Search

The aim of the present paper is to describe the framework of a new method for assessing dairy cows' welfare at farm level. In contrast with TGIs, the method is based on observations of animals and leads to several scores according to the needs of the animals. We started with five general needs. These were the five freedoms: freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury or disease; freedom to express normal behaviour; and freedom from fear and distress. These were further subdivided into 16 basic needs. A list of the 49 indices, or welfare-indicators, most commonly measured in animals (behaviours, injuries etc.) was produced and the patterns each index can have were described. Each pattern was rated on a value-scale with regard to any need. On this basis frequencies within a herd reflecting a very low, low, high or very high level of welfare were determined, allowing us to attribute a score to a given herd for any pattern. We then proposed to pool the scores obtained by a herd for all patterns of a given index into a single score for that index. To this end, we defined logical rules that limited compensation between scores. Step by step, the information can be pooled to obtain a single score for indices that are closely related, for basic needs, and finally for each of the five freedoms. Ways to validate such a method are discussed. The method can be used in a survey to detect relations between environmental conditions and animal welfare. It can also be used in connection with dairy farm labelling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Maladjusted cubicles for dairy cattle may cause increased skin alterations, lameness, and dirtiness. The International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering has produced several recommendations for cubicle design, but a previous study showed that not all of them seem efficient. Here, we aim to refine and complete these recommendations. We collected data on 76 dairy farms (2,404 cows). We modeled the association between combinations of cubicle properties (e.g., type of bedding litter) and dimensions (e.g., cubicle width) relative to cow size, and prevalence of cow skin alterations, lameness, and dirtiness. We used weighted multivariable logistic regression models to predict the presence of skin alteration on the carpus; the neck, shoulder, and back; the flank, side, and udder; and the tarsus or hindquarters. We also evaluated the presence of lameness as well as the dirtiness of the lower hind legs including hocks; the hindquarters, upper hind legs, and flank; the cow rear including tail; and the udder. The risk factors highlighted led us to recommend (1) position cubicles in a way that leaves more than 1 m of clearance from any obstacle in front of the cubicle; (2) if there is an obstacle on the lateral plane (i.e., where the cubicle partition is) in front ahead of the cow, put the obstacle in front of the fore knees; (3) if there is an obstacle in front of the cow on the median plane (e.g., neck or front rail), the position the obstacle between 1.25 and 1.5 of the cow length from the curb and between 1.0 and 1.25 of its height; (4) use curb height between 0.11 and 0.15 of cow height with no sharp edges on the curb; (5) use round or at least has no sharp edges brisket board; (6) use a stone-free soil instead of concrete or use a mattress thicker than 1 cm, with microrelief, and a soft fixing area at the curb, (7) litter with straw (rather than nothing or sawdust) and keep it dry. This risk factor analysis should be followed by experiments in controlled environments to further validate these conclusions and used to update the International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Design of cubicles and self-locking barriers can affect cow skin alterations, lameness, and dirtiness. We investigated whether the International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (CIGR, Gainesville, FL)-recommended cattle housing design and dimensions actually improve cow welfare. We recorded individual cow body dimensions and assessed skin alterations, dirtiness, and lameness on 3,841 cows from 131 loose housing dairy farms (76 farms with cubicles and 55 straw-yard systems). We recorded the dimensions of cubicles (e.g., width, length, and so on) and of the self-locking barrier (e.g., top rail height and so on) for each farm. We then compared whether these dimensions would match with the individual cow body dimensions and whether compliance was associated with the occurrence of skin alterations, lameness, and dirtiness. Most cows (69.2%) had at least one skin alteration, on the tarsus (41.2%); neck, shoulder, or back (28.2%); hindquarters (22.0%); carpus (21.2%); and flank, side, or udder (11.6%). Lameness prevalence reached 17.9%. Most cows (83.1%) were scored dirty in at least one body region, mainly on the lower hind legs including hocks (81.4%), hindquarters (41.8%), and udder (21.0%). Cubicle recommendations were mostly met for cubicle resting length (75.9% of cubicles) and neck rail distance (NRD, 60.7%) but less so for overall cubicle length (CL, 38.8%), cubicle width (CW, 30.9%), neck rail height (NRH, 22.5%), head space (HS, 15.8%), partition zone for controlling lying position (ii zone, 15.7%), head and lunging space (HLS, 10.6%), partition head zone (i zone, 9.4%), and partition zone for pelvis freedom (iii zone, 6.0%). Compliance with design recommendations was associated with fewer skin alterations on neck (recommendation met for CW, CL, HS, and NRD and i zone), hindquarters (CW, CL, NRD), tarsus (CW, i and ii zones), and carpus (CW, HS, i and ii zones); less lameness (CW, NRH, i zone); and less dirtiness on the hindquarters (CW, HLS, NRD), lower hind legs (iii zone), and udder (CW, CL, HLS, NRD). Compliance with recommended i zone and ii zone design was associated with less injury and lameness but more dirtiness, whereas the opposite was true for the iii zone. Self-locking barrier recommendations were mostly met for bottom rail height (68.2%), separation wall width (SWW, 68.3%), and top rail height (TRH, 56.9%) and less often met for separation wall height (36.3%) and height difference between feeding floor and walking alley (26.5%). Risk for skin alterations on carpus and neck only decreased when SWW and TRH met recommendations. In conclusion, compliance with CIGR recommendations for some cubicle dimensions and neck rail position was associated with lower risk for cow welfare. However, the CIGR recommendations on cubicle partitions and self-locking barriers still leave welfare at risk and so need to be refined through further research with close observation of cow lying and feeding behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Corrigendum to "Do International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (CIGR) dimension recommendations for loose housing of cows improve animal welfare?" Table 2 International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (CIGR, 2014) recommendations on dimensions for cubicles and self-locking barriers and requirement for each recommendation to be met 1 A. de Boyer des Roches, R. Lardy, J. Capdeville, L. Mounier, I. Veissier, Do International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (CIGR) dimension recommendations for loose housing of cows improve animal welfare?. [Extracted from the article]