Dataset Information

Should the Contribution of One Additional Lame Cow Depend on How Many Other Cows on the Farm Are Lame?

ABSTRACT: Welfare Quality® proposes a system for aggregation according to which the total welfare score for a group of animals is a non-linear effect of the prevalence of welfare scores across the individuals within the group. Three assumptions serve to justify this: (1) experts do not follow a linear reasoning when they assess a welfare problem; (2) it serves to prevent compensation (severe welfare problems hidden by scoring well on other aspects of welfare); (3) experts agree on the weight of different welfare measures. We use two sources of data to examine these assumptions: animal welfare data from 44 Danish dairy farms with Danish Holstein Friesian cows, and data from a questionnaire study with a convenience sample of 307 experts in animal welfare, of which we received responses from over 50%. Our main results were: (1) the total group-level welfare score as assigned by experts is a non-linear function of the individual animal welfare states within the group; (2) the WQ system does not prevent what experts perceive as unacceptable compensation; (3) the level of agreement among experts appears to vary across measures. Our findings give rise to concerns about the proposed aggregation system offered by WQ.

SUBMITTER: Sandoe P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5742790 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Should the Contribution of One Additional Lame Cow Depend on How Many Other Cows on the Farm Are Lame?

Sandøe Peter P Forkman Björn B Hakansson Franziska F Andreasen Sine Norlander SN Nøhr Rikke R Denwood Matt M Lund Thomas Bøker TB

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI 20171211 12

Welfare Quality<sup>®</sup> proposes a system for aggregation according to which the total welfare score for a group of animals is a non-linear effect of the prevalence of welfare scores across the individuals within the group. Three assumptions serve to justify this: (1) experts do not follow a linear reasoning when they assess a welfare problem; (2) it serves to prevent compensation (severe welfare problems hidden by scoring well on other aspects of welfare); (3) experts agree on the weight of ...[more]

PMID: 29232887

Similar Datasets

Project description:Lameness affects dairy cows worldwide and is usually associated with pain. Behavioral differences in lame compared to non-lame tie-stall-housed dairy cows might be less pronounced than in free-stall-housed, since the principle demands to a cow's locomotor system and thus the impact of lameness on behavior seem to be lower in tie stalls. Behavioral differences between lame and non-lame cows might be used to estimate the impact of lameness on the well-being of tied dairy cows. In the current study, lame cows were categorized as locomotion scoring between 2.25 and 3.25 on a 1-5 scale. The aim was to compare the eating, rumination and lying behavior of lame cows against non-lame tied dairy cows, in order to draw conclusions on the association of lameness, behavior and well-being in tied dairy cows. The eating and rumination behavior of 26, the lying behavior of 30, and the relative upright and lying activities of 25 matched case-control pairs were analyzed, considering the matching criteria farm, breed-type, and parity-group. Lame cows had fewer [mean of the pairwise differences (case-control) (meandiff) = -2.6 bouts, CI95% (-3.8--1.4) bouts, p = 0.001], but longer lying bouts [meandiff = 26.7 min per bout, CI95% (10.1-43.4) min per bout, p = 0.006]. The lying time was shorter [meandiff = -64.7 min, CI95% (-104.4--24.9) min, p = 0.006] in lame cows compared to their non-lame controls. Lame cows had a shorter eating time [meandiff = -27.7 min, CI95% (-51.5--4.0) min, p = 0.042] and spent a larger proportion of their upright time ruminating [meandiff = 7.2%, CI95% (3.2-11.1)%, p = 0.001] instead of eating. The results of the current study indicate that the eating, rumination, and lying behavior of lame tied dairy cows is altered. These findings indicate that slight and moderate lameness (locomotion score between 2.25 and 3.25 on a 1-5 scale) are likely to be associated with an impaired well-being in affected tied dairy cows. This underlines the need to continuously reduce the lameness prevalence and severity in tied dairy herds.

Project description:The purpose of this study was to assess the ovarian and energy status of multiparous lame dairy cows at the end of puerperium and investigate their responsiveness to estrous synchronization treatment regimens. Initial lameness scoring was performed at 28 ± 5 and 37 ± 5 d post partum, followed by lesion documentation and treatment. Cows were blocked by lameness severity and were randomly allocated to an estrous synchronization treatment regimen with seven days of progesterone supplementation (group LP, n = 26) or with an administration of PGF2α twice, 14 d apart (group LC, n = 26). Non-lame cows served as controls (group C, n = 27) and the same treatment regimen was imposed as that for group LC. Twelve days after estrous presynchronization, an Ovsynch treatment regimen and timed AI were imposed. Ultrasonography of the ovaries and blood sampling for progesterone were used to assess cyclicity status, whereas β-hydroxybutyrate (BHBA) and non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) were used to assess energy status. Lame cows were to a greater proportion non-cycling (36.5% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.02), had greater overall NEFA concentrations (0.32 ± 0.02 vs. 0.26 ± 0.02 mEq/L; p = 0.02) and a greater incidence of elevated NEFA concentrations (53.9% vs. 29.6%, p = 0.04) compared to control cows. However, no interaction between energy and lameness status was evident regarding non-cycling cows. The percentage of cows responding to the presynchronization, synchronization and ovulating did not differ between groups LP, LC, and C. The first-service conception rate (FSCR) tended to be greater for group C (37.0%) compared to group LP (16.0%; p = 0.08). Long-term reproductive performance did not differ between lame and control cows, although culling rates did (21.2% vs. 0%, respectivly; p = 0.01). The severity of lameness had an effect on culling rates (30.6% vs. 0% for cows with marked vs. moderate lameness; p = 0.01), whereas the type of lesion largely explained poor reproductive performance (FSCR 13.9% vs. 40.0% for cows with claw horn disruptions vs. infectious lesions; p = 0.04). Conclusively, cows that were lame during puerperium are at a greater risk of not cycling irrespective of energy status. Treatment regimens for the synchronization of ovulation seem to be efficient at resuming ovarian cyclicity. Marked lameness was detrimental to survivability, whereas cows with claw horn lesions had compromised reproductive capacity.

Dataset Information

Should the Contribution of One Additional Lame Cow Depend on How Many Other Cows on the Farm Are Lame?

Publications

Should the Contribution of One Additional Lame Cow Depend on How Many Other Cows on the Farm Are Lame?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets