Accepted Manuscript Title: Housing and management factors associated with indicators of dairy cattle welfare Author: M. de Vries E.A.M. Bokkers C.G. van Reenen B. Engel G. van Schaik T. Dijkstra I.J.M. de Boer PII: DOI: Reference:

S0167-5877(14)00406-1 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.11.016 PREVET 3693

To appear in:

PREVET

Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

25-5-2014 14-11-2014 17-11-2014

Please cite this article as: de Vries, M., Bokkers, E.A.M., van Reenen, C.G., Engel, B., van Schaik, G., Dijkstra, T., de Boer, I.J.M.,Housing and management factors associated with indicators of dairy cattle welfare, Preventive Veterinary Medicine (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.11.016 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Housing and management factors associated with

2

indicators of dairy cattle welfare

3

M. de Vriesa,*, E.A.M. Bokkersa, C.G. van Reenenb, B. Engelc, G. van Schaikd, T. Dijkstrad and I.J.M. de Boera

ip t

1

cr

4 5

a

6

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected],

7

b

Livestock Research, Wageningen UR, 8200 AB Lelystad, the Netherlands. E-mail address: [email protected],

8

c

Biometris, Wageningen University, 6700 AC Wageningen, the Netherlands. E-mail address: [email protected],

9

d

GD Animal Health Service, 7400 AA Deventer, the Netherlands. E-mail addresses: [email protected];

us

an

10

Animal Production Systems group, Wageningen University, 6700 AH Wageningen, the Netherlands. E-mail addresses:

[email protected].

11

* Corresponding author at: Animal Production Systems group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, the

13

Netherlands. Tel.: +31 317 484626. E-mail address: [email protected].

Ac ce p

te

d

M

12

1

Page 1 of 30

14 15

1

16

Knowledge of potential synergies and trade-offs between housing and management factors for different aspects

17

of animal welfare is essential for farmers who aim to improve the level of welfare in their herds. The aim of this

18

research was to identify and compare housing and management factors associated with prevalence of lameness,

19

prevalence of lesions or swellings, prevalence of dirty hindquarters, and frequency of displacements (social

20

behavior) in dairy herds in free-stall housing. Seven observers collected data regarding housing and management

21

characteristics of 179 Dutch dairy herds (herd size: 22-211 cows) in free-stall housing during winter. Lame

22

cows, cows with lesions or swellings, and cows with dirty hindquarters were counted and occurrence of

23

displacements was recorded during 120 min of observation. For each of the four welfare indicators, housing and

24

management factors associated with the welfare indicator were selected in a succession of logistic or log linear

25

regression analyses. Prevalence of lameness was associated with surface of the lying area, summer pasturing,

26

herd biosecurity status, and far-off and close-up dry cow groups (P < 0.05). Prevalence of lesions or swellings

27

was associated with surface of the lying area, summer pasturing, light intensity in the barn, and days in milk

28

when the maximum amount of concentrates was fed (P < 0.05). Prevalence of dirty hindquarters was associated

29

with surface of the lying area, proportion of stalls with fecal contamination, head lunge impediments in stalls,

30

and number of roughage types (P < 0.05). Average frequency of displacements was associated with the time of

31

introducing heifers in the lactating group, the use of cow brushes, continuous availability of roughage, floor

32

scraping frequency, herd size, and the proportion cows to stalls (P < 0.05). Prevalences of lameness and of

33

lesions or swellings was lower in herds with soft mats or mattresses (odd ratio (OR) = 0.66 and 0.58, confidence

34

interval (CI) = 0.48-0.91 and 0.39-0.85) or deep bedding (OR = 0.48 and 0.48, CI = 0.32-0.71 and 0.30-0.77) in

35

stalls, compared with concrete, and in herds with summer pasturing (OR = 0.68 and 0.41, CI = 0.51-0.90 and

36

0.27-0.61), compared with zero-grazing. Deep bedding in stalls was negatively associated with prevalence of

37

dirty hindquarters (OR = 0.50, CI = 0.29-0.86), compared with hard mats. It was concluded that some aspects of

38

housing and management are common protective factors for prevalence of lameness, lesions or swellings, and

39

dirty hindquarters, but not for frequency of displacements.

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

Abstract

40 41

Keywords: 1

dairy

cattle,

animal

welfare,

risk

factor,

environment,

housing,

management

Abbreviation: composite health score (CHS)

2

Page 2 of 30

42 43

Introduction

44

The level of animal welfare varies considerably among dairy herds. Prevalences of lameness and hock injuries,

46

for example, have been reported ranging from 0% up to 100% (Fourichon et al., 2001; Von Keyserlingk et al.,

47

2012; Brenninkmeyer et al., 2013). At the same time, considerable variation between farms exists in housing and

48

management conditions that are expected to affect dairy cattle welfare (Von Keyserlingk et al., 2012). This

49

suggests there is room for improvement of dairy cattle welfare.

us

cr

ip t

45

50

Improvement of the level of welfare on a farm by adjusting housing or management factors is complicated

52

because animal welfare is a multidimensional concept (Fraser, 1995). This multidimensionality is illustrated by

53

the fact that animal welfare comprises not only physical (i.e. health and vigor), but also psychological aspects

54

(i.e. sense and feeling; Webster, 2005). Consequently, animal welfare assessment requires the use of multiple

55

indicators. The Welfare Quality protocol for cattle, for example, includes indicators relating to the aspects of

56

feeding, housing, health, and behavior (Welfare Quality, 2009). Welfare indicators relating to similar aspects of

57

animal welfare have been associated with similar housing and management factors. For example, lameness and

58

skin lesions are welfare indicators related to dairy cattle health, and both have been associated with surface of the

59

lying area in free-stalls and with pasturing (e.g. Haskell et al., 2006; Brenninkmeyer et al., 2013; Chapinal et al.,

60

2013). This may be partly due to biological relations between these two indicators. For indicators related to

61

different aspects of animal welfare, however, it is largely unknown whether they are influenced by similar-, or

62

by different housing and management factors, and whether changing a factor has opposite (trade-off) or synergic

63

effects on these indicators. Positioning the neck rail of the free-stall further from the rear curb, for example, was

64

a protective factor for lameness and for hair loss at the hocks (synergy), but it has also been associated with

65

decreased cow cleanliness due to defecation in the stall (trade-off; e.g. Bernardi et al., 2009; Dippel et al., 2009;

66

Fregonesi et al., 2009; Potterton et al., 2011).

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

51

67 68

Knowing potential synergies and trade-offs of housing and management factors for different indicators of animal

69

welfare is essential for farmers who aim to improve the overall welfare level of their herd. Because housing and

70

management factors associated with dairy cattle welfare can differ across regions, due to, for example,

3

Page 3 of 30

geographical differences in housing design and popular opinions of best practices in the area (Chapinal et al.,

72

2013), identification and comparison of factors associated with dairy cattle welfare is preferably done in the

73

same population. Only in a few studies associations between housing and management factors and indicators

74

relating to different aspects of dairy cattle welfare have been considered simultaneously (e.g. Burow et al., 2012;

75

Husfeldt and Endres, 2012; Coignard et al., 2013). In the present study, we considered four indicators included

76

in the Welfare Quality protocol for dairy cattle (2009) relating to three aspects of animal welfare: prevalence of

77

lameness (relating to health), prevalence of lesions or swellings (health), prevalence of dirty hindquarters

78

(cleanliness), and average frequency of displacements (behavior). A displacement is the act of an animal giving

79

up its present position as a consequence of an agonistic interaction. These indicators were selected because of the

80

data availability of potentially relevant explanatory housing and management factors for each individual

81

indicator, and because they encompassed different aspects of animal welfare (e.g. health and behavior). This

82

allowed us to examine the extent to which indicators relating to the same or different aspects of animal welfare

83

were influenced by the same or different housing and management factors. The aim of this research was to

84

identify and compare housing and management factors associated with prevalence of lameness, prevalence of

85

lesions or swellings, prevalence of dirty hindquarters, and average frequency of displacements in dairy herds

86

with free-stall housing.

89

Materials and methods

Ac ce p

88

te

87

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

71

90

Herd selection

91

In order to evaluate associations between housing and management factors and animal welfare indicators with

92

some confidence, a wide range of the level of animal welfare is required. This cannot be achieved with random

93

sampling of herds when prevalence of herds with poor welfare is low, because the necessary sample sizes would

94

be too large to be covered by the costs of observations. Therefore, herds were selected, in order to obtain a

95

sufficiently wide range of animal welfare. We used several national databases containing routine herd data

96

relating to demography, milk production, and milk composition to calculate a composite health score (CHS)

97

between 0 (worst) and 50 (best) for approximately 5,000 herds (approximately 30% of the national population)

98

participating in a health program of a Dutch dairy cooperative. Data stored in these databases are routinely

99

collected from Dutch dairy farms by the Dutch identification and registration system, the rendering plant, the

4

Page 4 of 30

milk quality assurance company, the animal health service, and the cattle improvement syndicate. The CHS, for

101

which data was used from January 2008 through June 2009, consisted of five variables of routine herd data

102

shown to be associated with animal welfare (De Vries et al., 2011): cow and young stock mortality, bulk tank

103

milk somatic cell count, new udder infections, and fluctuations in standardized milk production. A herd was

104

assigned zero points per variable when it was among the 10% worst values, and 10 points when it was among the

105

90% best values of all herds in the databases in 2004. Subsequently, 500 herds were approached to participate in

106

the study: 250 herds were randomly selected from the 5% lowest CHS (i.e. CHS ≤ 40) and 250 herds from the

107

95% highest CHS (i.e. CHS > 40). From these 500 herds, 163 farmers responded positively, 75 negatively and

108

262 failed to respond. Non-responders were contacted by phone. In total, 196 farmers agreed to participate: 90

109

from the 5% lowest CHS, and 106 from the 95% highest CHS.

an

us

cr

ip t

100

110

Of the selected herds, 13 herds were housed in tie-stalls and two in straw yards. Because the number of herds for

112

these two housing systems was too small for a reliable statistical analysis of risk factors involved here, herds in

113

tie-stalls and straw yards were excluded from the analysis. Data of two herds in free-stall housing were also

114

excluded, because the WQ protocol could not be executed correctly in these herds. In the remaining 179 herds,

115

herd size ranged from 22 to 211 cows and average milk production was 25.9 ± 4.2 kg per cow/d.

116

te

d

M

111

Data collection and processing

118

Three herd health practitioners, one veterinarian, and three animal scientists, each with previous experience in

119

dairy production and handling, were trained to use the Welfare Quality assessment protocol for dairy cattle

120

(Welfare Quality, 2009). Herds were distributed among these observers based on proximity to their home

121

address. Observers were not informed about the herds’ CHS. Each observer visited 14 to 48 herds once from

122

November 2009 through March 2010 (winter), when cows had been denied access to pasture for at least 2 weeks.

123

Observers collected data for lameness, lesions and swellings, dirty hindquarter, displacements, and housing- and

124

management factors (Table 1). Data collection methods are described briefly below (details can be found in

125

Welfare Quality (2009)).

Ac ce p

117

126 127

Lameness

5

Page 5 of 30

Lameness was assessed for a predefined number of lactating and dry cows (sample size depended on herd size,

129

see Welfare Quality, 2009), walking in a straight line and on a hard, level surface, using a 5 points scoring

130

system described by Winckler and Willen (2001). Cows were grouped into classes ‘not lame’ (scores 1 and 2),

131

and ‘lame’ (score 3, 4 and 5). Data were expressed at the herd level, as percentages of assessed cows that were

132

lame.

ip t

128

cr

133

Lesions and swellings

135

For the same cows as assessed for lameness, lesions and swellings with a minimum diameter of 2 cm at the

136

largest extent were counted on the left or the right (as a 50:50 ratio) lateral side of the whole body. These data

137

were expressed at the herd level, as percentages of assessed cows with at least one lesion or swelling.

an

us

134

138

Dirty hindquarter

140

For the same cows as assessed for lameness, lesions and swellings, the presence of separate or continuous

141

plaques of dirt amounting to at least the size of the palm of a hand was recorded for one hindquarter on a

142

randomly chosen side of the body. These data were expressed at the herd level, as percentages of assessed cows

143

with a dirty hindquarter.

te

144

d

M

139

Displacements

146

For the observations of displacements, the observer first divided the barn in a number of imaginary segments.

147

The number of segments depended on herd size (Welfare Quality, 2009), with a maximum of about 25 lactating

148

cows per segment. In each segment, occurrence of displacements was recorded using continuous behavior

149

sampling (Martin and Bateson, 1993). A displacement was described as an interaction involving physical contact

150

where the actor is butting, hitting, thrusting, striking, or pushing the receiver with a forceful movement, and the

151

receiver gives up its present position with at least half a body length or width (Welfare Quality, 2009).

152

Observations did not start earlier than one hour after morning feeding. Total observation time was 120 min, with

153

a minimum of 10 min per segment. In case the number of segments was below six, segment observations were

154

repeated in the second hour of observation. A displacement was recorded only when the actor’s head was inside

155

the segment of observation. Animals present in the segment were counted at the start and the end of each

Ac ce p

145

6

Page 6 of 30

156

segment observation, and observation time per segment was recorded. Data collected at the segment level was

157

expressed as average frequency of displacements per cow per hour at the herd level as in Eq. (1).

158

(1)

ip t

159 160

where n is the number of segments, s is segment 1, ..., n , DPs is the number of displacements in segment s, OTs

162

is observation time (h) in segment s, nstarts is the number of animals present at the start of the observation in

163

segment s, and nends is the number of animals present at the end of the observation in segment s.

us

cr

161

164

Housing and management data

166

Measures relating to herd characteristics, housing, feeding, milking, dry cow and young stock, and other

167

management practices (Table 1) were collected using a checklist and an interview with the stockperson.

an

165

M

168

Data analyses

170

To explore associations between welfare indicators, Spearman rank correlations (rs) were calculated. They were

171

preferred over Pearson correlations, because indicators could not be assumed to be normally distributed. Next,

172

separate regression analyses were carried out for each welfare indicator, with the welfare indicator as the

173

response variable, variables described in Table 1 as explanatory variables, and herd as experimental unit.

174

Continuous explanatory variables (e.g. herd size) were converted into class variables. The two tertiles, i.e. the

175

points that divide the ordered observations in three approximately equal groups, were taken as threshold values

176

for the classes (Table 1). All calculations were performed with GenStat (VSN International Ltd., 2011).

177

First, univariable analyses were performed with complete cases to evaluate the association between a response

178

variable and each of the explanatory variables separately. Logistic and log linear regression analyses were

179

performed for prevalence data (essentially proportions) and for frequency data (essentially counts), respectively,

180

using quasi-likelihood estimation (McCullagh and Nelder, 1989), employing software for generalized linear

181

models. A binomial distribution with a logit link function was specified for the prevalence of lameness, lesions

182

or swellings, and dirty hindquarters, whereas a Poisson distribution with a log link function was specified for the

183

average frequency of displacements. In both cases, a multiplicative overdispersion parameter was estimated from

184

Pearson’s chi-square statistic divided by its degrees of freedom, and included in the variance function.

Ac ce p

te

d

169

7

Page 7 of 30

Explanatory variables showing an association with the response variable with P-value < 0.20 of the approximate

186

F-test (adapted from the quasi-likelihood ratio test) were included in subsequent analyses with multiple

187

explanatory variables. Pearson’s chi-square test for independence was used to check for multicollinearity

188

between two explanatory variables. Second, in the multivariable regression analyses, backward and forward

189

stepwise selection of explanatory variables was used, with adjusted R2 as selection criterion. Explanatory

190

variables that were selected by either of the two stepwise procedures were included in best subset selection,

191

again with adjusted R2 as the selection criterion. Explanatory variables in the subset with the highest adjusted R2

192

that were significantly (P < 0.05) associated with the response variable were retained in the final model. As a

193

final check on possible confounding, each explanatory variable that was dropped from consideration was added

194

to the final model in turn, to inspect its effect upon the contribution of the other selected variables. Variables that

195

were (partially) confounded were not simultaneously included in the model. Only the variable that made most

196

biological sense was retained. Two-way interactions among the explanatory variables that were retained in the

197

final model were inspected. Standardized deviance residuals in the final model were visually inspected. Outliers

198

were identified based on large standardized residuals. Outliers were checked for recording errors and the model

199

was refitted without the outlier(s) to determine the impact upon conclusions. Effects of explanatory variables

200

were shown as odds ratios and relative risks for logistic and log-linear analyses, respectively.

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

185

201

For numerical reasons, both for lameness prevalence and frequency of displacements, the number of explanatory

203

variables to be retained in the final models of the stepwise procedures proved to be too large for the best subset

204

selection procedures. Therefore, the explanatory variables were put in a random order and split in two groups,

205

which could then be analyzed separately in best subset selection. To reduce effects on selection, the splitting

206

procedure was repeated fifteen times. Explanatory variables that were significantly associated with the response

207

variable (P < 0.05) in the thirty models were combined in a final best subset selection, and the same approach as

208

described above was followed for retaining significantly associated explanatory variables in the final model, and

209

checking for possible confounding.

Ac ce p

202

210 211

Results and discussion

212

8

Page 8 of 30

The median within-herd prevalence observed was 32.3% lame cows (range 0-97.7%), 35.9% cows with lesions

214

or swellings (range 0-97.6%), and 33.3% cows with dirty hindquarters (range 0-100%). The median number of

215

displacements per cow per hour was 0.43 (range 0-1.85 displacements/cow per hour). Data were complete for

216

prevalence of lameness, prevalence of dirty hindquarters and frequency of displacements. There was a missing

217

value for prevalence of lesions or swellings in one herd. The correlation between prevalence of lameness and

218

lesions or swellings was significant (rs = 0.37, P < 0.001). Prevalences varied considerably among herds (Figure

219

1), which indicated room for improvement. Ranges found in the present study were similar to those found in

220

other studies where welfare indicators were investigated (e.g. Von Keyserlingk et al., 2012). However, because

221

herds in the present study were not randomly selected, the observed prevalence was not representative of the

222

population of Dutch dairy farms as a whole.

an

us

cr

ip t

213

223

Herds in this study were selected on the basis of a CHS to achieve more variation in the level of animal welfare.

225

In a recent literature review (De Vries et al., 2011), we showed that, so far, associations between the variables in

226

this CHS and dairy cattle welfare indicators had been reported mainly at the level of the individual animal or in

227

experimental settings. The present study showed that CHS is useful in selecting for variation in the level of

228

welfare of dairy cows at herd level under commercial conditions as well; herds selected from the 5% lowest CHS

229

tended to show more lame cows and more cows with dirty hindquarters than herds selected from the 95% highest

230

CHS (P < 0.10; results presented in De Vries et al. (2013)). Yet there are a number of aspects of this selection

231

procedure that may restrict the interpretation of the results. First, the choice of parameters in the CHS may have

232

resulted in selecting a specific group of herds with poor welfare, and with specific farm characteristics in terms

233

of housing and management. We expect, however, that the influence of the choice of parameters for the selection

234

of dairy herds on farm characteristics (and ultimately on explanatory variables in our regression models) was

235

limited, because the selected herds differed in many respects. Herd size, for example, ranged from 22 to 211

236

cows, milk production ranged from 13.5 to 34.5 kg per cow/d, cows were pastured in three-fourth of the herds,

237

and an automated milking system was present in one-fourth of the herds. Second, our selection procedure likely

238

increased variation in welfare among herds, which may have inflated the association between management and

239

housing factors and welfare indicators obtained in the present study. The evaluation of the multivariable

240

regression models, however, can be expected to be markedly more accurate, and hence more efficient, for

241

selected herds than for random herds. This was the decisive argument for selection of herds in the present study.

Ac ce p

te

d

M

224

9

Page 9 of 30

242

Data quality of welfare indicators may have influenced performance of prediction models. We did not evaluate

244

reliability (i.e., the extent to which the same results are obtained among and within observers (Knierim &

245

Winckler 2009)) of the four welfare indicators in this study, because the objective of Welfare Quality was to

246

develop a protocol built on evidence-based indicators. This does not necessarily imply, however, that reliability

247

of these indicators was high. Therefore, additional studies are required to further substantiate the associations

248

between welfare indicators and risk factors identified in the present study

us

249

cr

ip t

243

Factors associated with lameness

251

Twenty-six explanatory variables were to some extent (P < 0.20) associated with prevalence of lameness in the

252

univariable regression (Appendix). In the multivariable regression, average stall width was dropped in favor of

253

predominant surface of the lying area, since these were confounded. Two outliers were identified, but removal of

254

these outliers did not markedly affect the results. Odds ratios and associated confidence intervals of the

255

explanatory variables retained in the final model are shown in Table 2. Prevalence of lameness was negatively

256

associated with the use of soft mats or mattresses, or deep bedding compared to concrete as the predominant

257

surface of the lying area, pasturing, a closed herd status, and separating dry cows into a far-off and a close-up

258

group.

M

d

te

Ac ce p

259

an

250

260

The negative association between prevalence of lameness and the use of soft mats or mattresses, or deep bedding

261

in stalls and pasturing was consistent with other studies (e.g. Haskell et al., 2006; Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007;

262

Dippel et al., 2009; Burow et al., 2012; Husfeldt and Endres, 2012; Chapinal et al., 2013). Studies have reported

263

a higher prevalence of lame cows in herds with mattresses compared to deep bedding (e.g. Cook et al., 2004; Ito

264

et al., 2010). Such a difference was not evaluated in our study because stall surfaces were compared to concrete

265

only. Similar to the positive association between the prevalence of lameness and an open biosecurity status of

266

herds in our study, Frankena et al. (1991) and Holzhauer et al. (2008) showed a higher risk of lameness and sole

267

ulcers for farms purchasing heifers. A possible explanation might be that a closed herd prevents introduction of

268

lameness-related infectious agents. To our knowledge, no other studies have found associations between

269

prevalence of lameness and separation of dry cows in far-off and close-up groups. The negative association

270

between lameness and dry cow groups might indicate a beneficial effect of strategic feeding in these groups. Diet

10

Page 10 of 30

composition around calving, for example, is thought to affect the occurrence of laminitis via lactic acidosis

272

(Nocek, 1997; Donovan et al., 2004). Another explanation for this negative association might be that dry cow

273

groups are more often kept in straw yards instead of free-stalls. A lower occurrence of hoof problems has been

274

found in straw yards compared to free-stalls (Webster, 2002; Somers et al., 2003). On the other hand, Barker et

275

al. (2007) found that keeping dry cows in straw yards was associated with increased lameness. Barker et al.

276

(2007) hypothesized that keeping cows temporarily in straw yards can thin the sole horn, which may lead to sole

277

ulcers when cows are kept on hard floors after calving. Contrary to other studies, we did not find an association

278

between the prevalence of lameness and other housing and management factors, e.g. other aspects of stall design

279

(e.g. Bernardi et al., 2009; Rouha-Mulleder et al., 2009), alley flooring (Barker et al., 2010; Fjeldaas et al.,

280

2011), space allowance (Barker et al., 2007), or claw trimming routines (Barker et al., 2007). Possibly, a lack of

281

association was due to the type of measures considered in our study (e.g. height of the neck rail instead of

282

distance to the rear curb).

283

M

an

us

cr

ip t

271

Factors associated with lesions or swellings

285

Twenty explanatory variables were to some extent (P < 0.20) associated with the prevalence of lesions or

286

swellings in the univariable regression (Appendix). In the multivariable regression, frequency of footbaths was

287

positively associated with the prevalence of lesions or swellings. The strength of this association changed when

288

prevalence of lameness was introduced to the model. Because the use of footbaths was probably practiced

289

because of poor claw health rather than being a cause of lesions and swellings, it was dropped from the model.

290

One outlier was identified, but removal of this outlier did not markedly affect the results. Odds ratios and

291

associated confidence intervals of the explanatory variables retained in the final model are shown in Table 3.

292

Prevalence of lesions or swellings was negatively associated with the use of soft mats or mattresses, or deep

293

bedding compared to concrete as the predominant surface of the lying area, pasturing, light, and cows being at

294

least 29 days in milk (DIM) compared to 22-28 DIM when the maximum amount of concentrates is fed. In

295

particular, the combination of zero grazing and little light intensity was positively associated with prevalence of

296

lesions or swellings.

Ac ce p

te

d

284

297 298

The negative association between the prevalence of lesions or swellings and the use of soft mats or mattresses, or

299

deep bedding in stalls and pasturing was consistent with results of other studies (e.g. Weary and Taszkun, 2000;

11

Page 11 of 30

Haskell et al., 2006; Fulwider et al., 2007; Lombard et al., 2010; Husfeldt and Endres, 2012; Brenninkmeyer et

301

al., 2013; Burow et al., 2013). To our knowledge, there are no other studies that have found associations between

302

prevalence of lesions or swellings and light intensity in the barn, or DIM when the maximum amount of

303

concentrates is fed. Lesions and swellings were possibly higher with lower light intensity due cows colliding

304

more often with housing equipment as a result of reduced sight, or from cows spending more time resting, as

305

was shown in calves offered lower light intensities (Dannenmann et al., 1985). Alternatively, we hypothesize

306

that a higher light intensity reflects a number of superior underlying or associated housing and management

307

practices, because herds with a light barn more often had, e.g., higher feeding racks, wider alleys, and longer,

308

cleaner stalls with a higher neck rail and no head lunge impediments (P < 0.01). This could also explain the

309

interaction between pasturing and light intensity; effects of superior housing and management practices become

310

more important when cows are indoors year-round. To our knowledge, there are no other studies that have

311

shown an association between prevalence of lesions or swellings and the rate of increase in the amount of

312

concentrates fed in the first weeks after calving. Prevalence of lesions or swellings was lower in herds where

313

cows were at least 29 DIM when the maximum amount was fed, compared to herds where cows were 20-28

314

DIM. Possibly, a more gradual increase in the amount of concentrates improves rumen health and lowers the risk

315

of laminitis. Improved leg health, in turn, could contribute to fewer lesions or swellings. This might partially

316

explain the effect of the rate of increasing concentrates on lesions and swellings, as prevalence of lesions or

317

swellings and prevalence of lameness were associated. Odds ratios for the association between concentrate

318

feeding and lesions or swellings dropped about 10% when lameness prevalence was introduced in the model. We

319

did not find associations between lesions or swellings and other housing and management factors, contrary to

320

other studies that found associations with, e.g., aspects of stall design (e.g. Brenninkmeyer et al., 2013), feed

321

space (Rutherford et al., 2008), or breed (Burow et al., 2013). Other studies, however, mostly investigated

322

lesions and swellings on the hock, whereas we considered lesions and swellings on the whole body.

cr

us

an

M

d

te

Ac ce p

323

ip t

300

324

Factors associated with dirty hindquarters

325

Fourteen explanatory variables were to some extent (P < 0.20) associated with the prevalence of dirty

326

hindquarters in the univariable regression (Appendix). The multivariable regression showed that temporal fixing

327

of cows after milking was positively associated with the prevalence of dirty hindquarters, but temporal fixing of

328

cows was also collinear with the use of deep bedding in stalls (χ2 = 13.3, P = 0.004). Because temporal fixing of

12

Page 12 of 30

cows was probably practiced for reasons of udder health rather than a cause of dirty hindquarters, it was dropped

330

from the model. Odds ratios and associated confidence intervals of the explanatory variables retained in the final

331

model are shown in Table 4. Prevalence of dirty hindquarters was negatively associated with deep bedding

332

compared to hard mats as the predominant surface of the lying area, less than 50% stalls with fecal

333

contamination, fewer stalls with head lunge impediments (e.g. a wall or bars), and feeding different types of

334

roughage.

cr

ip t

329

335

To our knowledge, few other studies have investigated factors associated with cleanliness of the hindquarter, but

337

similar associations have been found between surface and cleanliness of the lying area and udder cleanliness

338

(e.g. Fregonesi et al., 2009; Plesch and Knierim, 2012). The positive association between the prevalence of dirty

339

hindquarters and head lunge impediments seems difficult to explain because more restricted stalls have often

340

been associated with cleaner cows (e.g. Fregonesi et al., 2009; Plesch and Knierim, 2012). However, a similar

341

association was found in a study by Ruud et al. (2010). Their results also showed that the presence of a lower

342

head rail increases the amount of faeces fallen on the stall base (Ruud et al., 2011). The association between

343

dirty hindquarters and feeding one type of roughage only was due to manure plaques found on both sides of the

344

tail, probably caused by diarrhea. Hence, feeding a single type of roughage is likely accompanied by digestive

345

problems and more liquid manure, causing an increased risk of dirty hindquarters (Ruud et al., 2010). Manure

346

plaques on both sides of the tail were most observed in herds that fed one type of roughage, compared to herds

347

feeding different types of roughage mixed and separately (5.6%, 1.6% and 0%; P < 0.001). Contrary to other

348

studies, we did not find associations between dirty hindquarters and other housing and management factors, e.g.

349

neck rail height or stall bed length (e.g. Bernardi et al., 2009; Fregonesi et al., 2009; Plesch and Knierim, 2012).

an

M

d

te

Ac ce p

350

us

336

351

Factors associated with frequency of displacements

352

Twenty-three explanatory variables were to some extent (P < 0.20) associated with the average frequency of

353

displacements in the univariable regression (Appendix). In the multivariable regression, routine herd claw

354

trimming was negatively associated with the frequency of displacements, but routine herd claw trimming was

355

also collinear with floor scraping frequency (χ2 = 7.9, P = 0.017) and the use of cow brushes (χ2 = 15.4, P
79 cows compared to < 61 cows, and a proportion cows to stalls

362

between 0.91 and 1.04 compared to a proportion of cows to stalls of > 1.04.

cr

363

ip t

358

Three of the six factors associated with the frequency of displacements were likely to be related to competition

365

around resources with limited access, such as feed, cow brushes, and stalls. Average frequency of displacements

366

was lower in herds that introduced heifers in the lactating group before calving, compared to introduction after

367

calving. Introduction of new animals in a group is known to increase displacements due to re-establishment of

368

social relationships (Kondo and Hurnik, 1990; Bøe and Færevik, 2003), and can lead to a decrease in dry matter

369

intake of regrouped cows by 10% (Schirmann et al., 2011). Fewer displacements might have been observed due

370

to pregnant heifers being less motivated to compete for feed, because they require less energy prepartum

371

compared to postpartum. Besides this, frequency of displacements increased with continuous availability of feed

372

at the feed bunk. This could be explained by the fact that feed availability attracts cows to the feed bunk and

373

displacements occur more often at the feed bunk than in other alleys and stalls (Miller and Wood-Gush, 1991).

374

Moreover, the number of displacements has been shown to increase over 3.5 times when feeding non-uniform

375

feed (Huzzey et al., 2013). A higher frequency of displacements, therefore, might be explained by a larger

376

variation in quality of the feed after the feed was selected by cows during morning feeding. The frequency of

377

displacements was lower among herds with no cow brushes, which might indicate that cows are motivated for

378

using brushes (DeVries et al., 2007). Possibly, the ratio brushes to cows was too small. Similar to the results of

379

Fregonesi and Leaver (2002), frequency of displacements was lower in herds with 0.9 to 1.04 cows per stall

380

compared to herds with more than 1.04 cows per stall. This can be due competition for stalls (Fregonesi et al.,

381

2007) or to cows spending more time in alleys instead of stalls (Wierenga and Hopster, 1990), which increases

382

the chance of encountering a conspecific. A frequency of 3-5 floor scraping events per day was associated with

383

fewer displacements, compared with < 3 floor scraping events. This was contrary to our expectation because a

384

higher floor scraping frequency usually results in dryer concrete floors, which enable cows to show a higher

385

walking speed, less slipping, and longer strides compared to cows walking on slurry-covered concrete (Phillips

386

and Morris, 2000; Rushen and de Passille, 2006). Therefore, with a higher floor scraping frequency, it was

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

364

14

Page 14 of 30

expected that cows feel more secure to start agonistic interactions, such as displacements. Possibly, this effect is

388

only found when the floor scraping frequency is > 5 (Table 5). Contrary to Telezhenko et al. (2012), we found an

389

association between herd size and displacements. The negative association between herd size and displacements

390

might imply that a cow can use relatively more space in a larger herd than in a smaller herd (given an equal

391

amount of space per animal), because more space is shared (described for broilers in Bokkers et al (2011)). This

392

relative additional space in large herds might be used by cows to avoid conflicts with conspecifics. Contrary to

393

other studies, we did not find an association between frequency of displacements and other factors, e.g. feed

394

space per cow (DeVries et al., 2004; Huzzey et al., 2006). Possibly, this was due to that fact that occurrence of

395

displacements were recorded at a specific time of the day in our study (i.e. at least one hour after feeding).

us

cr

ip t

387

an

396

Factors associated with multiple welfare indicators

398

Housing and management factors identified in our study were partly the same for prevalences of lameness,

399

lesions or swellings, and dirty hindquarters. The two welfare indicators that were most correlated - prevalence of

400

lameness and lesions or swellings – had two explanatory factors in common. Results of this study suggest that

401

changing the surface of the lying area and pasturing can help decrease the occurrence of welfare problems

402

underlying multiple welfare indicators. However, associations of these factors with other indicators of dairy

403

cattle welfare, e.g. prevalence of mastitis, should be investigated.

d

te

Ac ce p

404

M

397

405

Housing and management factors did not show conflicting effects for different welfare indicators. Conflicts were

406

expected due to associations found in other studies. For example, introducing heifers to the lactating group

407

before calving was associated with a lower frequency of displacement in our study, but has been associated with

408

increased lameness in a study by Barker et al. (2007).

409 410

No common housing and management factors were found for frequency of displacements and prevalence of

411

lameness, lesions or swellings, and dirty hindquarters. This might be partly due to absence of a biological

412

relation between the average frequency of displacements and other indicators, which was supported by our

413

finding that they were not correlated. Nevertheless, significant associations between being displaced and

414

increased lameness have been found at the animal level (e.g. Galindo et al., 2000), and it has been suggested that

415

these low-ranking cows spent more time walking and standing. Results of our study suggested that lameness,

15

Page 15 of 30

416

lesions or swellings, and dirty hindquarters were primarily influenced by the quality (e.g. softness, space, and

417

cleanliness) of lying and walking surfaces, whereas frequency of displacements was mainly influenced by

418

competition around limited resources.

420

ip t

419

Conclusions

cr

421

Fifteen housing and management factors were significantly associated with four indicators of dairy cattle

423

welfare. Two of these factors, surface of the lying area and access to pasture, were associated with prevalences

424

of lameness, lesions or swellings, and dirty hindquarters. No common housing and management factors were

425

identified for frequency of displacements and prevalence of lameness, lesions or swellings, and dirty

426

hindquarters. Lameness, lesions or swellings, and dirty hindquarters were primarily associated with factors

427

relating to the quality of lying and walking surfaces, whereas frequency of displacements was mainly associated

428

with factors relating to limited resources.

M

an

us

422

430

Acknowledgements

te

431

d

429

This research was funded by the Animal Health Service Deventer. The authors gratefully acknowledge farmers

433

for participating in this study, observers for their commitment to collecting the welfare data, and Willem Buist

434

(Biometris, Wageningen University, the Netherlands) for his help with the data analyses.

435 436 437

Ac ce p

432

References

438

Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, R. W. Blowey, and L. E. Green. 2007. Management factors associated

439

with impaired locomotion in dairy cows in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 3270-3277.

440

Barker, Z. E., K. A. Leach, H. R. Whay, N. J. Bell, and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Assessment of lameness prevalence

441

and associated risk factors in dairy herds in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 932-941.

442

Bernardi, F., J. Fregonesi, C. Winckler, D. M. Veira, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2009. The

443

stall-design paradox: Neck rails increase lameness but improve udder and stall hygiene. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 3074-

444

3080.

16

Page 16 of 30

Bøe, K. E. and G. Færevik. 2003. Grouping and social preferences in calves, heifers and cows. Appl. Anim.

446

Behav. Sci. 80: 175-190.

447

Bokkers, E. A. M., I. J. M. De Boer, and P. Koene. 2011. Space needs of broilers. Anim. Welf. 20: 623-632.

448

Brenninkmeyer, C., S. Dippel, J. Brinkmann, S. March, C. Winckler, and U. Knierim. 2013. Hock lesion

449

epidemiology in cubicle housed dairy cows across two breeds, farming systems and countries. Prev. Vet. Med.

450

109: 236-245.

451

Burow, E., T. Rousing, P. T. Thomsen, N. D. Otten, and J. T. Sorensen. 2012. Effect of grazing on the cow

452

welfare of dairy herds evaluated by a multidimensional welfare index. Animal 17: 1-9.

453

Burow, E., P. T. Thomsen, T. Rousing, and J. T. Sorensen. 2013. Daily grazing time as a risk factor for

454

alterations at the hock joint integument in dairy cows. Animal 7: 160-166.

455

Chapinal, N., A. K. Barrientos, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, E. Galo, and D. M. Weary. 2013. Herd-level risk

456

factors for lameness in freestall farms in the northeastern United States and California. J. Dairy Sci. 96: 318-328.

457

Coignard, M., R. Guatteo, I. Veissier, A. de Boyer des Roches, L. Mounier, A. Lehébel, and N. Bareille. 2013.

458

Description and factors of variation of the overall health score in French dairy cattle herds using the Welfare

459

Quality® assessment protocol. Prev. Vet. Med. 112: 296-308.

460

Cook, N. B., T. B. Bennett, and K. V. Nordlund. 2004. Effect of free stall surface on daily activity patterns in

461

dairy cows with relevance to lameness prevalence. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 2912-2922.

462

Dannenmann, K., D. Buchenauer, and H. Fliegner. 1985. The behaviour of calves under four levels of lighting.

463

13: 243-258.

464

De Vries, M., E. A. M. Bokkers, T. Dijkstra, G. van Schaik, and I. J. M. de Boer. 2011. Invited review:

465

Associations between variables of routine herd data and dairy cattle welfare indicators. J. Dairy Sci. 94: 3213-

466

3228.

467

De Vries, M., E. A. M. Bokkers, G. van Schaik, R. Botreau, B. Engel, T. Dijkstra, and I. J. M. de Boer. 2013.

468

Evaluating results of the Welfare Quality multi-criteria evaluation model for classification of dairy cattle welfare

469

at the herd level. J. Dairy Sci. 96: 6264-6273.

470

DeVries, T. J., M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2004. Effect of Feeding Space on the Inter-Cow

471

Distance, Aggression, and Feeding Behavior of Free-Stall Housed Lactating Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 1432-

472

1438.

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

445

17

Page 17 of 30

DeVries, T. J., M. Vankova, D. M. Veira, and M. A. G. von Keyserlingk. 2007. Short Communication: Usage of

474

Mechanical Brushes by Lactating Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2241-2245.

475

Dippel, S., M. Dolezal, C. Brenninkmeyer, J. Brinkmann, S. March, U. Knierim, and C. Winckler. 2009. Risk

476

factors for lameness in freestall-housed dairy cows across two breeds, farming systems, and countries. J. Dairy

477

Sci. 92: 5476-5486.

478

Donovan, G. A., C. A. Risco, G. M. DeChant Temple, T. Q. Tran, and H. H. van Horn. 2004. Influence of

479

Transition Diets on Occurrence of Subclinical Laminitis in Holstein Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 73-84.

480

Fjeldaas, T., A. M. Sogstad, and O. Osteras. 2011. Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows

481

housed in freestalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci. 94:

482

1243-1255.

483

Fourichon, C., F. Beaudeau, N. Bareille, and H. Seegers. 2001. Incidence of health disorders in dairy farming

484

systems in western France. Livest. Prod. Sci. 68: 157-170.

485

Frankena, K., E. N. Stassen, J. Noordhuizen, J. O. Goelema, J. Schipper, H. Smelt, and H. Romkema. 1991.

486

Prevalence of lameness and risk indicators of dermatitis digitalis during pasturing and housing of dairy cattle.

487

Proc. Annual Symposium Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, London: 107-118.

488

Fraser, D. 1995. Science, Values and Animal Welfare: Exploring the 'Inextricable Connection'. Anim. Welf. 4:

489

103-117.

490

Fregonesi, J. A. and J. D. Leaver. 2002. Influence of space allowance and milk yield level on behaviour,

491

performance and health of dairy cows housed in strawyard and cubicle systems. Livest. Prod. Sci. 78: 245-257.

492

Fregonesi, J. A., C. B. Tucker, and D. M. Weary. 2007. Overstocking Reduces Lying Time in Dairy Cows. J.

493

Dairy Sci. 90: 3349-3354.

494

Fregonesi, J. A., M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, C. B. Tucker, D. M. Veira, and D. M. Weary. 2009. Neck-rail

495

position in the free stall affects standing behavior and udder and stall cleanliness. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1979-1985.

496

Fulwider, W. K., T. Grandin, D. J. Garrick, T. E. Engle, W. D. Lamm, N. L. Dalsted, and B. E. Rollin. 2007.

497

Influence of Free-Stall Base on Tarsal Joint Lesions and Hygiene in Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 3559-3566.

498

Galindo, F., D. M. Broom, and P. G. G. Jackson. 2000. A note on possible link between behaviour and the

499

occurrence of lameness in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 67: 335-341.

500

Haskell, M. J., L. J. Rennie, V. A. Bowell, M. J. Bell, and A. B. Lawrence. 2006. Housing system, milk

501

production, and zero-grazing effects on lameness and leg injury in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 89: 4259-4266.

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

473

18

Page 18 of 30

Hernandez-Mendo, O., M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, D. M. Veira, and D. M. Weary. 2007. Effects of pasture on

503

lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 1209-1214.

504

Holzhauer, M., C. Hardenberg, and C. J. Bartels. 2008. Herd and cow-level prevalence of sole ulcers in The

505

Netherlands and associated-risk factors. Prev. Vet. Med. 85: 125-135.

506

Husfeldt, A. W. and M. I. Endres. 2012. Association between stall surface and some animal welfare

507

measurements in freestall dairy herds using recycled manure solids for bedding. J. Dairy Sci. 95: 5626-5634.

508

Huzzey, J. M., T. J. DeVries, P. Valois, and M. A. G. von Keyserlingk. 2006. Stocking Density and Feed Barrier

509

Design Affect the Feeding and Social Behavior of Dairy Cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 89: 126-133.

510

Huzzey, J. M., J. A. Fregonesi, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2013. Sampling behavior of dairy

511

cattle: Effects of variation in dietary energy density on behavior at the feed bunk. J. Dairy Sci. 96: 247-256.

512

Ito, K., M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, S. J. LeBlanc, and D. M. Weary. 2010. Lying behavior as an indicator of

513

lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 3553-3560.

514

Kondo, S. and J. F. Hurnik. 1990. Stabilization of social hierarchy in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 27:

515

287-297.

516

Lombard, J. E., C. B. Tucker, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, C. A. Kopral, and D. M. Weary. 2010. Associations

517

between cow hygiene, hock injuries, and free stall usage on US dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 4668-4676.

518

Martin, P. and P. Bateson. 1993. Measuring Behaviour - An introductory guide. Cambridge University Press,

519

Cambridge, UK.

520

McCullagh, P. and J. A. Nelder. 1989. Generalized Linear Models. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.

521

Miller, K. and D. G. M. Wood-Gush. 1991. Some effects of housing on the social behaviour of dairy cows.

522

Animal Science 53: 271-278.

523

Nocek, J. E. 1997. Bovine Acidosis: Implications on Laminitis. J. Dairy Sci. 80: 1005-1028.

524

Phillips, C. J. C. and I. D. Morris. 2000. The locomotion of dairy cows on concrete floors that are dry, wet, or

525

covered with a slurry of excreta. J. Dairy Sci. 83: 1767-1772.

526

Plesch, G. and U. Knierim. 2012. Effects of housing and management conditions on teat cleanliness of dairy

527

cows in cubicle systems taking into account body dimensions of the cows. Animal 6: 1360-1368.

528

Potterton, S. L., M. J. Green, J. Harris, K. M. Millar, H. R. Whay, and J. N. Huxley. 2011. Risk factors

529

associated with hair loss, ulceration, and swelling at the hock in freestall-housed UK dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci.

530

94: 2952-2963.

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

502

19

Page 19 of 30

Rouha-Mulleder, C., C. Iben, E. Wagner, G. Laaha, J. Troxler, and S. Waiblinger. 2009. Relative importance of

532

factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 92:

533

123-133.

534

Rushen, J. and A. M. de Passille. 2006. Effects of roughness and compressibility of flooring on cow locomotion.

535

J. Dairy Sci. 89: 2965-2972.

536

Rutherford, K. M. D., F. M. Langford, M. C. Jack, L. Sherwood, A. B. Lawrence, and M. J. Haskell. 2008. Hock

537

injury prevalence and associated risk factors on organic and nonorganic dairy farms in the United Kingdom. J.

538

Dairy Sci. 91: 2265-2274.

539

Ruud, L. E., K. E. Bøe, and O. Østerås. 2010. Risk factors for dirty dairy cows in Norwegian freestall systems. J.

540

Dairy Sci. 93: 5216-5224.

541

Ruud, L. E., C. Kielland, O. Østerås, and K. E. Bøe. 2011. Free-stall cleanliness is affected by stall design.

542

Livestock Science 135: 265-273.

543

Schirmann, K., N. Chapinal, D. M. Weary, W. Heuwieser, and M. A. G. von Keyserlingk. 2011. Short-term

544

effects of regrouping on behavior of prepartum dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 94: 2312-2319.

545

Somers, J. G. C. J., K. Frankena, E. N. Noordhuizen-Stassen, and J. H. M. Metz. 2003. Prevalence of claw

546

disorders in Dutch dairy cows exposed to several floor systems. J. Dairy Sci. 86: 2082-2093.

547

Telezhenko, E., M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, A. Talebi, and D. M. Weary. 2012. Effect of pen size, group size, and

548

stocking density on activity in freestall-housed dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 95: 3064-3069.

549

Von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., A. Barrientos, K. Ito, E. Galo, and D. M. Weary. 2012. Benchmarking cow comfort

550

on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for

551

high-producing Holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 95: 7399-7408.

552

VSN International Ltd., 2011. GenStat for Windows Release 14. VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, UK.

553

Weary, D. M. and I. Taszkun. 2000. Hock lesions and free-stall design. J. Dairy Sci. 83: 697-702.

554

Webster, A. J. F. 2002. Effects of housing practices on the development of foot lesions in dairy heifers in early

555

lactation. Vet. Rec. 151: 9-12.

556

Webster, A. J. F. 2005. Animal Welfare: Limping towards Eden. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford, UK.

557

Welfare Quality. 2009. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium,

558

Lelystad, Netherlands.

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

531

20

Page 20 of 30

Wierenga, H. K. and H. Hopster. 1990. The significance of cubicles for the behaviour of dairy cows. Appl.

560

Anim. Behav. Sci. 26: 309-337.

561

Winckler, C. and S. Willen. 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an

562

indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A-Anim. Sci. 51: 103-107.

ip t

559

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

563

21

Page 21 of 30

an

us

cr

ip t

563

M

Figure 1. Box-and-whisker plots of prevalence of lameness, lesions or swellings, dirty hindquarter, and frequency of displacements among the selected herds. Boxes cover the medial 50% of the data with the median

Ac ce p

te

d

dividing the box. Ends of whiskers represent minimum and maximum values.

22

Page 22 of 30

Table 1. Herd-level housing and management factors and observed number of herdsa per factor level

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

Factor Level (number of herds) General herd characteristics Herd size (n lactating cows) < 61 (62) 61 – 79 (58) > 79 (59) Breed (in at least 10% of the cows) Holstein-Fr. (157) Other (22) Housing Air inlet side walls Yes (150) No (29) Air inlet roof top Yes (137) No (42) Light intensityb Light (108) Dark (68) Cow brushes No brushes (46) Fixed (51) Rotating (80) Average width of alleys (cm) < 222 (79) 222 - 250 (52) > 250 (39) Average width of passages (cm) < 185 (57) 185 - 223 (57) > 223 (56) Alleys with dead ends No (79) Yes (100) Type of flooring system Slatted (169) Solid (8) Slippery floorc No (165) Yes (14) Floor scraping frequency (times/day) < 3 (91) 3 - 5 (28) > 5 (60) Rims or pits in the floor No (134) Yes (45) Stalls Proportion cows to stalls < 0.91 (60) 0.91 - 1.04 (57) > 1.04 (58) Predominant surface of lying area Concrete (32) Hard mat (39) Soft mat/mattress (70) Deep bedding (33) Stall divisions Cantilever (85) Mushroom (57) Other (37) Average stall width (cm) < 110.2 (71) 110.2 – 111.5 (50) > 111.5 (57) Average stall length (cm) < 220.5 (64) 220.5 – 228.7 (54) > 228.7 (60) Average height of stall neck rail (cm) < 109.2 (62) 109.2 - 114.5 (59) > 114.5 (58) Head lunge impediments All stalls (28) Some stalls (127) No stalls (24) Bedding height (cm) < 0.56 (52) 0.56 - 1.75 (54) > 1.75 (60) Stalls with fecal contaminationd (%) < 50 (76) ≥ 50 (103) Cleaning frequency (times/day) ≤ 2 (110) > 2 (69) Littering frequency (times/day) < 2 (78) ≥ 2 (101) Feeding Average feed space per cow (cm) < 56.0 (57) 56.0 - 67.7 (57) > 67.7 (58) Average feeding rack height (cm) < 138 (58) 138 - 146 (57) > 146 (59) Roughage fed at fixed times of the day No (48) Yes (131) Different types of roughage No (29) Yes, fed mixed (93) Yes, fed separately (57) Continuous availabilitye of roughage No (27) Yes (152) Roughage contaminated with manure and/or moulds, or No (154) Yes (25) heat coming out Concentrate dispensers in the stable No (47) Yes (132) Max. amount of concentrates (kg DM/cow/day) < 9.5 (86) 9.5 – 10.0 (41) > 10.0 (52) DIM when max. amount of concentrates is fed < 22 (93) 22 - 28 (25) > 28 (52) Group drinkers No (22) Yes (156) Sufficient number and/or lengthf of drinkers Yes (83) Partly (65) No (31) Milking practices Automatic milking No (137) Yes (42) Lactation groups No (164) Yes (15) Maximum waiting time for milking (min) < 45 (61) 45 - 75 (69) > 75 (49) Temporary fixing of cows in feeding rack after milking No (143) Yes (36) Dry cows and young stock Dry cow groups (far-off and close-up) No (104) Yes (75) Length of transition period (weeks) ≤ 4 (51) > 4 (126) Predominant place of calving Calving pen/pasture (145) Other (32) Heifer housing Same building (96) Other building (50) Both (21) Time of introducing heifers in lactating group Before calving (87) After calving (92) Way of introducing heifers in lactating group Individually (153) In groups (26) Other management practices Routine herd claw trimming Yes (132) No (47) Indiv. cow claw trimming between herd trimming events Yes (146) No (33) Who trims claws Professional (35) Farmer/employee (47) Both (97) Frequency of footbaths (times per month) Never (53) ≤ 1 (58) > 1 (68) Access to pasture Zero-grazing (41) Summer pasturing (138) Winter OLAg for dry cows and/or young stock No (163) Yes (16) Cows in heat are fixed or separated No (114) Yes (59) Herd biosecurity status Open (83) Closed (98) a The distribution among levels is not representative for the Dutch dairy population because herds were not selected randomly b ‘Light’ (versus ‘dark’) was described as the observer being able (versus not being able) to read a newspaper in a cubicle around midday c ‘Slippery’ was described as the observer experiencing slipping and having little grip during turning d ‘Fecal contamination’ of a stall was described as cow droppings or >20% manure cover in the rear 1/3 part of the lying area e ‘Continuous availability’ was described as at least 180 L (1 wheelbarrow) roughage per 25 cows anytime during the farm visit

23

Page 23 of 30

f

‘Sufficient’ refers to at least 1 water bowl for 10 cows and/or 6 cm of through per cow; ‘partly sufficient’ refers to at least 1 water bowl for 15 cows and/or 4 cm of through per cow; ‘not sufficient’ refers to otherwise (adapted from Welfare Quality, 2009) Outdoor loafing area

g

Table 2. P-valuesa of effects of selected factors for prevalence of lameness (adjusted R2 = 12.7%), and odds

1) P-value

95% CI of odds ratio

P-value pairwise comparison

1 0.76 0.66 0.48

0.54-1.09 0.48-0.91 0.32-0.71

0.14 0.01 0.00

1 0.68

0.51-0.90

0.01

1 0.76

0.60-0.97

0.03

1 0.74

0.57-0.96

0.02

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

Predominant surface of lying area Concrete 42.8 0.00 Hard mat 36.5 Soft mat/mattress 33.4 Deep bedding 26.6 Access to pasture Zero grazing 39.1 0.01 Summer pasturing 30.5 Herd biosecurity status Open 37.8 0.03 Closed 31.8 Dry cow groups No 38.1 0.02 Yes 31.5 a Based on an approximate F-test (adapted from the quasi-likelihood ratio test)

Odds ratio

cr

Estimated prevalence (%)

us

Factor and level

ip t

ratios with associated P-values for pairwise comparison of factor levels with a reference level (i.e. odds ratio =

24

Page 24 of 30

Table 3. P-valuesa of effects of selected factors for prevalence of lesions or swellings (adjusted R2 = 18.0%), and odds ratios with associated P-values for pairwise comparison of factor levels with a reference level (i.e. odds

58.4 59.8 46.0 41.8

0.00

1 1.07 0.58 0.48

0.70-1.63 0.39-0.85 0.30-0.77

0.77 0.01 0.00

61.6 41.3

0.00 0.00

1 0.41

0.27-0.61

0.00

1 0.50

0.34-0.75

0.00

0.71 1 0.52

0.46-1.08 0.32-0.83

0.11 0.01

1 0.34 0.27 0.21

0.16-0.69 0.14-0.55 0.10-0.40

0.00 0.00 0.00

an

59.2 43.8

cr

P-value pairwise comparison

0.01 51.2 59.0 44.3

0.04

73.6 49.6 44.7 38.0

Based on an approximate F-test (adapted from the quasi-likelihood ratio test) ‘Light’ (versus ‘dark’) was described as the observer being able (versus not being able) to read a newspaper in a cubicle around midday

te

b

95% CI of odds ratio

Ac ce p

a

Odds ratio

M

Predominant surface of lying area Concrete Hard mat Soft mat/mattress Deep bedding Access to pasture Zero grazing Summer pasturing Light intensityb Dark Light DIM when maximum amount of concentrates is fed < 22 22 – 28 > 28 Interaction pasturing and light intensity Zero grazing and dark Zero grazing and light Pasturing and dark Pasturing and light

P-value

us

Estimated prevalence (%)

d

Factor and level

ip t

ratio = 1)

25

Page 25 of 30

Table 4. P-valuesa of effects of selected factors for prevalence of dirty hindquarters (adjusted R2 = 20.6%), and odds ratios with associated P-values for pairwise comparison of factor levels with a reference level (i.e. odds

Factor and level

Estimated prevalence (%)

P-value

Odds ratio

ip t

ratio = 1) 95% CI of odds ratio

P-value pairwise comparison 0.07 0.50 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

Predominant surface of lying area Concrete 41.0 0.03 0.64 0.39-1.03 Hard mat 51.2 1 Soft mat/mattress 47.8 0.86 0.55-1.33 Deep bedding 35.9 0.50 0.29-0.86 Stalls with fecal contaminationb ≥ 50% 50.2 0.00 1 < 50% 37.8 0.57 0.41-0.80 Head lunge impediments All stalls 59.8 0.00 1 Some stalls 39.1 0.41 0.26-0.65 No stalls 33.0 0.31 0.17-0.57 Different type of roughage No 54.4 0.01 1 Yes, fed mixed 39.6 0.52 0.33-0.82 Yes, fed separately 37.9 0.48 0.29-0.78 a Based on an approximate F-test (adapted from the quasi-likelihood ratio test) b ‘Fecal contamination’ of a stall was described as cow droppings or >20% manure cover in the rear 1/3 part of the lying area

26

Page 26 of 30

Table 5. P-valuesa of effects of selected factors for average frequency of displacements (DP) per cow per hour (adjusted R2 = 19.8%), and relative risks with associated P-values for pairwise comparison of factor levels with a

Factor and level

95% CI of relative risk

Estimated frequency (DP/cow/hour)

ip t

reference level (i.e. relative risk = 1)

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

P-value pairwise comparison P-value Relative risk Time of introducing heifers in lactating group Before calving 0.29 0.02 0.76 0.61-0.95 0.02 After calving 0.38 1 Cow brushes No brushes 0.26 0.01 0.63 0.47-0.85 0.00 Fixed 0.34 0.84 0.64-1.09 0.19 Rotating 0.40 1 Continuous availabilityb of roughage No 0.25 0.00 0.62 0.43-0.88 0.01 Yes 0.41 1 Floor scraping frequency (times/day) 5 0.37 0.90 0.70-1.16 0.42 Herd size < 61 0.37 0.00 1 61 – 79 0.39 1.07 0.83-1.38 0.62 > 79 0.23 0.62 0.46-0.84 0.00 Proportion cows to stalls < 0.91 0.34 0.01 0.87 0.67-1.14 0.32 0.91 – 1.04 0.26 0.65 0.49-0.87 0.00 > 1.04 0.39 1 a Based on an approximate F-test (adapted from the quasi-likelihood ratio test) b ‘Continuous availability’ was described as at least 180 L (1 wheelbarrow) roughage per 25 cows anytime during the farm visit

27

Page 27 of 30

Appendix. Resultsa of one-way analyses of single potential risk factors for the prevalence of lameness, lesions or swellings, cow with dirty hindquarter, and frequency of displacements % cows with dirty flank *

** ***

*** * ** * *** **

****

*

**** * *** **

M

**** ** *** * ****

an

****

***

*

d

** *

*** * ***

* ** *** **** *** ****

** ***

***

*** * *

us

****

Freq. of displacements

cr

*

te

Ac ce p

% cows with lesions/swellings

ip t

% lame cows Potential risk factor General herd characteristics Herd size Breed Housing Air inlet side walls Air inlet roof top Light intensity Brushes Average width of alleys Average width of passages Alleys with dead ends Type of flooring system Slippery floor Floor scraping frequency Rims or pit in the floor Stalls Proportion cows to stalls Predominant surface of lying area Stall divisions Average stall width Average stall length Average height of stall neck rail Head lunge impediments Bedding height Stalls with fecal contamination Cleaning frequency Littering frequency Feeding Average feed space per cow Average feeding rack height Roughage fed at fixed times of the day Different types of roughage Continuous availability of roughage Roughage contaminated with manure and/or moulds, or heat coming out Concentrate dispensers in the stable Maximum amount of concentrates DIM when max. amount of concentrates is fed Group drinkers Sufficient number and/or length of drinkers Milking practices Automatic milking Lactation groups Maximum waiting time for milking Temporary fixing of cows after milking Dry cows and young stock Dry cow groups (far-off and close-up) Length of transition period Predominant place of calving Heifer housing Time of introducing heifers in lactating group Way of introducing heifers in lactating group Other management practices Routine herd claw trimming Individual cow claw trimming between herd trimming events Who trims claws Frequency of footbaths Pasturing Outdoor loafing area for dry cows and/or young stock Cows in heat are fixed or separated Herd biosecurity status

* * **

* **

** * ****

* * **

**

*

****

*** **** ** *

*** **

*

**

***

*** ** ** *** *

*

*** *** *

* **** ****

*** *

* ***

*

***

28

Page 28 of 30

ip t cr us an M d te Ac ce p

564

a P-value based on an approximate F-test (adapted from the quasi-likelihood ratio test). Significance of association indicated by * (0.10 < P < 0.20) , ** (0.05 < P < 0.10), *** (0.01 < P < 0.05), **** (P < 0.01)

29

Page 29 of 30

564

Housing and management factors associated with indicators of dairy cattle welfare

565

De Vries et al.

566

Highlights

568

•

Data on animal welfare, housing and management was collected on 179 Dutch dairy farms

569

•

Soft mats or mattresses and deep bedding in stalls were common protective factors for lameness, lesions or swellings and dirty hindquarters.

571

•

Summer pasturing was a common protective factor for lameness and lesions or swellings.

572

•

There was no common protective factor for frequency of displacements and other welfare indicators.

cr

us

570

ip t

567

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

573

30

Page 30 of 30