Comparison of the welfare of beef cattle in housed and grazing systems: hormones, health, and behaviour

Animal welfare encompasses all aspects of an animal's life and the interactions between animals. Consequently, welfare must be measured across a variety of factors that consider aspects such as health, behaviour, and mental state. Decisions regarding housing and grazing are central to farm management. In this study, two beef cattle systems and their herds were compared from weaning to slaughter across numerous indicators. One herd ("HH") were continuously housed, the other ("HG") were housed only during winter. Inspections of animals were conducted to assess body condition, cleanliness, diarrhoea, hairlessness, nasal discharge, and ocular discharge. Hair and nasal mucus samples were taken for quantification of cortisol and serotonin. Qualitative behaviour assessments (QBA) were also conducted and performance monitored. Physical health indicators were similar between herds with the exception of nasal discharge which was more prevalent in HH (P < 0.001). During winter, QBA yielded differences between herds over PC1 (arousal) (P = 0.032), but not PC2 (mood) (P = 0.139). Through summer, there was a strong difference across both PC1 (P < 0.001) and PC2 (P = 0.002), with HG exhibiting more positive behaviour. A difference was found in hair cortisol levels, with the greatest concentrations observed in HG (P = 0.011), however such a pattern was not seen for nasal mucus cortisol, or for serotonin. Overall, providing summer grazing (HG) appeared to afford welfare benefits to the cattle as shown with more positive QBA assessments, but also slightly better health indicators, notwithstanding the higher levels of cortisol in that group.

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.

Contrasting Fecal Methanogenic and Bacterial Profiles of Organic Dairy Cows Located in Northwest Washington Receiving Either a Mixed Diet of Pasture and TMR or Solely TMR

Currently, little is known regarding fecal microbial populations and their associations with methanogenic archaea in pasture-based dairy cattle. In this study, we assessed the fecal microbiome of organic dairy cows across different time points receiving a mixed diet of pasture and total mixed ration (TMR) or TMR only. We hypothesized that the fecal methanogenic community, as well as co-occurrence patterns with bacteria, change across diets. To test these hypotheses, we analyzed TMR and pasture samples, as well as the V3-V4 region of 16S rRNA of fecal samples collected over the course of a one-year study period from 209 cows located on an organic dairy in Northwest Washington. The inherent variability in pasture quality, quantity, availability, and animal preference can lead to diverse dietary intakes. Therefore, we conducted a k-means clustering analysis to identify samples from cows that were associated with either a pasture-based diet or a solely TMR diet. A total of 4 clusters were identified. Clusters 1 and 3 were mainly associated with samples primarily collected from cows with access to pasture of varying quality and TMR, cluster 2 was formed by samples from cows receiving only TMR, and cluster 4 was a mix of samples from cows receiving high-quality pasture and TMR or TMR only. Interestingly, we found little difference in the relative abundance of methanogens between the community clusters. There was evidence of differences in diversity between pasture associated bacterial communities and those associated with TMR. Cluster 4 had higher diversity and a less robust co-occurrence network based on Spearman correlations than communities representing TMR only or lower-quality pasture samples. These findings indicate that varied bacterial communities are correlated with the metabolic characteristics of different diets. The overall good pasture and TMR quality in this study, combined with the organic allowance for feeding high levels of TMR even during the grazing season, might have contributed to the lack of differences in the fecal archaeal community from samples associated with a mixed pasture and TMR diet, and a TMR only diet. Mitigation strategies to decrease methane emissions such as increasing concentrate to forage ratio, decreasing pasture maturity and adopting grazing systems targeting high quality pasture have been shown to be efficient for pasture-based systems. However, the allowance for organic dairy producers to provide up to an average of 70% of a ruminant's dry matter demand from dry matter fed (e.g., TMR), suggests that reducing enteric methane emissions may require the development of novel dietary strategies independent of pasture management.

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.

Effects of Housing and Management Factors on Selected Indicators of the Welfare Quality® Protocol in Loose-Housed Dairy Cows

The objective of this study was to examine the effects of housing and management factors on animal welfare indicators in dairy cows using a benchmarking approach. In total, 63 conventional dairy cattle farms with zero-grazing in Northern Germany were assessed using selected animal welfare indicators (body condition score, integument alterations, lameness, milk somatic cell count, and social behaviour) of the Welfare Quality® protocol. Additionally, housing characteristics such as designs of barns, cubicles, and floors were documented during farm visits and farmers were interviewed concerning their common management routines. Farms were categorized into a high welfare or low welfare group by calculating upper and lower tertiles for each of the animal welfare indicators separately. Both groups were compared regarding housing conditions and management practices using univariable and multivariable logistic regressions. Several associations between housing and management factors and animal welfare indicators were demonstrated in univariable analysis (p < 0.20). Significant effects within multivariable logistic regression analysis were determined for lameness (routine use of foot-baths), milk somatic cell count (milking frequency) and social behaviour (cow-to-stall ratio) (p < 0.05). Comparing farms with higher and lower animal welfare status can provide useful information about effective options to improve animal welfare.

A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of indoor living space on dairy cow production, reproduction and behaviour

As a global society, we have a duty to provide suitable care and conditions for farmed livestock to protect animal welfare and ensure the sustainability of our food supply. The suitability and biological impacts of housing conditions for intensively farmed animals is a complex and emotive subject, yet poorly researched, meaning quantitative evidence to inform policy and legislation is lacking. Most dairy cows globally are housed for some duration during the year, largely when climatic conditions are unfavourable. However, the impact on biology, productivity and welfare of even the most basic housing requirement, the quantity of living space, remains unknown. We conducted a long-term (1-year), randomised controlled trial (CONSORT 10 guidelines) to investigate the impact of increased living space (6.5 m2 vs 3 m2 per animal) on critical aspects of cow biology, behaviour and productivity. Adult Holstein dairy cows (n = 150) were continuously and randomly allocated to a high or control living space group with all other aspects of housing remaining identical between groups. Compared to cows in the control living space group, cows with increased space produced more milk per 305d lactation (primiparous: 12,235 L vs 11,592 L, P < 0.01; multiparous: 14,746 L vs 14,644 L, P < 0.01) but took longer to become pregnant after calving (primiparous: 155 d vs 83 d, P = 0.025; multiparous: 133 d vs 109 d). In terms of behaviour, cows with more living space spent significantly more time in lying areas (65 min/d difference; high space group: 12.43 h/day, 95% CI = 11.70-13.29; control space group: 11.42 h/day, 95% CI = 10.73-12.12) and significantly less time in passageways (64 min/d), suggesting enhanced welfare when more space was provided. A key physiological difference between groups was that cows with more space spent longer ruminating each day. This is the first long term study in dairy cows to demonstrate that increased living space results in meaningful benefits in terms of productivity and behaviour and suggests that the interplay between farmed animals and their housed environment plays an important role in the concepts of welfare and sustainability of dairy farming.

Perspectives of Western Canadian dairy farmers on providing outdoor access for dairy cows

Dairy cows are highly motivated to access pasture, especially at night in summer. When pasture is not available, dairy cows show a partial preference for alternative types of outdoor access, spending half the night outside in summer on an outdoor sand or wood chip pack. However, many dairy farms do not provide cows outside access. To better understand reasons why dairy farmers choose to provide or not provide outdoor access, we studied the perspectives of dairy farmers located in the 4 Western Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Data were collected via (1) 11 focus group discussions with a total of 50 Western Canadian dairy farmers, and (2) semi-structured individual interviews with 6 dairy farmers of Hutterite colonies. Transcripts were analyzed using template analysis. Reasons to not provide outdoor access fell into 5 main themes: (1) adverse climate conditions, (2) negative implications of outdoor access for cow welfare including concerns about udder health, (3) concerns regarding decreases in profitability, (4) farm infrastructure not set up for outdoor access, and (5) higher ability to manage animals kept indoors. Reasons to provide outdoor access fell into the 5 main themes: (1) local climate conditions conducive for outdoor access, (2) beneficial effects of outdoor access on cow welfare including lower lameness prevalence, (3) increased profitability due to a premium milk price provided to farmers that allow pasture access to their cows, (4) farm infrastructure that is set up for outdoor access, and (5) easier management of animals outdoors. We conclude that the decision to provide outdoor access depends on how farmers weigh these factors given the constraints on their farm, as well as their personal beliefs and values.

The effects of heat stress on the behaviour of dairy cows – a review

Heat stress in livestock is a function of macro- and microclimatic factors, their duration and intensity, the environments where they occur and the biological characteristics of the animal. Due to intense metabolic processes, high-producing dairy cows are highly vulnerable to the effects of heat stress. Disturbances in their thermoregulatory capability are reflected by behavioural, physiological and production changes. Expression of thermoregulatory behaviour such as reduction of activity and feed intake, searching for a cooler places or disturbances in reproductive behaviours may be very important indicators of animal welfare. Especially maintain of standing or lying position in dairy cattle may be a valuable marker of the negative environmental impact. Highly mechanized farms with large numbers of animals have the informatic system can detect alterations automatically, while small family farms cannot afford these type of equipments. Therefore, observing and analysing behavioural changes to achieve a greater understanding of heat stress issue may be a key factor for developing the effective strategies to minimize the effects of heat stress in cattle. The aim of this review is to present the state of knowledge, over the last years, regarding behavioural changes in dairy cows (Bos Taurus) exposed to heat stress conditions and discuss some herd management strategies provided mitigation of the overheat consequences.

Optimism and pasture access in dairy cows

Allowing dairy cattle to access pasture can promote natural behaviour and improve their health. However, the psychological benefits are poorly understood. We compared a cognitive indicator of emotion in cattle either with or without pasture access. In a crossover experiment, 29 Holstein-Friesian dairy cows had 18 days of overnight pasture access and 18 days of full-time indoor housing. To assess emotional wellbeing, we tested cows on a spatial judgement bias task. Subjects learnt to approach a rewarded bucket location, but not approach another, unrewarded bucket location. We then presented cows with three "probe" buckets intermediate between the trained locations. Approaching the probes reflected an expectation of reward under ambiguity-an "optimistic" judgement bias, suggesting positive emotional states. We analysed the data using linear mixed-effects models. There were no treatment differences in latency to approach the probe buckets, but cows approached the known rewarded bucket slower when they had pasture access than when they were indoors full-time. Our results indicate that, compared to cattle housed indoors, cattle with pasture access display less anticipatory behaviour towards a known reward. This reduced reward anticipation suggests that pasture is a more rewarding environment, which may induce more positive emotional states than full-time housing.

Invited review: Lying time and the welfare of dairy cows

Adequate time lying down is often considered an important aspect of dairy cow welfare. We examine what is known about cows' motivation to lie down and the consequences for health and other indicators of biological function when this behavior is thwarted. We review the environmental and animal-based factors that affect lying time in the context of animal welfare. Our objective is to review the research into the time that dairy cows spend lying down and to critically examine the evidence for the link with animal welfare. Cows can be highly motivated to lie down. They show rebound lying behavior after periods of forced standing and will sacrifice other activities, such as feeding, to lie down for an adequate amount of time. They will work, by pushing levers or weighted gates, to lie down and show possible indicators of frustration when lying behavior is thwarted. Some evidence suggests that risk of lameness is increased in environments that provide unfavorable conditions for cows to lie down and where cows are forced to stand. Lameness itself can result in longer lying times, whereas mastitis reduces it. Cow-based factors such as reproductive status, age, and milk production influence lying time, but the welfare implications of these differences are unknown. Lower lying times are reported in pasture-based systems, dry lots, and bedded packs (9 h/d) compared with tiestalls and freestalls (10 to 12 h/d) in cross-farm research. Unfavorable conditions, including too few lying stalls for the number of cows, hard or wet lying surfaces, inadequate bedding, stalls that are too small or poorly designed, heat, and rain all reduce lying time. Time constraints, such as feeding or milking, can influence lying time. However, more information is needed about the implications of mediating factors such as the effect of the standing surface (concrete, pasture, or other surfaces) and cow behavior while standing (e.g., being restrained, walking, grazing) to understand the effect of low lying times on animal welfare. Many factors contribute to the difficulty of finding a valid threshold for daily lying time to use in the assessment of animal welfare. Although higher lying times often correspond with cow comfort, and lower lying times are seen in unfavorable conditions, exceptions occur, namely when cows lie down for longer because of disease or when they spend more time standing because of estrus or parturition, or to engage in other behaviors. In conclusion, lying behavior is important to dairy cattle, but caution and a full understanding of the context and the character of the animals in question is needed before drawing firm conclusions about animal welfare from measures of lying time.

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.

Assessing whether dairy cow welfare is "better" in pasture-based than in confinement-based management systems

Consumers perceive pasture-based systems of milk production as natural and therefore better for cow welfare than confinement systems. However both systems are heterogeneous and continually evolving, varying from total confinement to total pasture with many hybrid intermediaries. To compare the welfare of dairy cows in these various systems, we use the three spheres framework, comprising biological functioning, natural behaviour and affective states. Considering biological functioning, pasture-based cows are less at risk of subclinical and clinical mastitis, claw lesions, lameness, metritis, early embryonic mortality, culling and mortality, but at more risk of internal parasitism, malnutrition and delayed onset of oestrous activity postpartum than confined cows. Regarding natural behaviours, pasture-based cows exhibit less agonistic behaviour, better lying behaviour, more normal oestrous behaviours and better synchronicity of behaviours than confined cows. They also have the opportunity to graze, which is one of the main features of the behavioural repertoire of dairy cows, but, they may also experience long periods away from pasture in larger herds, and severe climatic stresses which will become increasingly important as the climate changes. Our current ability to assess the affective state of dairy cows is poor. For example, hunger is an important subjective state that cannot be measured directly. The growing focus on ensuring that animals have lives worth living, means that dairy cows should garner some positive emotions from their lives, and it seems clear that pasture access is essential for this. Clearly measurement of affective state is an important challenge for future dairy cow welfare research. At the extremes of management systems, there can be major differences in animal welfare but in hybrid systems, dairy cows experience elements of both confinement and pasture which may ameliorate the negative effects of each on cow welfare. Ultimately, the optimal system gives cows an element of choice between both environments. Moreover management of the system, whether it is confinement or pastured-based, may be as important as the system of management in ensuring good dairy cow welfare and addressing societal concerns.Abbreviations: BCS: Body condition score; TMR: Total mixed ration.

Effect of outdoor open pack space allowance on the behavior of freestall-housed dairy cows

Providing dairy cows access to pasture is desirable, given their strong motivation for pasture access, but this practice is hindered by several practical constraints, including lack of available pasture. An alternative to pasture is an outdoor area that is bedded with a soft material such as sand or wood chips that requires less space than pasture, given the absence of soil or grass that can otherwise be damaged by cow traffic. However, little is known about space requirements for alternative outdoor areas. This study investigated how space allowance affected cow preference to be outdoors as well as cow behavior on an outdoor pack. A total of 3 groups of 24 pregnant, lactating, healthy Holstein cows were used. Each group was given 3 d for social dynamics to stabilize; during this time cows were kept indoors in a freestall pen. A habituation phase of 5 d followed, where animals were given free access to the outdoor pack with a space allowance of 16 m²/cow. Cows were moved outside (if not already outdoors) at set times each day during the habituation phase (i.e., 5 times during the first 2 d and 2 times during the last 3 d). Cows were then given free access to the outdoor pack, but space allowance was changed every day. A total of 13 different space allowances were randomly applied, without replacement, ranging from 4 to 16 m²/cow in 1-m² increments. Using continuous video recordings, the location of the cows (i.e., in the freestall barn or on the outdoor pack) as well as displacements from a lying position on the outdoor pack were scored. Standing and lying behaviors were automatically measured using HOBO data loggers (Onset, Cape Cod, MA). Over the 24-h period, cows spent more time outside with increasing space allowance, but this result was driven almost entirely by the increased time spent outdoors during the nighttime hours. During the night, space allowance did not influence the number of displacements from lying on the outdoor pack or the proportion of time on the outdoor pack that cows spent lying down. Our results indicate that cows use an outdoor bedded pack mostly at night and that the time spent outside at night increases with increasing space allowance. Providing an outdoor bedded pack should be considered when designing dairy cattle housing systems.

Pasture Access Affects Behavioral Indicators of Wellbeing in Dairy Cows

Simple Summary

Dairy cows in Europe and the United States are increasingly housed indoors year-round. Even cows with pasture access are usually kept inside during the winter and around calving. However, animal welfare scientists and dairy consumers are concerned that full-time housing impacts cattle welfare. We investigated how pasture influences behavioral indicators of wellbeing. Using cow pedometers, we recorded 29 animals’ lying and walking activity during 18 days of pasture access and 18 days of indoor housing. Cattle at pasture had fewer lying bouts but longer lying times, indicating they were more comfortable and less restless. Lying behavior was also more synchronous outdoors, with most of the herd lying at the same time. These results indicate pasture provides a comfortable surface and reduces competition for lying space. Furthermore, cows at pasture walked farther, with potential benefits for their physical health and psychological wellbeing. Our findings contribute to the growing body of evidence that pasture access improves dairy cow welfare. As a society, we must decide whether full-time housing is a price worth paying for dairy products.

Abstract

Dairy cows are increasingly housed indoors, either year-round or for long stretches over the winter and around parturition. This may create health and welfare issues. In cattle, lying and walking are highly motivated, and herds synchronize lying behavior when they have comfortable surfaces and little competition for space. Lying and walking activity can, therefore, indicate good welfare. Using a repeated measures crossover design, we gave 29 Holstein–Friesian dairy cows 18 days of overnight pasture access (PAS treatment) and 18 days of indoor housing (PEN treatment). Accelerometers recorded their lying and locomotory behavior. We measured behavioral synchrony with Fleiss’ Kappa and analyzed the accelerometry data using linear mixed models. Compared to the PEN treatment, the PAS treatment had longer overnight lying durations (χ²₁ = 27.51, p < 0.001), fewer lying bouts (χ²₁ = 22.53, p < 0.001), longer lying bouts (χ²₁ = 25.53, p < 0.001), and fewer transitions up or down (χ²₁ = 16.83, p < 0.001). Herd lying behavior was also more synchronous at pasture (χ²₁ = 230.25, p < 0.001). In addition, nightly step counts were higher in the PAS treatment than the PEN treatment (χ²₁ = 2946.31, p < 0.001). These results suggest pasture access improves dairy cow welfare by increasing comfort, reducing competition and boredom, and facilitating motivated behavior.

A systematic review of non-productivity-related animal-based indicators of heat stress resilience in dairy cattle

INTRODUCTION

Projected temperature rise in the upcoming years due to climate change has increased interest in studying the effects of heat stress in dairy cows. Environmental indices are commonly used for detecting heat stress, but have been used mainly in studies focused on the productivity-related effects of heat stress. The welfare approach involves identifying physiological and behavioural measurements so as to start heat stress mitigation protocols before the appearance of impending severe health or production issues. Therefore, there is growing interest in studying the effects of heat stress on welfare. This systematic review seeks to summarise the animal-based responses to heat stress (physiological and behavioural, excluding productivity) that have been used in scientific literature.

METHODS

Using systematic review guidelines set by PRISMA, research articles were identified, screened and summarised based on inclusion criteria for physiology and behaviour, excluding productivity, for animal-based resilience indicators. 129 published articles were reviewed to determine which animal-based indicators for heat stress were most frequently used in dairy cows.

RESULTS

The articles considered report at least 212 different animal-based indicators that can be aggregated into body temperature, feeding, physiological response, resting, drinking, grazing and pasture-related behaviour, reactions to heat management and others. The most common physiological animal-based indicators are rectal temperature, respiration rate and dry matter intake, while the most common behavioural indicators are time spent lying, standing and feeding.

CONCLUSION

Although body temperature and respiration rate are the animal-based indicators most frequently used to assess heat stress in dairy cattle, when choosing an animal-based indicator for detecting heat stress using scientific literature to establish thresholds, characteristics that influence the scale of the response and the definition of heat stress must be taken into account, e.g. breed, lactation stage, milk yield, system type, climate region, bedding type, diet and cooling management strategies.

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.

The effects of preferred natural stimuli on humans' affective states, physiological stress and mental health, and the potential implications for well-being in captive animals

Exposure to certain natural stimuli improves people's moods, reduces stress, enhances stress resilience, and promotes mental and physical health. Laboratory studies and real estate prices also reveal that humans prefer environments containing a broad range of natural stimuli. Potential mediators of these outcomes include: 1) therapeutic effects of specific natural products; 2) positive affective responses to stimuli that signalled safety and resources to our evolutionary ancestors; 3) attraction to environments that satisfy innate needs to explore and understand; and 4) ease of sensory processing, due to the stimuli's "evolutionary familiarity" and/or their fractal, self-repeating properties. These processes, and the benefits humans gain from natural stimuli, seem to be largely innate. They thus have strong implications for other species (including laboratory, farm and zoo animals living in environments devoid of natural stimuli), suggesting that they too may have nature-related "sensory needs". By promoting positive affect and stress resilience, preferred natural stimuli (including views, sounds and odours) could therefore potentially provide effective and efficient ways to improve captive animal well-being.

Review: welfare of dairy cows in continuously housed and pasture-based production systems

There is increasing interest in the use of continuous housing systems for dairy cows, with various reasons put forward to advocate such systems. However, the welfare of dairy cows is typically perceived to be better within pasture-based systems, although such judgements are often not scientifically based. The aim of this review was to interrogate the existing scientific literature to compare the welfare, including health, of dairy cows in continuously housed and pasture-based systems. Although summarising existing work, knowledge gaps and directions for future research are also identified. The scope of the review is broad, examining relevant topics under three main headings; health, behaviour and physiology. Regarding health, cows on pasture-based systems had lower levels of lameness, hoof pathologies, hock lesions, mastitis, uterine disease and mortality compared with cows on continuously housed systems. Pasture access also had benefits for dairy cow behaviour, in terms of grazing, improved lying/resting times and lower levels of aggression. Moreover, when given the choice between pasture and indoor housing, cows showed an overall preference for pasture, particularly at night. However, the review highlighted the need for a deeper understanding of cow preference and behaviour. Potential areas for concern within pasture-based systems included physiological indicators of more severe negative energy balance, and in some situations, the potential for compromised welfare with exposure to unpredictable weather conditions. In summary, the results from this review highlight that there remain considerable animal welfare benefits from incorporating pasture access into dairy production systems.

Preference and behavior of lactating dairy cows given free access to pasture at two herbage masses and two distances

A number of factors influence dairy cow preference to be indoors or at pasture. The study reported here investigated whether herbage mass and distance affects preference and if continuously housed cows exhibited behavioral and production differences compared to cows that had free access to pasture. Dairy cows (n = 16) were offered a free choice of being in cubicle housing (1.5 cubicles/cow) or at pasture with a high (3,000 ± 200 kg DM/ha) vs. low (1,800 ± 200 kg DM/ha) herbage mass. A control group (n = 16) was confined to cubicle housing for the duration of the study. Each herbage mass was offered at either a near (38 m) or far (254 m) distance in a 2 × 2 factorial crossover design to determine motivation to access pasture. Overall, dairy cows expressed a partial preference to be at pasture, spending 68.7% of their time at pasture. This was not affected (P > 0.05) by herbage mass. Both grass intake (P = 0.001) and grazing time (P = 0.039) was greater when cows were offered the high herbage mass. Neither total mixed ration intake (P > 0.05) nor milk yield (P > 0.05) was affected by herbage mass or distance. Additionally, no interaction existed between herbage mass and distance (P > 0.05). Distance affected preference: overall time on pasture was greater at the near distance (P = 0.002); however, nighttime use was not affected by distance (P = 0.184). Housed cows produced less milk than free-choice cows and this was potentially due to a combination of decreased lying time in housed cows (P < 0.001) and grass intake (1.22 kg/d) in free-choice cows. This study shows that herbage mass is not a major factor driving dairy cow preference for pasture, but distance does affect preference for pasture during the day. Additionally, there are clear production and welfare benefits for providing cows with a choice to be at pasture or cubicle housing over being continuously housed. Further research is necessary to quantify the effect of lying time on milk yields.

Invited review: Changes in the dairy industry affecting dairy cattle health and welfare

The dairy industry in the developed world has undergone profound changes over recent decades. In this paper, we present an overview of some of the most important recent changes in the dairy industry that affect health and welfare of dairy cows, as well as the science associated with these changes. Additionally, knowledge gaps are identified where research is needed to guide the dairy industry through changes that are occurring now or that we expect will occur in the future. The number of farms has decreased considerably, whereas herd size has increased. As a result, an increasing number of dairy farms depend on hired (nonfamily) labor. Regular professional communication and establishment of farm-specific protocols are essential to minimize human errors and ensure consistency of practices. Average milk production per cow has increased, partly because of improvements in nutrition and management but also because of genetic selection for milk production. Adoption of new technologies (e.g., automated calf feeders, cow activity monitors, and automated milking systems) is accelerating. However, utilization of the data and action lists that these systems generate for health and welfare of livestock is still largely unrealized, and more training of dairy farmers, their employees, and their advisors is necessary. Concurrently, to remain competitive and to preserve their social license to operate, farmers are increasingly required to adopt increased standards for food safety and biosecurity, become less reliant on the use of antimicrobials and hormones, and provide assurances regarding animal welfare. Partly because of increasing herd size but also in response to animal welfare regulations in some countries, the proportion of dairy herds housed in tiestalls has decreased considerably. Although in some countries access to pasture is regulated, in countries that traditionally practiced seasonal grazing, fewer farmers let their dairy cows graze in the summer. The proportion of organic dairy farms has increased globally and, given the pressure to decrease the use of antimicrobials and hormones, conventional farms may be able to learn from well-managed organic farms. The possibilities of using milk for disease diagnostics and monitoring are considerable, and dairy herd improvement associations will continue to expand the number of tests offered to diagnose diseases and pregnancy. Genetic and genomic selection for increased resistance to disease offers substantial potential but requires collection of additional phenotypic data. There is every expectation that changes in the dairy industry will be further accentuated and additional novel technologies and different management practices will be adopted in the future.

Societal views and animal welfare science: understanding why the modified cage may fail and other stories

The innovations developed by scientists working on animal welfare are often not adopted in practice. In this paper, we argue that one important reason for this failure is that the solutions proposed do not adequately address the societal concerns that motivated the original research. Some solutions also fail because they do not adequately address perceived constraints within the industry. Using examples from our own recent work, we show how research methods from the social sciences can address both of these limitations. For example, those who persist in tail-docking cattle (despite an abundance of evidence showing that the practice has no benefits) often justify their position by citing concern for cow cleanliness. This result informs the nature of new extension efforts directed at farmers that continue to tail dock, suggesting that these efforts will be more effective if they focus on providing producers with methods (of proven efficacy) for keeping cows clean. Work on pain mitigation for dehorning shows that some participants reluctant to provide pain relief believe that the pain from this procedure is short lasting and has little impact on the calf. This result informs the direction of new biological research efforts to understand both the magnitude and duration of any suffering that result from this type of procedure. These, and other examples, illustrate how social science methodologies can document the shared and divergent values of different stakeholders (to ensure that proposed solutions align with mainstream values), beliefs regarding the available evidence (to help target new scientific research that meets the perceived gaps), and barriers in implementing changes (to ease adoption of ideas by addressing these barriers).

Access to pasture for dairy cows: responses from an online engagement

An online engagement exercise documented the views of Canadian and U.S. participants affiliated and unaffiliated with the dairy industry on the issue of pasture access for dairy cows. A total of 414 people participated in 10 independent web forums. Providing access to more natural living conditions, including pasture, was viewed as important for the large majority of participants, including those affiliated with the dairy industry. This finding is at odds with current practice on the majority of farms in North America that provide little or no access to pasture. Participant comments showed that the perceived value of pasture access for dairy cattle went beyond the benefits of eating grass; participants cited as benefits exposure to fresh air, ability to move freely, ability to live in social groups, improved health, and healthier milk products. To accommodate the challenges of allowing pasture access on farms, some participants argued in favor of hybrid systems that provide a mixture of indoor confinement housing and grazing. Understanding the beliefs and concerns of participants affiliated and unaffiliated with the dairy industry allows for the identification of contentious topics as well as areas of agreement; this is important in efforts to better harmonize industry practices with societal expectations.

Invited review: Sustainability of the US dairy industry

The US dairy industry has realized tremendous improvements in efficiencies and milk production since the 1940s. During this time, farm and total cow numbers have decreased and average herd size has increased. This intensification, combined with the shift to a largely urban public, has resulted in increased scrutiny of the dairy industry by social and environmental movements and increased concern regarding the dairy industry's sustainability. In response to these concerns, a group of scientists specializing in animal welfare, nutrient management, greenhouse gas emissions, animal science, agronomy, agricultural engineering, microbiology, and economics undertook a critical review of the US dairy industry. Although the US dairy system was identified as having significant strengths, the consensus was that the current structure of the industry lacks the resilience to adapt to changing social and environmental landscapes. We identified several factors affecting the sustainability of the US dairy industry, including climate change, rapid scientific and technological innovation, globalization, integration of societal values, and multidisciplinary research initiatives. Specific challenges include the westward migration of milk production in the United States (which is at odds with projected reductions in precipitation and associated limitations in water availability for cattle and crops), and the growing divide between industry practices and public perceptions, resulting in less public trust. Addressing these issues will require improved alignment between industry practices and societal values, based upon leadership from within the industry and sustained engagement with other interested participants, including researchers, consumers, and the general public.