Search

Foot disorders are an important health problem in dairy cattle, in terms of economics and animal welfare. The incidence, severity, and duration of foot disorders account for their importance. Prevalence of both subclinical and clinical foot disorders is high. More insight into the economic consequences could increase awareness among dairy farmers and could be an incentive for them to take action on this problem of animal welfare. The objective of this research was to estimate the economic consequences of different types of foot disorders, both clinical and subclinical. A dynamic stochastic Monte Carlo simulation model was used, taking into account the different types of foot disorders. The economic consequences of the foot disorders modeled were costs due to milk production losses, culling, prolonged calving interval, labor of the dairy farmer and the foot trimmer, visits of a veterinarian, treatment, and discarded milk. Under the milk quota system in the Netherlands, costs due to foot disorders for a default farm with 65 cows averaged $4,899 per year (ranging from $3,217 to $7,001), an annual loss of $75 per cow. This calculation implies that the costs due to foot disorders are more substantial than farmers might think. The costs of subclinical foot disorders account for 32% of all costs due to foot disorders. The costs due to foot disorders that are present without treatment or detection by the farmer are considerable. This finding implies that farmers might underestimate the benefits of taking action earlier and more thoroughly. A clinical foot disorder costs, on average, $95, and a subclinical foot disorder $18. The highest costs classified by foot disorder were those due to digital dermatitis, which has a high incidence and relatively high clinical prevalence. The highest costs classified by cost factor were those due to milk production losses and culling. Sensitivity analysis showed that variables regarding milk production were important for economic costs due to foot disorders. Furthermore, the probability of getting a foot disorder and probability of cure were important for estimating the costs due to foot disorders. Farmer awareness concerning dairy cow foot health and taking action more thoroughly, therefore, could reduce the economic consequences and improve welfare simultaneously.

Veehouders weten goed welke maatregelen er zijn tegen kalverdiarree, maar passen ze in de praktijk vaak niet toe. ‘Geen noodzaak’, ‘te weinig tijd’ of ‘te onpraktisch voor de eigen situatie’ zijn veelgehoorde argumenten om geen actie te ondernemen.

Dairy farming in western countries with cubicle housing is an efficient way of dairy farming. Though, a disadvantage is the high prevalence and incidence of foot disorders (clinical and subclinical), which cause high economic losses and also seriously impair the welfare of dairy cattle. To point out the importance of reducing the amount and severity of foot disorders, advice to farmers should include information about the scale of the problem and the consequences in terms of economics and animal welfare. To provide support in making decisions on implementing intervention measures, insight into costs and benefits of different measures should be available. The objective of this study, therefore, is to provide more insight into the costs and benefits, for farmer and cow, of different intervention measures to improve dairy cow foot health. Intervention measures were modeled when they were applicable on a dairy farm with cubicle housing and when sufficient information was available in literature. Net costs were calculated as the difference between the costs of the measure and the economic benefits resulting from the measure. Welfare benefits were calculated as well. Cost-effective measures are: improving lying surface (mattress and bedding, €7 and €1/cow per year, respectively), reducing stocking density (break even) and performing additional foot trimming (€1/cow per year). Simultaneously, these measures have a relative high welfare benefit. Labor costs play an important role in the cost-effectiveness of labor-intensive measures. More insight into cost-effectiveness and welfare benefits of intervention measures can help to prioritize when choosing between intervention measures.

Foot disorders are the main cause of dairy cow lameness and are considered to have a major impact on the welfare of dairy cattle. This study adopts a modeling approach, using a dynamic stochastic model, to provide more insight into the welfare impact of different types of foot disorders, both clinical and subclinical. The impact of specific foot disorders on welfare was assessed by simulating the incidence and duration of foot disorders and the pain associated with them. Pain assessment was based on locomotion scores, with underlying knowledge obtained from scientific literature and experts. The results demonstrated the seriousness of the welfare impact of foot disorders. The negative welfare impact was measured on a scale from 0 to 60, where the maximum outcome represents a cow having very severe pain during the whole year. On average, each cow achieves a welfare impact score of 12, which is 20% of the maximum welfare impact score. This welfare score equals having severe pain for a period of 3 months, indicating a serious impact on welfare. On average, digital dermatitis impacts most on welfare, which is caused by a high incidence of the painful clinical stage, followed by sole hemorrhages (SoH) and interdigital dermatitis and heel horn erosion (IDHE). The combination of a high incidence and long duration of SoH and IDHE causes this relatively high welfare impact of foot disorders that occur mostly subclinically. On average, over 1 year, 46% of the welfare impact due to foot disorders is caused by clinical foot disorders. The fact that subclinical foot disorders contribute more or less equally to the effects on welfare as clinical ones, indicates that farmers may readily underestimate the welfare impact by a factor two. Modeling welfare impact at cow level, individual cases of foot disorders, stresses the importance of pain intensity, indicating the importance of clinical foot disorders. This study demonstrated the serious welfare impact of foot disorders in dairy cattle and pointed out the considerable impact of subclinical foot disorders. Furthermore, the approach of welfare assessment, for example herd v. cow level, influenced the ranking of foot disorders for their impact on animal welfare. Potentially, this leads to different prioritization of specific solution strategies for dairy farmers, for example, focusing on cow comfort, hygiene or preventive medical treatments, foot trimming and/or health monitoring. The findings in this study support in raising awareness about this welfare issue.

This paper considers the economic consequences and the welfare impact of foot disorders in dairy cattle and the association between them, taking into account clinical and subclinical foot disorders. In dairy farming with cubicle housing and concrete floors, foot disorders are a major welfare problem with serious economic consequences. On average, foot disorders cost €53 per cow per year, of which indirect cost factors are the main cause. Subclinical foot disorders, which are the foot disorders not recognised by dairy farmers, account for 50% of the total welfare impact and 32% of the total costs. The consequences of foot disorders can be difficult to observe and more insight into these consequences is helpful in stimulating actions to improve dairy cow foot health. Digital dermatitis (DD), an infectious foot disorder, is the most serious foot disorder from both an economic and welfare perspective. The correlation between economics and animal welfare impact suggests that reducing the problem of foot disorders from an economic perspective will positively influence the welfare of dairy cows. Insight into economic and welfare consequences of the different foot disorders, including the association between them, can help make dairy farmers more aware and help with decision-making regarding measures to improve dairy cow foot health. Keywords: animal welfare, dairy cattle, economics, foot disorders, modelling, welfare impact

Euthanasie van dieren die ernstig en uitzichtloos lijden, is verplicht. Op 1 januari 2013 wordt de EU-verordening van kracht die aangeeft wanneer en met welke methoden euthanasie door de varkenshouder is toegestaan

In this paper the results are presented of a national survey in the Netherlands. The aim was to identify and describe the convictions about animals that people have in Dutch society and the role of these in judgments on the culling of healthy animals during an animal disease epidemic. A total of 1,999 responses was received and two groups of respondents were distinguished: A profile (50% of the respondents) and B profile (28%). The A profile respondents considered humans to be superior to animals, whereas the B profile respondents considered both to be equal. Both groups were of the opinion that animals have value, that people have a duty to care for and protect all animals, and that all animals have a right to life. These convictions were based on a number of values, such as animal life, the ability of animals to feel pain and emotions (sentience), and the importance of animal species in the ecosystem. The results of a case study suggest that convictions play a role in judgment. More A respondents agreed with the culling of healthy animals during an animal disease epidemic. More B respondents partly (dis)agreed or disagreed with this. Most respondents (A: 81%, B: 61%) agreed with culling to protect human life. The most important argument against culling was the value of animal life. The A respondents rated all arguments against culling significantly lower than did the B respondents.

Veehouders weten goed welke maatregelen er zijn tegen kalverdiarree, maar passen ze in de praktijk vaak niet toe. ‘Geen noodzaak’, ‘te weinig tijd’ of ‘te onpraktisch voor de eigen situatie’ zijn veelgehoorde argumenten om geen actie te ondernemen.

Euthanasie van dieren die ernstig en uitzichtloos lijden, is verplicht. Op 1 januari 2013 wordt de EU-verordening van kracht die aangeeft wanneer en met welke methoden euthanasie door de varkenshouder is toegestaan

Dairy cow foot health is a subject of concern because it is considered to be the most important welfare problem in dairy farming and causes economic losses for the farmer. In order to improve dairy cow foot health it is important to take into account the attitude and intention of dairy farmers. In our study the objective was to gain insight into the attitude and intention of dairy farmers to take action to improve dairy cow foot health and determine drivers and barriers to take action, using the Theory of Planned Behavior. Five hundred Dutch dairy farmers were selected randomly and were invited by email to fill in an online questionnaire. The questionnaire included questions about respondents' intentions, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control and was extended with questions about personal normative beliefs. With information from such a framework, solution strategies for the improvement of dairy cow foot health can be proposed. The results showed that almost 70% of the dairy farmers had an intention to take action to improve dairy cow foot health. Most important drivers seem to be the achievement of better foot health with cost-effective measures. Possible barriers to taking action were labor efficiency and a long interval between taking action and seeing an improvement in dairy cow foot health. The feed advisor and foot trimmer seemed to have most influence on intentions to take action to improve dairy cow foot health. Most farmers seemed to be satisfied with the foot health status at their farm, which probably weakens the intention for foot health improvement, especially compared to other issues which farmers experience as more urgent. Subclinical foot disorders (where cows are not visibly lame) were not valued as important with respect to animal welfare. Furthermore, 25% of the respondents did not believe cows could suffer pain. Animal welfare, especially the provision of good care for the cows, was valued as important but was not related to intention to improve dairy cow foot health. The cost-effectiveness of measures seemed to be more important. Providing more information on the effects of taking intervention measures might stimulate farmers to take action to achieve improvement in dairy cow foot health.

In current dairy farming it is possible to run a profitable farm without having to adapt the system to the needs of dairy cows. In such systems the interests of the farmer and animals often diverge. Consequently, specific animal welfare problems occur. Foot disorders in dairy cattle are an illustrative example resulting from the specific methods of housing and management in current dairy farming. Foot disorders and the resulting lameness are considered the most important welfare problem in dairy farming. However, these foot disorders not only typify welfare problems related to certain housing systems, but they also lead to the premature culling of cows. The assessment of the impact of foot disorders on the welfare of dairy cows raised the question of whether premature culling affects animal welfare since it affects the longevity of a cow. We argue that this aspect of longevity is morally relevant as an animal welfare issue. In this paper we aim to explore whether longevity is both (a) a morally relevant aspect in the discussion on killing animals and (b) a constitutive element of animal welfare. In other words, we aim to explore whether longevity is an independent moral argument in an animal welfare discussion. We claim that longevity is not merely important as an indicator of animal welfare, but is also a constitutive element of animal welfare. We argue that we need a more integrated approach to animal welfare and that an assessment that includes the aspect of time is necessary. This view involves a shift from views on animal welfare in terms of functioning or feeling well to a view on animal welfare that includes the aspect of natural living in which species-specific development is important. To show the impact of these points of view, we look at the practical implications for choices concerning the management of foot disorders in dairy cattle.