Search

Calf rearing practices differ among farms, including feeding and weaning methods. These differences may relate to how dairy producers view these practices and evaluate their own success. The aim of this study was to investigate perspectives of dairy producers on calf rearing, focusing on calf weaning and how they characterized weaning success. We interviewed dairy producers from 16 farms in Western Canada in the following provinces: British Columbia (n = 12), Manitoba (n = 2), and Alberta (n = 2). Participants were asked to describe their heifer calf weaning and rearing practices, and what they viewed as successes and challenges in weaning and rearing calves. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and subjected to qualitative analysis from which we identified the following 4 major themes: (1) reliance on calf-based measures (e.g., health, growth, and behavior), (2) management factors and personal experiences (e.g., ease, consistency, and habit), (3) environmental factors (e.g., facilities and equipment), and (4) external support (e.g., advice and educational opportunities). These results provided insight into how dairy producers view calf weaning and rearing, and may help inform the design of future research and knowledge transfer projects aimed at improving management practices on dairy farms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transition period (±3 wk around calving) diseases are prevalent in dairy systems. In this review we describe the physiological and behavioral changes experienced by cows during the transition period and during the dry period leading up to this. Our narrative review examines risk factors associated with these diseases in zero-grazing and grazing systems. The available research indicates that cows in these 2 systems experience similar incidences of transition diseases, and that low or high BCS and lameness are key manageable risks associated with both systems. Other cow- and herd-level risk factors identified in this review are parity, breed, and seasonal variability in disease incidence. Some risks appear to arise earlier in the dry period, outside what is normally considered the transition period; we recommend that future studies of transition period diseases should consider the entire dry period. We also encourage new work on measuring the effect of intervention strategies during late lactation on transition period diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many dairy cattle worldwide are housed in tiestalls, meaning that they are tethered by the neck to individual stalls. On some farms, tied cattle are permitted seasonal access to pasture, but otherwise their movements are restricted compared with cows housed in freestall barns or other loose housing systems. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the scientific literature pertaining the welfare of tied dairy cattle through comparison with less-restrictive housing systems. Articles identified by PubMed and Web of Science underwent a 5-phase screening process, resulting in the inclusion of 102 papers. These papers addressed measures of welfare related to affective state, natural behavior, and health (with the lattermost category subdivided into hoof and leg disorders, lameness, mastitis, transition disease, and other diseases or conditions). Health was the most researched topic (discussed in 86% of articles); only 19% and 14% of studies addressed natural behavior and affective state, respectively. Our review highlights different health benefits for tethered and loose cattle. For example, tied cattle experience reduced prevalence of white line disease and digital dermatitis, whereas loose cattle experience fewer leg lesions and injuries. The prevalence of mastitis, transition diseases, and other conditions did not differ consistently across housing types. We found that the expression of certain natural behaviors, particularly those associated with lying down (e.g., time spent kneeling, unfulfilled intentions to lie down), were impaired in tiestalls. Articles addressing affective state found benefits to loose housing, but these studies focused almost exclusively on (1) physiological measurements and (2) cow comfort, a concept that lacks a consistent operational definition across studies. We call for future research into the affective state of tied cattle that extends beyond these explorations and employs more sophisticated methodologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cattle are gregarious animals able to form social relationships. Dominance is one of the most widely studied social behaviors of dairy cattle, especially cows confined indoors. However, much of the past dairy cattle research has used an unstandardized approach, differing in definitions and conceptual understanding of dominance, as well as their methods of data collection and dominance calculation. The first of the 3 aims of this review is to evaluate how dominance relates to the social behavior of housed dairy cows. Cows engage in agonistic interactions to establish and reinforce dominance relationships. An individual's dominance is influenced by intrinsic characteristics, such as personality, and extrinsic factors, including group composition. When competing for resources, agonistic interactions can also be influenced by individual motivational differences, such as hunger, which may diminish the role of dominance in regulating competition. Our second aim is to critically review methods used to assess dominance in cows. This includes discussions on the effect of time and location of data collection on measured values as well as the viability and limitations of some dominance calculation methods. We propose that different methodologies lend themselves to different types of research questions. For example, the use of data stream-based methods that consider the sequence of interactions are useful for estimating how dominance fluctuates with changing conditions and can be used in a dynamically changing group. In contrast, matrix-based methods that aggregate social interactions may be best for identifying the social position of individuals and understanding how social characteristics influence the attributes of a stable hierarchy. Our third aim is to discuss the future of dominance research. We use a flowchart to illustrate guidelines for a more standardized approach to measuring dominance in cattle. We also identify areas in need of further conceptual clarification, suggest practical applications of dominance when managing dairy cattle, and discuss some limitations of dominance research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The provision of pasture and outdoor access for dairy cattle differs around the globe. For example, in Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia, dairy farms are largely pasture based, whereas dairy farms in the United States and Canada are largely confinement based. There is a high level of public support for pasture and outdoor access for dairy cows, and the available evidence shows that dairy cattle are highly motivated to access pasture, especially at night. The decision as to whether to provide outdoor access is typically made by farmers, but little is known about dairy farmers' perspectives on this topic. We investigated perspectives of Western Canadian dairy farmers on outdoor access, as well as how they believe different stakeholders (i.e., the dairy industry, the dairy cows, and the general public) regard outdoor access for dairy cows. Data were collected via (1) 11 focus group discussions with a total of 50 Western Canadian dairy farmers, and (2) semi-structured individual interviews with an additional 6 dairy farmers of Hutterite colonies. Data were analyzed using template analysis. Although most participants in this study did not provide outdoor access on their farms, or only provided outdoor access to certain cow groups, participants generally mentioned that they enjoyed seeing cows on pasture or outdoors. However, participants shared that the Canadian supply management system (including processors) required a consistent flow of production, which was thought to be easier and more economically realized with indoor housing of lactating cows. Participants believed that pasture or outdoor access for dairy cows was desired by the public. Some participants believed that dairy cows prefer to spend time outside under favorable weather conditions, but others felt that cows preferred to stay indoors in modern, ventilated freestall barns. The results of this study describe the perspectives of dairy farmers regarding the views of dairy industry stakeholders as they relate to outdoor access, helping to inform conversations around the provision of outdoor access for dairy cattle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dairy cows are highly motivated to access pasture, especially at night in summer. When pasture is not available, dairy cows show a partial preference for alternative types of outdoor access, spending half the night outside in summer on an outdoor sand or wood chip pack. However, many dairy farms do not provide cows outside access. To better understand reasons why dairy farmers choose to provide or not provide outdoor access, we studied the perspectives of dairy farmers located in the 4 Western Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Data were collected via (1) 11 focus group discussions with a total of 50 Western Canadian dairy farmers, and (2) semi-structured individual interviews with 6 dairy farmers of Hutterite colonies. Transcripts were analyzed using template analysis. Reasons to not provide outdoor access fell into 5 main themes: (1) adverse climate conditions, (2) negative implications of outdoor access for cow welfare including concerns about udder health, (3) concerns regarding decreases in profitability, (4) farm infrastructure not set up for outdoor access, and (5) higher ability to manage animals kept indoors. Reasons to provide outdoor access fell into the 5 main themes: (1) local climate conditions conducive for outdoor access, (2) beneficial effects of outdoor access on cow welfare including lower lameness prevalence, (3) increased profitability due to a premium milk price provided to farmers that allow pasture access to their cows, (4) farm infrastructure that is set up for outdoor access, and (5) easier management of animals outdoors. We conclude that the decision to provide outdoor access depends on how farmers weigh these factors given the constraints on their farm, as well as their personal beliefs and values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Students completing advanced degrees in dairy or animal science may go on to have a major impact on the food animal agriculture industries. The aim of this study was to better understand student views of the future of dairying, including changes in practices affecting animal care on farms as well as perceived public perceptions. We conducted 6 focus group sessions with undergraduate students enrolled in the 2019 US Dairy Education and Training Consortium held in Clovis, New Mexico, and used explorative key word analysis of written notes and thematic analysis of the semi-structured discussions. Some "must-haves" of future animal care on dairy farms included increased use of technology, group housing of calves, and adequate facilities, including enrichment. Students also discussed their views of public expectations regarding animal care on dairy farms, and measures that they felt must be put into place to address these expectations in the coming years. Although the influence of the public was highlighted by the students, they were not always certain what specific values the public holds and doubted the feasibility and practicality of some expectations, such as providing pasture access or keeping the calf and cow together. They further demonstrated uncertainty about how best to align the directions of the industry with public expectations. Although they felt that public education could be used to demonstrate the legitimacy of dairy practices, they also believed that the industry should strive to find compromises and work toward meeting public expectations. Deciding what animal welfare considerations (e.g., naturalness, affective states, or animal health) were most relevant was a challenge for the students, perhaps reflecting diverging messages received during their own education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Standard operating procedures (SOP) are increasingly required on farms participating in animal welfare assurance programs, such as the Dairy Farmers of Canada's proAction initiative and the National Dairy FARM Program in the United States. However, little is known about the use of SOP on farms and who is involved in their development. Literature from other industries shows the importance of including advisors when developing SOP. Despite veterinarians being viewed by many farmers as trusted sources of information, little is known about their involvement in SOP development. The aim of this study was to better understand: (1) what advice from researchers and veterinarians is considered when developing an SOP and (2) what factors affect advice adherence. Participants in this study were farmers (n = 9) from 6 dairy farms in the Fraser Valley region of British Columbia, Canada and their herd veterinarians (n = 5). Structured and semi-structured interviews and participant observation were undertaken from April to December 2018, and the resulting data were analyzed using thematic analysis. In relation to the first aim, we identified 3 main themes: (1) the purpose of the SOP, (2) developing an SOP, and (3) accountability and tracking of procedures. For the second aim, 5 themes emerged: (1) feasibility of the advice, (2) resources required, (3) priority of the advice, (4) other actors involved, and (5) the importance of data. Collectively, these findings suggest that a farm-specific SOP that actively tracks procedures is most beneficial, and that advice adherence is context dependent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Similar to the situation in many countries, the dairy industry in Canada is challenged by the need to adapt to changing societal demands. An industry-led initiative (Dairy Farmers of Canada's proAction Initative, known as proAction) was developed to respond to this challenge, providing mandatory national standards for on-farm practices. Farmers are more likely to follow such standards if they are aligned with their values and beliefs. The aim of this study was to better understand farmers' perspectives on the future of the Canadian dairy industry, with a focus on the role of mandatory policies such as those related to proAction. Seven focus groups were conducted, with discussions based on the principles of appreciative inquiry. Participants were each asked to write down key words that represent the "must-haves" on dairy farms in 20 yr from now. Although participants were encouraged to focus on aspects directly related to animal care, all answers were accepted. Key words were then used to facilitate a discussion and elicit ideas on how to achieve these must-haves. Particular focus was on the direction that participants believed policy should take to meet these goals. Explorative qualitative analysis was used for the written key words, and transcripts of the audio-recorded focus group discussions were analyzed using thematic analysis. Examples of farm-specific considerations that were raised as future must-haves of animal care on dairy farms included cow comfort, employee management, responsible health management, and use of advanced thechnologies. Participants agreed that objectives can only be achieved through collaboration among farmers and between farmers and researchers, and they regarded citizen education as a promising approach to align differing expectations of the public and farmers. Citizen trust in the dairy industry was considered a must-have, and participants believed that one of the benefits of mandatory policies for animal care is their potential to increase trust. These results may help guide the development of new animal care policies and increase understanding of the perceived legitimacy of new policies by dairy farmers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Days in milk, low BCS and parity were associated with increases of lameness prevalence. • Severely lame cows produced on average 1.3 kg/day less milk than non-lame cows. • The slipperiness of the alley located adjacent to the feed bunk was associated with higher lameness prevalence. • Cows in sand deep-bedding freestall and compost-bedded barns had lower lameness prevalence. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate factors associated with lameness in dairy cows on intensive farms in southern Brazil. Farms (freestall: n = 38; compost-bedded pack: n = 12) having on average 274 (range: 41–901) lactating cows were visited once in 2016 (March to October). Potential risk factors for lameness at the cow, pen and herd levels were investigated through inspection of facilities, examination of cows and the use of data collected on routine management practices. All milking cows on each farm were assessed for gait score and BCS (n = 13,716). Associations between lameness, days in milk (DIM), BCS, parity, and test-day milk yield were investigated in 16 farms with available data (n = 5,301 cows). Mixed-effects linear and logistic regressions were used to model the data. Within-herd lameness prevalence was 41.1% (range: 13.8–64.5, SD = 11.3). First- and second-lactation cows after 120 DIM and older cows after 335 DIM were more likely to be observed lame than early lactation cows. Greater parity and low BCS (≤ 2.75) were associated with increased odds of lameness. Severely lame cows had lower milk yield (on average 1.3 kg/d) than non-lame cows. Freestall dairies using mattresses as stall base had greater within-pen (95% CI: 52–69%) and herd-level (38–57%) lameness prevalence than compost-bedded farms. Higher lameness prevalence was observed on farms having slippery feed bunk alley floors (32–49%) and shortened dry periods (< 60 days: 32–42%). First-lactation pens had lower predicted within-pen lameness prevalence (0–4%) and special-needs pens higher (52–73%) compared with the prevalence observed in compost-bedded fresh-cow pens (19–41%). Freestall pens using sawdust deep-bedding had greater (46–68%) within-pen lameness prevalence, but the prevalence in barns using sand was not different from compost-bedded farms. Given the high lameness prevalence observed in this study, there is a great opportunity for implementation of lameness prevention programs. Providing walking surfaces with high traction that facilitates mobility and using soft and deep-bedded material, such as compost and sand (and avoiding the use of mattresses) may reduce lameness prevalence in the types of dairy farms visited in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]