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

Effects of free-choice pasture access on lameness recovery and behavior of lame dairy cattle

Lameness is a common condition in dairy cows. Free-choice access to pasture may benefit lame cows by providing a softer and more comfortable lying and standing surface; however, the effects of this system on lameness have not yet been explored. We evaluated whether a 7-wk period of free-choice pasture access would improve lameness recovery and affect the lying behavior of lame dairy cows. Lactating Holstein cows, all clinically lame upon enrollment and housed inside a freestall barn, were pseudo-randomly allocated to 1 of 2 treatments (balancing for gait score, parity, and previous lameness history): free-choice access to pasture (n = 27; pasture) or indoor housing only (n = 27; indoor). Cows were gait scored weekly by an observer blind to treatment, using a 5-point numerical rating system (NRS 1 = sound, NRS 5 = severely lame), and hoof inspections were performed by professional trimmers at the start and end of the 7-wk period. Lying behavior was assessed using accelerometers. Cows were categorized as either having a sound period (NRS <2 over 2 consecutive weeks) or remaining lame. Cows spent, on average, 14.8 ± 10.0% (mean ± SD) of their total time on pasture, with much of this time spent outside at night. Over the 7-wk period, 42% of cows had at least one sound period (pasture: 55.6%, indoor: 26.9%), but this was more likely for cows with pasture access (odds ratio = 4.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-14.6%). Pasture cows also spent more total weeks sound compared with indoor cows (2.0 ± 0.34 vs. 0.81 ± 0.35 wk). Cows with pasture access lay down for less overall time than indoor cows (13.9 ± 0.29 vs. 12.7 ± 0.28 h/d) and spent more time standing on pasture (74%) than when indoors (47%). These results suggest that lame dairy cows will use pasture when provided with free-choice access, primarily at night, and that access to pasture aids in lameness recovery. We encourage future research to investigate longer-term effects on the recovery of hoof lesions and reoccurrence of lameness cases.

Effect of alpine grazing on plasma and hair cortisol, serotonin, and DHEA in dairy cows and its welfare impact

Through the analysis of blood and hair samples, this study evaluated the effects of grazing in alpine areas on welfare indices and indicators of stress in dairy cows. Twenty-one Holstein dairy cows (body weight: 637 ± 21.5 kg; days in milk: 133 ± 17.7, and second parity) were randomly assigned to 3 groups: control (nongrazing), 12 h of alpine grazing (12 hG), and 24 h of alpine grazing (24 hG). Blood samples for plasma collection were taken for 3 consecutive days at the end of the experiment. Hair samples were collected at the beginning and end of the experiment. Hormone measurements included cortisol, serotonin, and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) in both plasma and hair samples. Plasma cortisol and DHEA levels did not differ among the 3 groups, whereas the plasma serotonin level was higher in the 24 hG group than that in the other groups. The plasma cortisol to DHEA ratio was lower in the 24 hG group than that in the control and 12 hG group. The hair samples taken at the end of the experiment showed that the cortisol level was significantly higher in the control group than that in both of the grazing groups and also higher in the 12 hG than that in the 24 hG group. Hair DHEA and serotonin levels were highest in the 24 hG group. The hair cortisol to DHEA ratio was significantly higher in the control group than that in the 12 hG and 24 hG groups and in the 12 hG group than that in the 24 hG group. Our study showed that grazing dairy cows in alpine areas for 24 h improved their welfare, as indicated by increased serotonin levels in hair and plasma, increased hair DHEA level, and decreased stress indicators, including the hair cortisol level and cortisol to DHEA ratio. Farm facilities should allocate optimal grazing time for optimal welfare of dairy cows.

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

Simple Summary

This paper aims to identify improvements and gaps in the specific EU regulations for organic farming and whether they promote higher welfare standards for dairy cattle compared to the “minimum standards” set up for conventional farming. Based on the available scientific evidence, we identified areas in the organic regulations where the welfare status of the animals is improved, but some limitations and gaps exist.

Abstract

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.