Assessing Extensive Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia: Feasibility of Adapting a New Zealand Beef Cow Welfare Assessment Protocol

Author(s):  
Y. B. Kaurivi ◽  
R. A. Laven ◽  
R. Hickson ◽  
T. P. Parkinson ◽  
K. J. Stafford
Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 1597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Baby Kaurivi ◽  
Richard Laven ◽  
Rebecca Hickson ◽  
Tim Parkinson ◽  
Kevin Stafford

Potential measures suitable for assessing welfare in pasture-based beef cow–calf systems in New Zealand were identified from Welfare Quality and UC Davis Cow-Calf protocols. These were trialled on a single farm and a potential protocol of 50 measures created. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of the measures included in this protocol on multiple farms in order, to develop a credible animal welfare assessment protocol for pasture-based cow–calf farms systems in New Zealand. The assessment protocol was trialled on 25 farms over two visits and took a total of 2.5 h over both visits for a 100-cow herd. The first visit in autumn included an animal welfare assessment of 3366 cows during pregnancy scanning, while the second visit in winter included a questionnaire-guided interview to assess cattle management and health, and a farm resource evaluation. Through a process of eliminating unsuitable measures, adjustments of modifiable measures and retaining feasible measures, a protocol with 32 measures was created. The application of the protocol on the farms showed that not all measures are feasible for on-farm assessment, and categorisation of identified animal welfare measures into scores that indicate a threshold of acceptable and non-acceptable welfare standards is necessary.


Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 1592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Baby Kaurivi ◽  
Rebecca Hickson ◽  
Richard Laven ◽  
Tim Parkinson ◽  
Kevin Stafford

The intention of this study was to develop standards for a welfare assessment protocol by validating potential categorisation thresholds for the assessment of beef farms in New Zealand. Thirty-two measures, based on the Welfare Quality and the University of California (UC) Davis Cow-Calf protocols, plus some indicators specific to New Zealand, that were assessed during routine yardings of 3366 cattle on 25 cow-calf beef farms in the Waikato region were categorised on a three-point welfare score, where 0 denotes good welfare, 1 marginal welfare, and 2 poor/unacceptable welfare. Initial categorisation of welfare thresholds was based upon the authors’ perception of acceptable welfare standards and the consensus of the literature, with subsequent derived thresholds being based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of farms for each measure. Imposed thresholds for lameness, dystocia, and mortality rate were retained in view of the significance of these conditions for the welfare of affected cattle, while higher derived thresholds appeared more appropriate for dirtiness and faecal staining which were thought to have less significant welfare implications for cattle on pasture. Fearful/agitated and running behaviours were above expectations, probably due to the infrequent yarding of cows, and thus the derived thresholds were thought to be more appropriate. These thresholds provide indicators to farmers and farm advisors regarding the levels at which intervention and remediation is required for a range of welfare measures.


Agriculture ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Kaurivi ◽  
Richard Laven ◽  
Rebecca Hickson ◽  
Kevin Stafford ◽  
Tim Parkinson

Farm animal welfare assessment protocols use different measures depending on production systems and the purpose of the assessment. There is no standardized validated animal welfare protocol for the assessment of beef cattle farms in New Zealand, despite the importance of beef exports to the country. The aim of this study was therefore to identify welfare measures that would be suitable for an animal welfare assessment protocol for use in extensive pasture-based cow–calf beef cattle systems in New Zealand. The proposed animal welfare assessment measures were selected from the Welfare Quality protocol and the rangeland-based UC Davis Cow–Calf Health and Handling assessment protocol. Measures that were deemed impractical and/or unsuitable were excluded from the protocol. After testing the applicability of selected measures at one farm, additional measures that were deemed to be practical to undertake in New Zealand were identified and incorporated into the protocol. The intention was to identify animal welfare indicators that were assessable in the yard during a single farm visit, a questionnaire guided interview, and a farm resource assessment visit that evaluated cattle health and management. Further testing of the 50 measures that were identified as being appropriate will be undertaken on commercial beef farms to develop a practicable welfare protocol for extensive pasture-based beef systems.


Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 250
Author(s):  
Yolande Baby Kaurivi ◽  
Richard Laven ◽  
Rebecca Hickson ◽  
Tim Parkinson ◽  
Kevin Stafford

This paper aims to develop standards for a welfare assessment protocol by validating potential categorisation thresholds for assessing beef farms in various beef cow-calf production systems in Namibia. Forty measures, combined from a New Zealand-based protocol plus Namibia-specific measures, are applied to 55 beef farms (17 commercial farms, 20 semi-commercial and 18 communal village farms) during pregnancy testing, and a questionnaire guided interview. The categorised measures on a 3-point welfare score (0: good, 1: marginal, and 2: poor/unacceptable welfare) are subsequently compared with the derivation of thresholds based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of herds for each measure. The overall combined thresholds of continuous measures across the three farm types show 10/22 measures that posed welfare compromise across Namibia, whereas commercial farms have 4/22 measures, and semi-commercial and communal village farms have 12/22 and 11/22, respectively, with high thresholds. Most measures-imposed thresholds are retained because of significant importance to the welfare of animals and preventiveness of the traits, while leniency was given to adjust good feeding and mortality measures to signify periods of drought. Handling measures (fearful, falling/lying) and abrasions thresholds are adjusted to reflect the temporary stress caused by infrequent cattle handling, and faulty yard designs/design and possible cattle breed influence on handling. Hence, Namibia needs prioritised investigation of underlying contributing factors and remediation to reduce the high thresholds.


Author(s):  
Y. Baby Kaurivi ◽  
Richard Laven ◽  
Rebecca Hickson ◽  
Tim Parkinson ◽  
Kevin Stafford

The study aimed to develop standards for a welfare assessment protocol, by validating potential categorisation thresholds for assessment of beef farms in various beef cow-calf production systems in Namibia. Forty measures combined from a New Zealand-based protocol plus Namibia-specific measures, were applied on 55 beef farms (17 commercial farms, 20 semi-commercial and 18 communal village farms) during pregnancy testing, and a questionnaire guided interview. The categorised measures on a 3-point welfare score of 0: good 1: marginal and 2: poor/unacceptable welfare were subsequently compared with derivation of thresholds based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of herds for each measure. Overall combined thresholds of continuous measures across the 3 farm types, showed 10/22 measures that posed welfare compromise across Namibia, where commercial farms had 4/22 measures and semi-commercial and communal village farms had 12/22 and 11/22 respectively with high thresholds. Most measures-imposed thresholds were retained because of significant importance to welfare of animals and preventiveness of the traits, while leniency was given to adjust good feeding and mortality measures to signify periods of drought. Handling measures (fearful, falling/lying) and abrasions thresholds were adjusted to reflect the temporary stress caused by infrequent cattle handling, and faulty yard designs/design and possible cattle breed influence on handling. Hence, the country needs prioritised investigation of underlying contributing factors and remediation to reduce the high thresholds.


Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 1918
Author(s):  
Sujan Sapkota ◽  
Richard Laven ◽  
Kristina Müller ◽  
Nikki Kells

Despite being a leading producer and exporter of dairy products, New Zealand has no industry-recognised welfare assessment protocol. A New Zealand-specific protocol is essential, as almost all dairy farms in New Zealand are pasture-based and housing is rarely used. Therefore, protocols developed for intensive cows are not suitable. The aim of this study was to develop a simple yet practical welfare assessment protocol that could be used to assess the welfare of a dairy herd during one visit timed to occur around milking. Six welfare assessment protocols and four studies of dairy cattle welfare assessments that had some focus on dairy cattle welfare at pasture were used, along with the New Zealand Dairy Cattle Code of Welfare, to identify potential assessments for inclusion in the protocol. Eighty-four potential assessments (20 record-based and 64 that needed assessing on-farm) were identified by this process of welfare assessments. After screening to exclude on-farm assessments that were not relevant, that had only limited practical application in pasture-based dairy cows or that required more time than available, 28 on-farm assessments remained, which were put together with the 20 record-based assessments and were tested for feasibility, practicality and time on two pasture-based dairy farms. Assessments were then identified as suitable, suitable after modification or not feasible. Suitable and modified assessments were then included in the final protocol alongside additional measures specific to New Zealand dairy farms. The final protocol included 24 on-farm assessments and eight record-based assessments. Further testing of these 32 assessments is needed on more dairy farms across New Zealand before the protocol can be used to routinely assess the welfare of dairy cows in New Zealand.


2011 ◽  
Vol 65 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 399-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Slavca Hristov ◽  
Zvonko Zlatanovic ◽  
Branislav Stankovic ◽  
Dusica Ostojic-Andric ◽  
Vesna Davidovic ◽  
...  

In this paper, welfare assessment using the methodology of the Welfare quality ? assessment protocol for cattle (2009) was performed for dairy cows maintained in the loose system of rearing on three dairy farms. This methodology includes quantitative measurements and qualitative evaluation of certain welfare parameters, criteria and principles of welfare, as well as assessment of the overall welfare of dairy cows. The results showed that the overall level of dairy cow welfare was acceptable on two farms, and was good on one. On two farms, the state of the cows? social behavior expression was unacceptable. Furthermore, on all three farms, the expression of other types of cow behavior was not acceptable. At one farm, it was determined that the result for the absence of prolonged thirst was unacceptable. Based on these results, it can be concluded that it is necessary to improve the quality of cow welfare on these farms. The applied methodology provides a multidimensional insight into the quality of cow welfare in the loose system.


Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
Laura X. Estévez-Moreno ◽  
Genaro C. Miranda-de la Lama ◽  
Morris Villarroel ◽  
Laura García ◽  
José Alfonso Abecia ◽  
...  

Understanding temperament is an important part of cattle production since undesirable temperament may cause serious problems associated with aggression, maternal care, and human safety. However, little is known about how farmers define or assess temperament, especially in autochthonous cattle breeds. The aim of this study was to explore perceptions of farmers about the temperament of the Pyrenean cattle breed with special attention to beef cow-calf systems in Spain. The methodology used to obtain the information was focus group discussions (FGD). Farmers defined temperament as a behavioural response to challenging situations imposed by human handling. Specific terms used were related to active or passive reactions to fear (e.g., “strong”, “aggressive”, “nervous”, “fearful”). The speed of response to stimuli was also important. Female temperament was thought to become more docile with age while bull temperament was more variable. Maternal aggressiveness was highlighted as a potential human safety problem, but also desirable in an extensively bred animal who may need to defend calves against predators. Anatomical characteristics were seen as unreliable predictors of temperament, while behavioural indicators were more widely used, such as “alertness”, which was a general trait of the breed, and “gaze”, which, when associated with an alert expression, suggests a potential threat. Sensory acuity, such as sight and smell, were thought to be related with temperament in some FGDs but there was no overall agreement as to whether different behavioural responses were due to differences in sensory acuity. The results from the study could be useful during training programs or in the development of new genetic selection schemes and evaluation protocols involving cattle temperament.


Author(s):  
Robin E Crossley ◽  
Eddie A M Bokkers ◽  
Natasha Browne ◽  
Katie Sugrue ◽  
Emer Kennedy ◽  
...  

Abstract The different periods characterizing spring-calving, pasture-based dairy systems common in Ireland have seldom been the focus of large-scale dairy cow welfare research. Thus, the aim of this study was to devise and conduct an animal-based welfare assessment during both the grazing and housing periods on spring-calving, pasture-based dairy farms, to identify areas for improvement and establish benchmarks for indicators of good welfare. Assessment of seven animal-based welfare indicators was conducted during two visits (one each at grazing and housing) to 82 commercial dairy farms in southern Ireland. Herd-level descriptive statistics were performed for all welfare indicators at each visit, and differences between visits were analyzed using paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. A mean of 9% and 10% clinically lame cows (mobility score 2 and 3) were observed at housing and grazing respectively. Recommended body condition scores (BCS) were not met for a mean of 13% of cows at grazing and 23% at housing, with more over-conditioned cows present at housing than grazing (P < 0.001). Ocular discharge was uncommon in both periods. Prevalence of moderate and severe nasal discharge combined were lower during housing (5%) than grazing (7%). In both periods, similar mean levels of tail injury were observed; 2 to 3% of cows with tail lacerations, 9% with broken tails, and 8% (measured at housing only) with docked tails. Integument alterations involved primarily hair-loss and were most prevalent on the hindquarters (26%) during grazing, and on the head-neck-back region (66%), and the hindquarters (32%) during housing. Cows displayed an avoidance distance of > 1 m (indicative of a fearful response) from an approaching human in an average of 82% of grazing cows and 42% to 75% of housed cows, dependent on test location. Opportunities to improve welfare in this system were identified in the areas of tail injury prevention, nasal health and the management of indoor housing and feeding. The performance of the top 20% of farms for each welfare indicator was used to establish benchmarks of: 0 to 5% clinical lameness; 0 to 12% of cows outside recommended BCS; 0 to 27% ocular discharge; 2 to 16% nasal discharge; 0% tail lacerations and docked tails, and 0 to 3% tail breaks; 0 to 14% IA; and 4 to 74% for avoidance distance of > 1 m. These represent attainable targets for spring-calving pasture-based farms to promote good dairy cow welfare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document