Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T14:08:20.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A weak point analysis of welfare in Danish dairy herds using two different welfare assessment systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

ND Otten ,
T Rousing ,
VHS de Oliveira ,
M Reiten ,
A-M Michelsen ,
F Hakansson ,
VP Lund ,
H Houe ,
M Denwood  and
JT Sørensen
...Show all authors
ND Otten*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
T Rousing
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Alle 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
VHS de Oliveira
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Alle 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark National Veterinary Institute, Department of Disease Control and Epidemiology, SE-751 89, Uppsala 7, Sweden
M Reiten
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Alle 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
A-M Michelsen
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
F Hakansson
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
VP Lund
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark The Danish Veterinary Association, Peter Bangs Vej 30, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
H Houe
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
M Denwood
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
JT Sørensen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Alle 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
B Forkman
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
MK Kirchner
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark VIER PFOTEN, Stiftung fűr Tierschutz, Linke Wienzeile 236, A-1150, Vienna, Austria
*
* Contact for correspondence: nio@sund.ku.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study aimed to identify current weak points in animal welfare in Danish dairy production at herd level using the Welfare Quality® (WQ) protocol, and at national level using the Danish Animal Welfare Index (DAWIN) protocol. The DAWIN was developed as a monitoring tool for the welfare of the Danish dairy cow population, derived from the aggregation of DAWIN assessments at herd level. The DAWIN dairy cow protocol covers 29 measures (13 resource- and 16 animal-based measures) that were weighted and aggregated into a final overall population welfare score. A total of 3,591 cows from 60 dairy herds were assessed throughout 2015. Results from both the WQ and DAWIN were presented at six criteria levels in order to identify specific areas of concern relating to animal welfare at herd versus population level. Both protocols indicated a good general level of welfare across study herds, but also identified insufficient water supply as the main area of concern. In addition, resting comfort (ie time needed to lie down, collisions with barn equipment, cleanliness of rear body parts, animals lying outside of the designated lying area) and disease (in terms of the proportion of cows with chronically elevated somatic cell counts) were identified as problematic areas. The two assessment protocols both identified behavioural deficits, but in the WQ it was due to zero-grazing systems in contrast to the insufficient numbers of cow brushes in the DAWIN protocol. Despite differences in the aggregation, similar areas of concern were identified at criteria level.

Keywords

animal welfareassessmentdairy cattlepopulation levelwelfare problemsWelfare Quality®
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 197 - 207
Copyright
© 2020 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreasen, S, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2014 Can animal-based welfare assessment be simplified? A comparison of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle and the simpler and less time-consuming protocol developed by the Danish Cattle Federation. Animal Welfare 23: 81–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.1.081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreasen, S, Wemelsfelder, F, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2013 The correlation of Qualitative Behavior Assessments with Welfare Quality® protocol outcomes in on-farm welfare assess-ment of dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 143(1): 9–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.013Google Scholar
Appleby, MC and Sandøe, PT 2002 Philosophical debate on the nature of well-being: Implications for animal welfare. Animal Welfare 11(3): 283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartussek, H 1999 A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61: 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00067-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ 2008 International cooperation in animal welfare: The Welfare Quality® project. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science 50(1): S10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-50-S1-S10Google Scholar
Burow, E, Rousing, T, Thomsen, PT, Otten, ND and Sørensen, JT 2013 Effect of grazing on the cow welfare of dairy herds evaluated by a multidimensional welfare index. Animal 7(5): 834–842. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112002297CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burow, E, Rousing, T, Thomsen, PT and Sørensen, JT 2014 Track way distance and cover as risk factors for lameness in Danish dairy cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 113(4): 625–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.11.018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corazzin, M, Piasentier, E, Dovier, S and Bovolenta, S 2010 Effect of summer grazing on welfare of dairy cows reared in mountain tie-stall barns. Italian Journal of Animal Science 9(3): 304–312. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2010.e59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danish Act on the Keeping of Dairy Cattle and their Offspring 2010 Lov om hold af malkekvæg og afkom af malkekvæg Lovbekendtgørelse nr 58. Danish Ministry of Justice: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Danish Act on the Keeping of Dairy Cattle and their Offspring 2017 Lov om hold af malkekvæg og afkom af malkekvæg Lovbekendtgørelse nr 58. Danish Ministry of Justice: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Danish Cattle Federation 2005 The Danish Cattle Federation, business guidelines concerning animal welfare, Kvæginfo 1547 – Dansk Kvægs branchepolitik for dyrevelfærd. https://www.landbrugsinfo.dk/Kvaeg/Sundhed-og-dyrevelfaerd/Dyrevelfaerd/Sider/Dansk Kvaegs_Branchepolitik_ for_Dyrevelf.aspxGoogle Scholar
Danish Veterinary and Food Administration 2018 Animal welfare control. https://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/Leksikon/Sider/Velf%C3%A6rdskontrol.aspxGoogle Scholar
De Graaf, S, Ampe, B and Tuyttens, FAM 2017 Assessing dairy cow welfare at the beginning and end of the indoor period using the Welfare Quality® protocol. Animal Welfare 26(2): 213–221. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.26.2.213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
des Roches, AD, Veissier, I, Coignard, M, Bareille, N, Guatteo, R, Capdeville, J, Gilot-Fromont, E and Mounier, L 2014 The major welfare problems of dairy cows in French com-mercial farms: an epidemiological approach. Animal Welfare 23(4): 467–478. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.4.467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, M, Bokkers, EAM, van Shaik, G, Botreau, R, Engel, B, Dijkstra, T and de Boer, IJM 2013 Evaluating results of the Welfare Quality® multi-criteria evaluation model for classifi-cation of dairy cattle welfare at the herd level. Journal of Dairy Science 96(10): 6264–6273. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical con-cerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gieseke, D, Lambertz, C and Gauly, M 2018 Relationship between herd size and measures of animal welfare on dairy cattle farms with free-stall housing in Germany. Journal of Dairy Science 101: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-14232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gratzer, E 2011 Animal health and welfare planning in Austrian organic dairy farming. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
Johnsen, PF and Sandøe, P 2001 Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: Many goals, many methods. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science 30: 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/090647001316923027Google Scholar
Keeling, L 2009 An overview of the development of the Welfare Quality® Project Assessment Systems. Welfare Quality® Reports no 11, Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Kirchner, MK, Ferris, C, Abecia, L, Yanez-Ruiz, D, Pop, S, Voicu, I, Dragomir, C and Winckler, C 2014 Welfare state of dairy cows in three European low-input and organic systems. Organic Agriculture 4(4): 309–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-014-0074-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knage-Rasmussen, KM, Rousing, T, Sørensen, JT and Houe, H 2015 Assessing animal welfare in sow herds using data on meat inspection, medication and mortality. Animal 9(3): 509–515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114002705CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krug, C, Haskell, MJ, Nunes, T and Stilwell, G 2015 Creating a model to detect dairy cattle farms with poor welfare using a national database. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 3: 280–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.10.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelsen, AM, Hakansson, F, Pedersen-Lund, V, Kirchner, MK, Otten, ND, Denwood, M, Rousing, T, Houe, H and Forkman, B Identifying areas of animal welfare concern in Danish pig herds using the Danish Animal Welfare Index (DAWIN). Animal Welfare, submittedGoogle Scholar
Ostojic-Andric, D, Hristov, S, Novakovic, Z, Pantelic, V, Petrovic, M, Zlatanovic, Z and Niksic, D 2011 Dairy cows wel-fare quality in loose vs tie housing system. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 27: 975–984. https://doi.org/10.2298/BAH1103975OCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otten, ND, Rousing, T and Forkman, B 2017 Influence of pro-fessional affiliation on expert's view on welfare measures. Animals 7(85). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7110085Google Scholar
Otten, ND, Rousing, T, Thomsen, PT, Houe, H and Sørensen, JT 2016 Comparison of animal welfare indices in dairy herds based on different sources of data. Animal Welfare 25: 207–215. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.25.2.207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popescu, S, Borda, C, Diugan, EA, Niculae, M, Stefan, R and Sandru, C 2014 The effect of the housing system on the Welfare Quality® of dairy cows. Italian Journal of Animal Science 13(1 https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2014.2940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team 2016 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Rousing, T, Thomson, PT, Sørensen, JT, Otten, N and Houe, H 2013 Nødvendigt med flere mål for at vurdere dyrevelfærden i en malkekvægbesætning. Dansk Veterinaer Tidskrift 2: 14–16. [Title translation: More measures are needed to evaluate animal welfare in dairy herds]Google Scholar
Sandøe, P, Corr, SA, Lund, TB and Forkman, B 2019 Aggregating animal welfare indicators: can it be done in a trans-parent and ethically robust way? Animal Welfare 28: 67–76. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.1.067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SEGES 2015 Opgørelse vedr kodødelighed mv. https://www.land-brugsinfo.dk/Kvaeg/Tal-om-kvaeg/Sider/Kodod201508.aspx. [Title translation: Cow mortality figures]Google Scholar
Somers, JGCJ, Frankena, K, Nordhuizen-Stassen, EN and Metz, JHM 2003 Prevalence of claw disorders in Dutch dairy cows exposed to several floor systems. Journal of Dairy Science 86(6): 2082–2093. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73797-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tremetsberger, L, Leeb, C and Winckler, C 2015 Animal health and welfare planning improves udder health and cleanliness but not leg health in Austrian dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 98: 6801–6811. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-9084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, K, Brinkmann, J, March, S, Hinterstoißer, P, Warnecke, S, Schüler, M and Paulsen, HM 2018 Impact of daily grazing time on dairy cow welfare. Results of the Welfare Quality® Protocol. Animals 8: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8010001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF, Main, DCJ and Whay, HR 2004 Welfare assess-ment: indices from clinical observation. Animal Welfare 13: S93–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality ® 2009a Simulate results. http://www1.cler-mont.inra.fr/wq/index.php?id=simul&new=1Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009b Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2013 Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cat-tle. http://www.welfarequality.net/media/1017/cattle_protocol_with-out_veal_calves.pdfGoogle Scholar