Developing effective training and certification schemes for improving on-farm dairy cattle welfare

Author(s):  
Antoni Dalmau ◽  
◽  
Antonio Velarde ◽  

This chapter discusses developing effective training and certification schemes for improving on-farm dairy cattle welfare. It begins by reviewing the selection of measures that can be used for assessing animal welfare, focusing firstly on animal-based measures, then moves on to review resource and management based measures. The chapter also discusses the four welfare quality principles – feeding, housing, health and behaviour – and how dairy cattle welfare can be affected by the quality these four principles. Training of assessors is also discussed, before a summary of why using a combination of resource-based, management-based and animal-based measures is the best way to ensure good welfare in animals such as dairy cattle.

Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 1786
Author(s):  
Eugénie Duval ◽  
Marina A.G. von Keyserlingk ◽  
Benjamin Lecorps

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


animal ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 461-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.K. Kirchner ◽  
H. Schulze Westerath ◽  
U. Knierim ◽  
E. Tessitore ◽  
G. Cozzi ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 10-10
Author(s):  
Monique Pairis-Garcia ◽  
Ivelisse Robles

Abstract Euthanasia of mature swine and cattle can be challenging. On-farm euthanasia should be used as a tool to eliminate pain and suffering. However, clear guidelines regarding making euthanasia decisions and alternative euthanasia techniques available for use is limited in the United States (US). In order to prevent prolonged suffering and pain in compromised animals, science-based recommendations are needed to ensure timely and humane euthanasia can be performed when needed on-farm. This presentation will focus on two euthanasia challenges currently faced in swine and dairy cattle systems in the US today: 1) Swine: Validating alternative euthanasia techniques for use in mature breeding stock and 2) Dairy Cattle: Identifying producer barriers preventing timely euthanasia decision-making using surveys and focus groups. The swine study evaluated the effectiveness of two penetrating captive bolt gun styles (cylinder or pistol) using a frontal, temporal and behind-the-ear placement. Four treatments were 100% effective in achieving cardiac arrest and death. The cylinder style captive bolt gun resulted in greater brain trauma and death compared to a pistol style gun and behind-the-ear and temporal placement showed promise as an alternative placement site for euthanizing mature pigs. In the dairy cattle study, dairy producers were recruited to participate in a survey and focus group. Survey results indicated that farm owners were most commonly responsible for on-farm euthanasia and most respondents would treat and monitor compromised cattle for a majority of health conditions, regardless of condition severity. Participants in focus groups focused primarily on animal welfare as the most important factor influencing the decision to euthanize and the desire to eliminate animal suffering by using euthanasia as a tool. This work highlights the complicated challenges that arise when euthanizing livestock and the importance of not only identifying appropriate techniques to humanely euthanize livestock but address the emotional and animal welfare factors that influence these decisions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank A. M. Tuyttens ◽  
Sophie de Graaf ◽  
Sine Norlander Andreasen ◽  
Alice de Boyer des Roches ◽  
Frank J. C. M. van Eerdenburg ◽  
...  

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


2009 ◽  
Vol 234 (5) ◽  
pp. 673-673
Author(s):  
Hussni O. Mohammed ◽  
Korana Stipetic ◽  
Patrick L. McDonough ◽  
Ruben N. Gonzalez ◽  
Daryl V. Nydam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2016 ◽  
Vol 52 ◽  
pp. 6-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. V. Gladiy ◽  
G. S. Kovalenko ◽  
S. V. Priyma ◽  
G. A. Holyosa ◽  
A. V. Tuchyk ◽  
...  

The main goal of dairy breeds selection should be improving breeding and productive qualities of animals under modern conditions. The majority of farms, using native breeds to produce milk, has created optimal conditions for keeping and feeding, selection and matching, growing of replacements etc. Further improvement of created native dairy breeds for economically useful traits occurs at total use of purebred Holstein bulls (semen) of foreign selection. In order to realistically assess milk productivity (milk yield, fat content in milk and fat yield) of Ukrainian Black-and-White and Red-and-White Dairy cows should be conducted a comparative analysis of Holstein cows under the same conditions of feeding and keeping. It was established that Ukrainian Red-and-White Dairy cows were characterized by the highest milk yields for 305 days of all lactations, taken into account, the among three investigated breeds. Their milk yield during the first lactation was 5933 kg of milk, during the second – 6393 kg, the third – 6391 kg and during higher lactation – 6650 kg. Ukrainian Black-and-White Dairy cows were second by milk yield (except for the second lactation), during the first lactation – 5932 kg of milk, the third – 6462 kg and higher – 6541 kg, and Holstein cows were third, during the first lactation – 5794 kg of milk, the second – 6381 kg, the third – 6335 kg and higher – 6469 kg. The fat content was almost the same and varied within 3.49-3.58% in milk of Ukrainian Red-and-White Dairy cattle, 3.50-3.60% in milk of Ukrainian Black-and-White Dairy cattle and 3.50-3.56% in Holsteins’ milk. The difference between the breeds was within 0.01-0.04%. All the investigated breeds had predominance in fat yield for three lactations over standards of these breeds: Ukrainian Red-and-White Dairy cows from 75.1 to 93.4 kg, Ukrainian Black-and-White Dairy cows – 75.1-89.0 kg respectively and Holstein cows – 41.9-60.2 kg. It was found different level of positive correlation between milk yield and fat yield in all the cases and high correlation (r = 0.604-0.921, P < 0.001) in five cases (41.7%) Negative correlation coefficients indicate that selection of animals to higher milk yield in the herd will decrease the second trait – fat content in milk. Positive and highly significant correlation between milk yield and fat yield indicates that selection of cows in the herd to higher milk yields will increase fat yield. It was revealed that bulls were among the factors impacted the milk productivity (milk yield, fat content, fat yield) of three investigated breeds. So, the force (η²x) of father’s impact on milk yield was15.4-47.9%, fat content – 22.0-43.4% and fat yield – 14.9-47.7% taking into account a lactation and a breed. The force of lines impact (η²x) was second; it was on milk yield 6.1-24.5%, fat content – 4.1-17.1 and fat yield – 5.8-23.5%. The force of breeds impact (η²x) was last; it was on milk yield 0.3-2.9%, fat content – 0.2-0.3% and fat yield – 0.6-2.7%. So, the comparative studies of milk productivity of Ukrainian Red-and-White and Black-and-White Dairy cattle with Holsteins indicate that under similar conditions of feeding and keeping, these native breeds can compete with Holstein cattle. The milk yield for 305 days of higher lactation was 6650 kg of milk in Ukrainian Red-and-White Dairy cows, 6541 kg in Ukrainian Black-and-White Dairy cows and 6469 kg in Holsteins. It was found the inverse correlation r = -0.025-0.316 between milk yield and fat content in milk in most cases. Selection and matching of animals in the herd should be carried out simultaneously on these traits. It was found positive repeatability of milk yields between the first and second, the third and higher lactations (rs = 0.036-0.741), indicating the reliability of forecasting increase in milk productivity during the next lactations in all herd. Bulls have the greatest impact (η²x) on milk productivity among the factors taken into account: milk yield – 15.4-47.9%, fat content in milk – 22.0-43.4% and fat yield – 14.9-47.7%.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Siobhan Mullan ◽  
Bobby Stuijfzand ◽  
Andrew Butterworth

AbstractA range of welfare outcome measures relating to on-farm welfare are monitored in UK slaughterhouses to check compliance with the European Broiler Directive. A national dataset from 438,155 batches of chickens between 2010 and 2014 and from 228,795 batches between 2016 and 2018 was analysed. The data contained information about 3.1 billion chickens. The highest mean proportion for a single condition was for ascites/oedema in 2016–2018 at 0.384%, affecting 3.9 million chickens/year sent to slaughter during that time, followed by abnormal colour/fevered at 0.324%, affecting 3.4 million chickens/year. Identifying farms most likely to have poor welfare is an important strategy for improving animal welfare overall, and for maximising the capacity for checking regulatory compliance when resources are limited. We found a greater proportion of broiler farms overall remained consistently in the best quartile (16.4%) rather than the worst quartile (6.6%). Farms that exceeded a Government ‘trigger’ threshold for poor welfare were significantly more likely to subsequently improve than ‘non-trigger’ farms, although they usually remained in the worst performing quartile of farms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document