of questions relating to why their animals were clean or dirty. Dirty cattle were found on 49% of the farms inspected, but only 33% of the farms were categorized as being non-compliant with Swedish welfare legislation. According to inspectors and farmers, dirtiness in cattle depends mainly on management routines, which is a promising result since routines can be improved. The results also revealed a need for better guidance for inspectors and farmers on when dirtiness should be categorized as non-compliance with animal welfare legislation.

Welfare Assessment: Correspondence Analysis of Welfare Score and Hematological and Biochemical Profiles of Dairy Cows in Sardinia, Italy

The need for animal welfare definition and assessment is increasing worldwide, and several studies have been conducted to help fill the knowledge gaps regarding the welfare of cattle. However, further studies are needed to provide valid synthetized measures for welfare evaluation. The aim of this study was to assess the welfare status of 16 Sardinian dairy cattle farms, based on the developed Animal Welfare and Biosecurity Evaluation checklist (AWB-EF) and the corresponding hematological, biochemical, and electrophoretic profiles of these animals. Considering the AWB-EF as gold standard, blood samples were collected from 230 Holstein breed dairy cattle, aged between 3 and 8 years, out of the periparturient period, and with no clinical signs of specific pathologies. Principal Component (PC) and correlation analyses were performed to simplify phenomena interpretation and assess positive/negative associations. Four PCs were able to explain 76% of the total variability, and six laboratory parameters were strongly associated with the AWB-EF score (Spearman's correlation coefficient ≥ 0.40, p-Value < 0.05), reflecting the real health status of the animals. Given the complexity of animal welfare as a multidimensional concept and the need to include both animal-based and non-based measures in welfare evaluation, the present work represents a sound basis for future evaluation and veterinary health planning.

Welfare of cattle at slaughter

The killing of cattle for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or on farm. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed for welfare, from the arrival of cattle until their death (including slaughtering without stunning), were grouped into three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading from the truck, lairage, handling and moving of cattle); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding. Stunning methods were grouped into two categories: mechanical and electrical. Twelve welfare consequences that cattle may be exposed to during slaughter were identified: heat stress, cold stress, fatigue, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, impeded movement, restriction of movements, resting problems (inability to rest or discomfort during resting), social stress, pain, fear and distress. Welfare consequences and their relevant animal-based measures are described. In total, 40 welfare hazards that could occur during slaughter were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were identified as the origin of 39 hazards, which were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Measures to prevent and correct hazards were identified, and structural and managerial measures were identified as those with a crucial role in prevention. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origin of hazards, and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed.

Welfare of cattle during killing for purposes other than slaughter on-farm killing of cattle

Cattle of different ages may have to be killed on farm for purposes other than slaughter (the latter being defined as killing for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale, e.g. for economic reasons or for disease control. The purpose of this scientific opinion is to assess the risks associated with the on-farm killing of cattle. The processes during on-farm killing that were assessed included handling and moving, stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The killing methods were grouped into mechanical and electrical methods as well as lethal injection. In total, 21 hazards compromising animal welfare were identified and characterised, most of these related to stunning and/or killing. Staff was identified as an origin for all hazards, either due to lack of appropriate skills needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Possible preventive and corrective measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 19 hazards, and the staff was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Three welfare consequences of hazards to which cattle can be exposed during on-farm killing were identified: impeded movement, pain and fear. The welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures related to these were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins of the hazards, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise the welfare consequences are proposed.

Bulk tank milk quality data is unlikely to give useful information about dairy cow welfare at herd level

This research communication explores the value of routinely collected bulk tank milk quality data for estimating dairy cattle welfare at herd level. Selected bulk tank milk quality parameters (somatic cell count, total bacterial count, urea, protein and fat contents) recorded during the years 2014-2016 in 287 Italian dairy farms were compared with the animal welfare data of each farm. The welfare assessment data were extracted from the database of the Italian Reference Centre for Animal Welfare (CReNBA), which includes the outputs of the application of the CReNBA welfare assessment protocol for dairy cows, used at national level for on-farm controls. The statistical analysis was carried out using the correlation coefficient for Kendall's Tau ranks, in order to investigate the presence of a categoric relationship between the selected bulk tank milk quality parameters and the overall animal welfare score or the scores of the single areas A (farm management and staff training), B (housing) and C (animal-based measures). Somatic cell count, total bacterial count, urea and proteins demonstrated only a few statistically significant and very weak correlations with farm animal welfare data, while no significant correlations were obtained for milk fat content. Given the weak correlations found, the selected bulk tank milk parameters seems to be able to provide only limited information about the welfare level of the herd, thus it could be difficult to use them for drawing up a pre-screening model for identifying herds at risk of poor welfare.

Welfare Challenges of Dairy Cows in India Identified Through On-Farm Observations

Simple Summary

India has the largest population of dairy cattle in the world, but little work has been done to objectively assess their welfare. Formal welfare assessment is needed to identify any welfare problems and inform solutions to these problems. Dairy cattle on 38 farms in Kerala, India, were observed using standardised welfare assessment protocols. The major welfare problems identified in this study were that all cows were tied to their housing on a rope < 1 m that attached to a halter that pierced the nasal septum, most farms did not provide cattle with unlimited access to water, and access to food was also limited. On half the farms, cattle were tied up inside for the whole day, and most of those given outdoor access were also tied when outside. These results show the need to encourage dairy farmers in India to stop tying their cattle, and to provide them with unlimited access to drinking water and a readier supply of a good healthy diet. Welfare assessment protocols were used successfully in this study, suggesting that they can and should be used regularly to assess cattle welfare in India. Making these changes could substantially improve the welfare of tens of millions of cattle.

Abstract

India has the largest population of dairy cattle in the world at over 48 million animals, yet there has been little formal assessment of their welfare reported. Through observations of dairy cows on 38 farms in Kerala, India, we aimed to investigate the welfare of these animals and the practicality of animal-based assessments within common farming systems. Substantial welfare challenges were identified. All cows were close-tied (less than 1 m length) via a halter that pierced the nasal septum when housed, which was for the entire day (50% of farms) or part thereof. When outside access was available, it was also usually restricted by close-tying, longline tether, or hobbling. Ad libitum water was only available on 22% of farms and food access was also restricted (mean of 4.3 h/day). Future work should focus on encouraging dairy farmers in India to improve the welfare of their dairy cattle by: ceasing to tie and tether cattle (or at least providing tied and tethered cattle with exercise opportunities); providing unlimited access to drinking water and a readier supply of food (especially quality green forage/fodder); cleaning housing more frequently; providing strategies to prevent heat stress; breeding cattle suited to environmental conditions and with increased resistance to heat stress; and carrying out welfare assessments more regularly using a validated protocol and rectifying the causes of poor welfare. Such changes could substantially improve the welfare of tens of millions of cattle.

New recommendations for self-locking barriers to reduce skin injuries in dairy cows

The design of self-locking barriers can affect cows' skin injuries and impair welfare. This study aimed to propose and refine recommendations, expressed relatively to the cows' dimensions, for self-locking barrier design to reduce risks for skin injuries on the neck/shoulder/back and on carpus of dairy cows. We recorded individual body dimensions and the dimensions of self-locking barriers (e.g. top rail height) and assessed skin injuries on 3801 cows from 131 loose-housing dairy farms. We explored the significant associations between presence/absence of skin injuries and self-locking barrier dimensions using weighted multivariable logistic regression, taking into account the diversity of feeding barriers within each farm. The robustness of the models was assessed by cross-validation. Cows had skin injuries mainly on the neck/shoulder/back (29.0%) and, to a lesser extent, on the carpus (14.0%). The final multivariable logistic regression models comprised 13 factors for skin injuries on the neck/shoulder/back, and 11 factors for skin injuries on the carpus. Skin injuries were significantly reduced when the self-locking barriers were inclined (neck/shoulder/back) and when the cows used a feeding table (i.e. flat) instead of a feeding manger or cribs (i.e. hollow) (carpus). A top rail height >1.05 × cow height (measured at withers) was significantly associated with fewer skin injuries on the neck/shoulder/back and on carpus. Skin injuries on the neck/shoulder/back and carpus were significantly reduced when the bottom rail was on the food side relative to the wall, and at a height <0.39 of cow height. Skin injuries were significantly less frequent when the separation wall had no sharp edges on the food side (neck/shoulder/back), was >0.4 of cow height (carpus), was thinner than 15 cm (neck/shoulder/back and carpus) and when the height of the feeding step was 0.04 to 0.1 of cow height (neck/shoulder/back) and the length of the feeding step was <0.2 of cow length (carpus). A headlock articulation nut positioned between 0.62 and 0.78 of cow height significantly reduced skin injuries on the neck/shoulder/back. Here, by combining the diversity of on-farm self-locking barriers and their respective dimensions, we were able to refine the International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering recommendations for self-locking barrier design and to propose new ones. This information now needs to be confirmed on other datasets, but can already help farmers and dairy industry stakeholders improve the design of self-locking barriers to improve dairy cow welfare.

Dairy cattle welfare as a result of human-animal relationship – a review

Despite the various concepts of human-animal relationship, the welfarist approach to this problem is one of the most often considered in theory and used in practice. When dealing with issues related to dairy cattle welfare (DCW), it is necessary to take into account both the reality characteristic for animals used to obtain milk (e.g. the problem of automatic milking of cows) and for slaughter cattle (e.g. slaughter of culled animals). It is not surprising, therefore, that issues related to DCW are the focus of the attention of the public, researchers, breeders as well as the dairy and meat industries. The aim of this article was to possibly most comprehensively cover the above-mentioned issues, although due to its huge scope it was obviously necessary to limit the article to what I think are currently most important issues. That is why in the review I (1) characterized the issues related to the division of human responsibility for DCW; (2) discussed the importance of technology to human-animal relationship; (3) elaborated the matter of stress, emotionality of animals and their cognitive abilities in the aspect of “negative” and “positive” DCW; (4) considered the possibilities of non-invasive assessment of animal welfare in the future and (5) discussed topics related to improving the conditions of the slaughter of animals. In summary, it was proposed paying more attention than has been paid until now, to the assessment of positive DCW in scientific research and breeding practice. I also drew attention to the necessity of reliable information flow on the line of the breeder/milk producer - industry - consumer, as negligence in this area is one of the reasons for public disinformation regarding the level of animal welfare.

Non-Compliance and Follow-Up in Swedish Official and Private Animal Welfare Control of Dairy Cows

Farmers often have to comply with several sets of animal welfare regulations, since private standards have been developed in addition to legislation. Using an epidemiological approach, we analysed protocols from animal welfare inspections carried out in Swedish dairy herds by the County Administrative Board (CAB; official control of legislation) and by the dairy company Arla Foods (private control of Arlagården standard) during 2010⁻2013 in the county of Västra Götaland. CAB and Arla inspections were not carried out simultaneously. We aimed to identify common non-compliances, quantify risk factors of non-compliance, and investigate if non-compliances were based on animal-, resource-, or management-based requirements, as well as determining the time period allowed for achieving compliance. Non-compliance was found in 58% of CAB cases, and 51% of Arla cases (each case comprising a sequence of one or several inspections). Dirty dairy cattle was one of the most frequent non-compliances in both control systems. However, the differences in control results were large, suggesting a difference in focus between the two systems. Tie-stall housing and winter season (Dec⁻Feb) were common risk factors for non-compliance, and overall organic farms had a lower predicted number of non-compliances compared to conventional farms. The presence of both similarities and differences between the systems underlines the need for transparency, predictability, and clarity of inspections.

Private Animal Welfare Standards-Opportunities and Risks

The current shift moves the governance of animal welfare away from the government towards the private market and the consumers. We have studied the intentions, content, and on-farm inspection results from different sets of animal welfare legislation and private standards with an aim to highlight the most important opportunities and risks identified in relation to the trend of increasingly relying on private standards for safeguarding or improving farm animal welfare. Our results show that different focuses, intentions, animal welfare requirements, inspection methods (i.e., methods for measuring and evaluating the compliance with a regulation), and inspection results, together with the use of vague wordings and a drive towards more flexible regulations does certainly not facilitate the interpretation and implementation of animal welfare regulations, especially not in relation to each other. Since farmers today often have to comply with several animal welfare regulations, including private standards, it is important to stress that a given regulation should never be seen as a single, stand-alone phenomenon, and the policymakers must hence consider the bigger picture, and apply the standards in relation to other existing regulations. This is especially relevant in relation to the legislation, a level that a private standard can never ignore.

Characterization of hazards, welfare promoters and animal-based measures for the welfare assessment of dairy cows: Elicitation of expert opinion

An expert opinion elicitation, based on a modified Delphi technique, was organized to collect the opinion of 16 Italian veterinarians with the aim of conducting a hazard and a welfare promoter characterization for defining and weighing a list of management and housing factors potentially associated with negative or positive welfare outcomes in dairy cows kept in loose housing systems. In addition, the 16 experts judged a set of animal-based measures in order to rate them by appropriateness and by the level of animal pain and suffering due to the welfare consequences they measure. Veterinary experts were asked to score 52 hazards, 47 welfare promoters and 18 animal-based measures. Management and housing hazards, that were determined to be associated with a very high impact on the welfare of dairy cows, were mainly referred to lactating cows (absence of bedding material, presence of inadequate or slippery floor in walking areas, wrong design of the lying area), but also the use of harmful tools for animal handling and the lack of scheduled foot inspection, trimming and foot bathing reached very high impact scores. Management and housing welfare promoters dealing with optimal cow comfort around resting obtained the highest ratings, together with the presence of experienced and trained stockpersons, the implementation of an attentive animal grouping strategy and the control of temperature, humidity and ventilation. Considering animal-based measures, the highest ranking of importance was given to observation of lameness, records of mortality of adult cows and calves, observation of integument alterations and body condition scoring. This study has been the starting point for the development of the first Italian national protocol for the assessment of the welfare of dairy cows farmed in loose housing systems.

Application of the Welfare Quality protocol to dairy buffalo farms: Prevalence and reliability of selected measures

Within the general aim of developing a Welfare Quality system for monitoring dairy buffalo welfare, this study focused on prevalence and interobserver reliability of the animal-related variables to be included in the scheme. As most of the measures were developed for cattle, the study also aimed to verify their prevalence for buffaloes. Thirty animal-based measures (22 clinical and 8 behavioral measurements) and 20 terms used for qualitative behavior assessment were assessed in 42 loose-housed buffalo farms. All farms were located in central-southern Italy. Two assessors were used (1 male and 1 female). The time needed to record all measures (animal-, resource-, and management-based) was 5.47 ± 0.48 h (mean ± SD). Interobserver reliability of animal-based measures was evaluated using Spearman rank correlation coefficient test (rs). If 0.7 is considered as threshold for high interobserver reliability, all animal-based measures were above this level. In particular, most of the coefficients were above 0.85, with higher values observed for prevalence of animals that can be touched (rs = 0.99) and prevalence of animals with iatrogenic abscess (rs = 0.97), whereas lower coefficients were found for the prevalence of vulvar discharge (rs = 0.74) and dewlap edema (rs = 0.73). Twelve out of the 20 terms used for the qualitative behavior assessment reached a satisfactory interobserver reliability (rs = 0.65). Principal component analysis of qualitative behavior assessment scores was conducted for each assessor. Both principal component 1 and principal component 2 showed high interobserver reliability (rs = 0.80 and 0.79, respectively). In addition, relevant proportions of animals were affected by welfare issues specific to buffaloes, such as overgrown claws (median = 34.1%), withers hygroma (median = 13.3%), and vulvar or uterine prolapse (median = 9.3%). We concluded that most of the investigated measures could be reliably included in the final scheme, which can be used as such to monitor buffalo welfare. However, to inform consumers about the welfare status of the animals, the data should be integrated into a single overall assessment of animal welfare, as already performed in the Welfare Quality project for dairy cattle.