A “Good Life” for Dairy Cattle: Developing and Piloting a Framework for Assessing Positive Welfare Opportunities Based on Scientific Evidence and Farmer Expertise

Simple Summary

There is increasing appetite to understand how we can provide quality of life to farm animals. A framework to evaluate positive welfare opportunities for dairy cattle was developed using a participatory approach where farmer’s recommendations were integrated into a scientific framework and piloted on farm by vets. When provided with the opportunity to collaborate, farmers and scientists broadly agree on what constitutes “a good life” for dairy cattle and worked together to develop an assessment framework. Farmers did not agree equally on the value of each positive welfare opportunity. However, farmers supported positive welfare assessment as a means of recognition and reward for higher animal welfare, within existing farm assurance schemes, and to justify national and global marketing claims of higher animal welfare.

Abstract

On-farm welfare assessment tends to focus on minimising negative welfare, but providing positive welfare is important in order to give animals a good life. This study developed a positive welfare framework for dairy cows based on the existing scientific literature which has focused on developing positive welfare indicators, and trialled a participatory approach with farmers; refining the framework based on their recommendations, followed by a vet pilot phase on farm. The results revealed that farmers and scientists agree on what constitutes “a good life” for dairy cattle. Farmers value positive welfare because they value their cows’ quality of life, and want to be proud of their work, improve their own wellbeing as well as receive business benefits. For each good life resource, the proportion of farmers going above and beyond legislation ranged from 27 to 84%. Furthermore, barriers to achieving positive welfare opportunities, including monetary and time costs, were not apparently insurmountable if implementation costs were remunerated (by the government). However, the intrinsic value in providing such opportunities also incentivises farmers. Overall, most farmers appeared to support positive welfare assessment, with the largest proportion (50%) supporting its use within existing farm assurance schemes, or to justify national and global marketing claims. Collaborating with farmers to co-create policy is crucial to showcase and quantify the UK’s high welfare standards, and to maximise engagement, relevance and uptake of animal welfare policy, to ensure continuous improvement and leadership in the quality of lives for farm animals.

Dairy cows value an open area for lying down

As dairy cows are being housed for longer periods, with all-year-round housing growing in popularity, it is important to ensure housed environments are meeting the needs of cows. Dairy cows are motivated to access open lying areas, although previous motivation studies on this topic have confounded surface type and location (i.e. pasture outdoors vs cubicles indoors). This study measured cow motivation for lying down on an indoor open mattress (MAT; 9 m x 5 m) compared to indoor mattress-bedded cubicles, thus removing the confounding factor of surface type and location. This was repeated for an identically sized indoor deep-bedded straw yard (ST), to investigate whether surface type affected motivation for an open lying area. Thirty Holstein-Friesian dairy cows were housed in groups of 5 (n = 5 x 6) in an indoor robotic milking unit with access to six mattress-bedded cubicles. To assess motivation, cows were required to walk increasing distances via a one-way indoor raceway to access the open lying areas: Short (34.5 m), followed by Medium (80.5 m) and Long (126.5 m). Cows could choose to walk the raceway, leading to the MAT or ST, to lie down or they could lie down on the cubicles for ‘free’. Overall, cows lay down for longer on the open lying areas at each distance compared to the cubicles, with cows lying down slightly longer on ST than MAT, although lying times on the open lying areas did decrease at the Long distance. However, cows were still lying for >60% of their lying time on the open lying areas at the Long distance. This study demonstrates that cows had a high motivation for an open lying area, the provision of which could better cater for the behavioural needs of housed dairy cows and improve housed dairy cow welfare.

The Freestall Reimagined: Effects on Stall Hygiene and Space Usage in Dairy Cattle

Modern freestall barns for dairy cattle have been constructed with considerations for dairy cow cleanliness; partitions and other stall features such as neck rails are designed to reduce manure contamination of bedding and decrease farm labor. However, cows prefer to lie in more open spaces, including on bedded packs and pasture. We created an "alternative" housing area by modifying a traditional freestall pen and including flexible partitions to create larger lying areas. We assessed cattle lying behaviour, including lying postures, in this alternative pen (ALT) compared to an open pack (OP) and freestalls (FS) with different stocking densities. We also assessed levels of manure contamination across systems. Cleanliness was highest in FS, but ALT provided substantial improvement compared to OP. Cattle spent more time lying down in OP and ALT compared to FS. There were few differences in postures (such as lying with limbs outstretched) between OP and ALT, but cows in both of these systems more often lay in extended positions compared to when they were housed in FS. Housing in OP and ALT was associated with reduced perching for cows with high body weight; perching has been linked to an increased prevalence of both hoof lesions and lameness. Thus, alternative lying areas can offer a solution for producers seeking to provide cattle with the advantages of a more open lying area, while improving hygiene relative to an open pack.

Graduate Student Literature Review: The effect of housing systems on movement opportunity of dairy cows and the implications on cow health and comfort

Intensification within the dairy industry has led to an increase in use of more restrictive indoor housing systems (most commonly tiestalls and freestalls) and less use of the pasture-based housing systems used in past generations. These indoor housing systems are associated with not only a higher level of restriction to cow movement, but also with a higher prevalence of lameness and cow comfort issues on farm, which negatively affects cow welfare, public perceptions, and producer profitability. In looking for solutions to these issues, several studies have investigated different housing and management options that are less restrictive and increase cow movement opportunity. We hypothesized that movement opportunity, briefly summarized as the level of locomotor activity a cow is able to express in her given environment as well as the ease with which said movement can be expressed, can have a direct, substantial effect on cow comfort as well as cow leg and hoof health. Lying behaviors, which serve as common indicators of cow comfort, are affected not only by the ease of movement that comes with providing more movement opportunity within the lying environment, but also by the aforementioned improvements to leg health. This is particularly true regarding the ability to display different lying postures and to rise and lie down with ease. The complexity of the relationship between the different methods by which movement opportunity can be provided to dairy cows and the corresponding effects on outcome measures related to cow health and comfort is an area of research that warrants exploration. In this literature review, we sought to identify how level of movement opportunity, provided though different housing systems and management practices, affects cow hoof and leg, udder, and reproductive health, as well as the effects that it has on cow lying behaviors that are indicative of comfort.

Dairy cow trade-off preference for 2 different lying qualities: Lying surface and lying space

Lying down is an important behavior for cows, contributing to their health and welfare. With dairy cows being housed for increasingly longer periods, if not year-round, it is important to ensure that dairy cow lying comfort is not compromised when they are housed. The aim of this study was to assess cow preference for 2 different qualities of lying area that appear to be important to cows-surface type and an open lying space-to better understand how to optimize lying comfort for cows when housed. Twenty-four Holstein dairy cows were used during the study, which took place in Scotland from July to November 2018. The study consisted of 6 experimental periods, each lasting a total of 21 d. Cows were tested 4 at a time and individually housed in their own test pen. Each pen had 3 lying surfaces: sand, mattress, and straw (2.4 m × 2.4 m each) with a freestall in the middle of each, which could be removed. Cows were given access to one surface at a time (training period) with a freestall for 2 d, and then given a choice of all 3 surfaces for 2 d. When given the choice with freestalls in position, cows spent, on average, the largest amount of their lying time on straw (46.6 ± 7.8%) followed by mattress (44.3 ± 12.4%). Freestalls were then removed and the training and choice phase was repeated on the following day, with cows, on average, spending the most time lying on straw (64.4 ± 7.2%). Finally, a freestall was refitted onto each cow's most preferred surface and the cows were given a choice between lying on their most preferred surface with a freestall (P1 + freestall) or on their second or third preferred surface without a freestall (P2 + open and P3 + open, respectively) for 3 d. During this final trade-off stage, of the 19 cows for which data were available, 14 cows chose to give up the opportunity to lie down on their most preferred surface to have more space on P2 + open and P3 + open, 3 cows chose to lie down on P1 + freestall, and 2 cows made no clear choice. Overall, cows spent the largest amount of their total lying time on their second most preferred surface as an open lying space (65.7 ± 6.9%) compared with their preferred surface with a freestall (20.5 ± 5.9%) and their third preferred surface as an open lying space (13.8 ± 3.7%). The results indicate that when lying down, these dairy cows value an open lying space more than the lying surface.

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

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

The Influence of Different Types of Outdoor Access on Dairy Cattle Behavior

Pasture access for dairy cows is highly valued both by cows and the public at large. When pasture access is not feasible, farmers can provide cows with alternative forms of outdoor access, such as an outdoor bedded pack, that may be easier to implement on some farms. We reviewed the literature on how lying, standing, walking, feeding, social, and estrus behaviors are influenced by pasture and other types of outdoor areas. Pasture allows the expression of grazing and can facilitate the expression of lying, standing, walking, and estrus behaviors. In addition, pasture can decrease the number of negative social interactions between cows, likely because more space per cow is provided than what is normally available indoors. The provision of soft flooring and an open space in outdoor bedded packs appears to provide some benefits for lying, standing, and walking behavior and may also have positive effects on social behavior, especially with larger space allowances. The effects of an outdoor bedded pack on estrus behavior are less well-documented, but the provision of a standing surface that provides better footing than typically available indoors may promote estrus behavior. Alternative outdoor areas assessed to date appear to be less attractive for cows than pasture, perhaps because these areas do not provide the opportunity to graze. We encourage future research to investigate the importance of grazing for dairy cows. The motivation of dairy cows to access alternative outdoor areas should also be investigated. As cow preference for the outdoors depends on many factors, providing cows a choice may be of particular importance.

Symposium review: Animal welfare in free-walk systems in Europe

Providing more space per animal, soft bedding, and free roaming in animal housing systems is widely presumed to be beneficial for the welfare of the animals. This observational study aimed to investigate the basis of this assumption in free-walk housing systems (FWS) for dairy cows in Europe. The dairy cattle Welfare Quality assessment protocol was adapted for application to FWS, and the focus was on animal-based measures, from individual cow scoring to comfort around resting. The study was conducted on 41 farms [21 FWS and 20 cubicle housing (CH)] from 6 European countries (Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Slovenia, and Sweden) displaying a variety of management systems. A total of 4,036 animals were scored. We found differences in animal welfare under different management conditions. The hindquarters and lower hind legs of cows from FWS were dirtier than those of cows in CH, but we found no difference in the dirtiness of udders or teats. Cows from FWS showed fewer hairless patches in all body areas except the neck; fewer lesions in the lower hind legs and hindquarters; and less swelling in the lower hind legs, flanks, and carpus than cows from CH. The prevalence of sound cows appeared to be higher in FWS, and moderate lameness prevalence was lower compared with CH. We found no difference in the prevalence of severe lameness between systems. We conducted a total of 684 observation sessions of comfort around resting, consisting of 830 lying down and 849 rising up movements. Cows in FWS took less time to lie down, had less difficulty rising up, and had fewer collisions with the environment during both behaviors than cows in CH. Cows lay partly or completely outside the supposed lying area less frequently in FWS than in CH. Cows in FWS adopted comfortable lying positions more often compared with CH, showing a higher occurrence of long and wide positions than cows in CH. Short positions were more common in FWS, and narrow positions were slightly more common in CH. We found large variations in animal-based measures between study herds and within housing systems. However, the observed patterns associated with each system demonstrated differences in cow scoring and comfort around resting. This study shows that a wide range of good and bad management practices exist in FWS, especially related to cow hygiene.

Risk factors associated with cows' lying time, stall and cows' own cleanliness in smallholder dairy farms in Kenya

Background and Aim:

The welfare of animals kept in livestock production systems has raised concerns around the world. Adult dairy cattle require adequate rest and spend approximately 12 h/day lying down. This cross-sectional study aimed to determine the stall factors and management practices affecting cows’ lying time, stall cleanliness, and cows’ cleanliness (udder and upper leg), in smallholder dairy cows in Meru County of Kenya.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 106 milking cows from 73 farms were assessed for daily lying time and cleanliness. Data loggers were used to record the lying time of cows for 3 days. Stall, udder, and upper leg cleanliness were assessed using a 5-score system: 1 (very clean) to 5 (very dirty). Management information was acquired using a questionnaire that was administered face-to-face to the farmers in their native Kimeru language. Univariable and multivariable linear and logistic regression models were fit to determine factors associated with cows’ lying time and dichotomized stall and cows’ own cleanliness, respectively.

Results:

The mean daily lying time was 10.9±2.2 h, and the mean stall cleanliness score was 2.4±1.0. The mean average cleanliness scores of the udder and upper legs were 1.9±0.7 and 2.5±1.1, respectively. Overall, 35% of the stalls were categorized as dirty (>2.5), whereas 13% and 47% of the cows had udder and leg cleanliness scores >2.5, respectively. From the final multivariable models (p<0.05), daily lying time increased by 1.0 h for cows older than 5.25 years versus younger cows. Conversely, lying time decreased by 1.0 h with stall cleanliness scores >2.5 and by 1.6 h with poorly positioned neck rails. In an interaction term, addition of new bedding at least once a day without removing stall manure at least once a day decreased the daily lying time of the cows by 1.5 h, whereas failure to add new bedding at least once a day but removing stall manure at least once a day decreased the lying time of the cows by 1.2 h. Farm-level risk factors for stall dirtiness (>2.5) included delayed cleaning of the alley (odds ratio [OR]=6.6, p=0.032), lack of bedding (OR=4.9, p=0.008), and standing idle and/or backward in the stall (OR=10.5, p=0.002). Stalls categorized as dirty (OR=2.9, p=0.041) and lack of bedding (OR=2.7, p=0.065) were cow- and farm-level risk factors for dirtiness of the udder (>2.5), respectively, whereas the stall being dirty (OR=2.3, p=0.043) was the only risk factor (cow level) for dirtiness of the upper legs (>2.5).

Conclusion:

It was recommended that farmers should pay attention to the specific factors identified regarding the stall design (e.g., neck rail position) and bedding/manure management that impact the cleanliness of cows and their lying time.

Bedding and bedding management practices are associated with mesophilic and thermophilic spore levels in bulk tank raw milk

Mesophilic and thermophilic spore-forming bacteria represent a challenge to the dairy industry, as these bacteria are capable of surviving adverse conditions associated with processing and sanitation and eventually spoil dairy products. The dairy farm environment, including soil, manure, silage, and bedding, has been implicated as a source for spores in raw milk. High levels of spores have previously been isolated from bedding, and different bedding materials have been associated with spore levels in bulk tank (BT) raw milk; however, the effect of different bedding types, bedding management practices, and bedding spore levels on the variance of spore levels in BT raw milk has not been investigated. To this end, farm and bedding management surveys were administered and unused bedding, used bedding, and BT raw milk samples were collected from dairy farms (1 or 2 times per farm) across the United States over 1 yr; the final data set included 182 dairy farms in 18 states. Bedding suspensions and BT raw milk were spore pasteurized (80°C for 12 min), and mesophilic and thermophilic spores were enumerated. Piecewise structural equation modeling analysis was used to determine direct and indirect pathways of association among farm and bedding practices, levels of spores in unused and used bedding, and levels of spores in BT raw milk. Separate models were constructed for mesophilic and thermophilic spore levels. The analyses showed that bedding material had a direct influence on levels of spores in unused and used bedding as well as an indirect association with spore levels in BT raw milk through used bedding spore levels. Specific bedding and farm management practices as well as cow hygiene in the housing area were associated with mesophilic and thermophilic spore levels in unused bedding, used bedding, and BT raw milk. Notably, levels of spores in used bedding were positively related to those in unused bedding, and used bedding spore levels were positively related to those in BT raw milk. The results of this study increase the understanding of the levels and ecology of mesophilic and thermophilic spores in raw milk, emphasize the possible role of bedding as a source of spores on-farm, and present opportunities for dairy producers to reduce spore levels in BT raw milk.

Dairy cow preference for different types of outdoor access

Dairy cows display a partial preference for being outside, but little is known about what aspects of the outdoor environment are important to cows. The primary aim of this study was to test the preference of lactating dairy cattle for pasture versus an outdoor sand pack during the night. A secondary aim was to determine whether feeding and perching behavior changed when cows were provided outdoor access. A third objective was to investigate how the lying behavior of cows changed when given access to different outdoor areas. Ninety-six lactating pregnant cows were assigned to 8 groups of 12 animals each. After a baseline phase of 2 d in which cows were kept inside the freestall barn, cows were habituated to the outdoor areas by providing them access to each of the 2 options for 24 h. Cows were then given access, in random order by group, to either the pasture (pasture phase) or the sand pack (sand phase). As we tested the 2 outdoor options using space allowances consistent with what would be practical on commercial dairy farms, the space provided on pasture was larger (21,000 m²) than that provided on the sand pack (144 m²). Cows were tested at night (for 2 nights in each condition), from 2000 h until morning milking at approximately 0800 h, as preference to be outdoors is strongest at this time. During the next 3 nights cows were given access to both outside options simultaneously (choice phase). Feeding and perching behaviors were recorded when cows were indoors during the day and night periods. Lying behavior was automatically recorded by HOBO data loggers (Onset, Bourne, MA). Cows spent more time outside in the pasture phase (90.0 ± 5.9%) compared with the sand phase (44.4 ± 6.3%). When provided simultaneous access to both options, cows spent more time on pasture than on the sand pack (90.5 ± 2.6% vs. 0.8 ± 0.5%, respectively). Time spent feeding indoors during the day did not change regardless of what type of outdoor access was provided, but there was a decline in perching during the day when cows were provided access to either outdoor option at night. Lying time in the pasture phase was lower than in the baseline or sand phase. During the nighttime, lying time outside was not different between the sand (55.4 ± 7.9%) and pasture (52.0 ± 7.4%) phases. In summary, cows spent a considerable amount of time outside during the night when given the opportunity and showed a preference for a large pasture versus a small sand pack as an outdoor area.

Short communication: Stall occupancy behavior of Nili Ravi buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) when first introduced to freestall housing

The aim of the present study was to assess stall occupancy of Nili Ravi buffaloes when first introduced to freestall housing. Thirty Nili Ravi buffaloes of different parity, weight, and pregnancy status were enrolled from the dairy farm of the University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan. All of the enrolled animals had no previous experience with freestalls. The selected buffaloes were introduced to the freestall shed. During an adaptation period of 7 d, all buffaloes had 24 h of free access to lie down in 1 of 3 areas: (1) freestalls, (2) alleys, and (3) an outside open area. After the adaptation period, all buffaloes were housed indoors during nighttime (restricted period) to ensure that only freestalls or alleys were available as lying areas. An observer monitored animals at 0100 h and recorded the number of animals lying in freestalls, in alleys, and in the outside open area. The results indicated that during the adaptation period, herd-level freestall occupancy in buffaloes remained below 10%. During the restricted period, herd-level stall occupancy was 0, 13, 50, and 90% on d 1, 2, 5, and 17, respectively. Buffaloes with parity ≥3 took fewer days (6.6 ± 1.0; mean ± standard error of the mean) to occupy stalls than buffaloes with parity 2, 1, and heifers (13.2 ± 1.5, 16.7 ± 2.1, and 13.5 ± 2.1 d, respectively). Body weight and pregnancy status of buffaloes did not have any effect on stall occupancy. Buffaloes showed adjacent stall occupancy, filling opposite stalls first. The results indicated that older buffaloes occupied freestalls earlier than younger buffaloes. Our findings would help better manage buffaloes in freestall housing.