Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T17:22:54.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can on-farm animal welfare explain relative production differences between dairy herds?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

L Frondelius ,
L Jauhiainen ,
O Niskanen ,
M Mughal  and
A Sairanen
L Frondelius*
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Production Systems, Halolantie 31 A, 71750 Maaninka, Finland
L Jauhiainen
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Production Systems, Halolantie 31 A, 71750 Maaninka, Finland
O Niskanen
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Production Systems, Halolantie 31 A, 71750 Maaninka, Finland
M Mughal
Affiliation:
University of Eastern Finland, Department of Environmental and Biological Sciences, PO Box 111, 80101 Joensuu, Finland
A Sairanen
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Production Systems, Halolantie 31 A, 71750 Maaninka, Finland
*
* Contact for correspondence: lilli.frondelius@luke.fi
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The aim of this study was to investigate factors responsible for between-herd variation in milk production, when genetic variation is controlled. Quantitative information regarding farms’ production environment and animal welfare, as evaluated annually by veterinarians and health and feeding records, were the factors studied. Principal component analysis was used to reduce the production environment variables as well as the welfare data. Two linear regression models were devised. The first model used welfare indicators and veterinary treatments to predict the difference between herds’ observed and potential milk yield. The second model explained the residual of the first model by feeding and animal-based indicator data. Together, these two models explained 62% of the variance in milk yield differences between herds. Specifically, feeding of the herd was the most important factor, accounting for 67%, followed by the production environment/animal welfare (30%) and finally animal health, assessed through veterinary treatments, explained the remaining 3% of the variance. A poor welfare rating adversely affected milk production. Similarly, a low score for fatness at slaughter, poor milk quality and high mortality all showed a clear negative association with production. It was found that while feeding remains a major factor, production environment and animal welfare also have significant roles to play when it comes to production. Notably, those farms with major animal welfare problems were shown to display milk yield below the Finnish average.

Keywords

animal welfaredairy cattlefeedingmilk productionprincipal component analysisroutine herd data
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , November 2020 , pp. 449 - 461
Copyright
© 2020 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Andreasen, SN, 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. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.1.081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, A, Valls, N, Solans, A and Torrent, T 2008 Associations between nondietary factors and dairy herd performance. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 3259–3267. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1030CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barkema, HW, Schukken, H, Lam, TJGM, Beiboer, ML, Benedictus, G and Brand, A 1998 Management practices asso-ciated with low, medium, and high somatic cell counts in bulk milk. Journal of Dairy Science 81: 1917–1927. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(98)75764-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkema, HW, Van Der Ploeg, JD, Schukken, YH, Lam, TJGM, Benedictus, G and Brand, A 1999 Management style and its association with bulk milk somatic cell count and incidence rate of clinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 1655–1663. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75394-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertocchi, L and Fusi, F 2014 Guidelines for the assessment of welfare and biosecurity in dairy cattle in loose housing systems. Italian National Animal Welfare Reference Centre (CReNBA). Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna: Brescia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Matthews, LR and Coleman, GJ 2000 Behavioural response to humans and the pro-ductivity of commercial dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00097-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brouwer, H, Stegeman, JA, Straatsma, JW, Hooijer, GA and van Schaik, G 2015 The validity of a monitoring system based on routinely collected dairy cattle health data relative to a standardized herd check. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 122: 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.09.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, W, Hribar, P and Melessa, S 2018 Incorrect inferences when using residuals as dependent variables. Journal of Accounting Research 56: 751–791. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coignard, M, Guatteo, R, Veissier, I, Lehébel, A, Hoogveld, C, Mounier, L and Bareille, N 2014 Does milk yield reflect the level of welfare in dairy herds? Veterinary Journal 199: 184–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.10.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, NB 2008 Time budgets for dairy cows: how does cow comfort influence health, reproduction and productivity? Proceedings of Penn State Dairy Cattle Nutrition Workshop pp 53–60.12-13 November 2008, Grantville, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
Council Regulation on the Protection of Cattle 2010 Council Regulation on the Protection of Cattle (592/2010). https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2010/20100592Google Scholar
de Vries, M, Bokkers, EAM, Dijkstra, T, van Schaik, G and de Boer, IMJ 2011 Invited review: Associations between vari-ables of routine herd data and dairy cattle welfare indicators. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 3213–3228. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, M, Bokkers, EAM, van Schaik, G, Engel, B, Dijkstra, T and de Boer, IJM 2014 Exploring the value of routinely col-lected herd data for estimating dairy cattle welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 97: 715–730. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-6585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espetvedt, MN, Wolff, C, Rintakoski, S, Lind, A and ⊘sterås, O 2012 Completeness of metabolic disease recordings in Nordic national databases for dairy cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 105: 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.02.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ETT ra 2012 Naseva terveydenhuoltokäynnin ohjeet eläinlääkäreille versio 2/2012. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sour-ce=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwils4ni9PDcAhXKw6YKHa-wDJMQFjAAegQICBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.naseva.fi%2FPublicContent%2FGetAttachment%3FStaticContentFileId%3D2&usg=AOvVaw3486WP1oMmMekltwsJROzdGoogle Scholar
ETT ra 2017 Centralised Health Care Register for Finnish Cattle Herds. https://www.naseva.fi/PublicContent/IntroductionInEnglishGoogle Scholar
Grant, RJ and Albright, JL 2001 Effect of animal grouping on feeding behavior and intake of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84(S): E156–E163. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)70210-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammami, H, Rekik, B and Gengler, N 2009 Genotype by environment interaction in dairy cattle. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment 13: 155–164Google Scholar
Hasegawa, N, Nishiwaki, A, Sugawara, K and Ito, I 1997 The effects of social exchange between two groups of lactating primi-parous heifers on milk production, dominance order, behavior and adrenocortical response. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 51:15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01082-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, CAE, Lin, Y, Mullan, S, Brown, WJ and Main, DCJ 2014 Implementing Welfare Quality® in UK assurance schemes: evaluating the challenges. Animal Welfare 23: 95–107. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.1.095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL and Borg, S 2000 Relationships between human-animal interaction and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 78: 2821–2831. https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.78112821xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hokkanen, A-H, Wikman, I, Korhonen, T, Pastell, M, Valros, A, Vainio, O and Hänninen, L 2015 Perceptions and practices of Finnish dairy producers on disbudding pain in calves. Journal of Dairy Science 98: 823–831. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7668CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huhtanen, P, Rinne, M, Mäntysaari, P and Nousiainen, J 2011 Integration of the effects of animal and dietary factors on total dry matter intake of dairy cows. Animal 5: 691–702. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731110002363CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huhtanen, P, Rinne, M and Nousiainen, J 2007 Evaluation of the factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows: a revision of the relative silage dry-matter intake index. Animal 1: 758–770. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173110773673XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huhtanen, P, Rinne, M and Nousiainen, J 2008 Evaluation of concentrate factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows: A devel-opment of the relative total diet intake index. Animal 2: 942–953. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731108001924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, JN 2013 Impact of lameness and claw lesions in cows on health and production. Livestock Science 156: 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICAR 2017 Introduction to the ICAR Guidelines. https://www.icar.org/index.php/icar-recording-guidelines/Google Scholar
Ingvartsen, KL, Dewhurst, RJ and Friggens, NC 2003 On the relationship between lactational performance and health: Is it yield or metabolic imbalance that cause production diseases in dairy cattle? A position paper. Livestock Production Science 83: 277–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(03)00110-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, J 2001 Genetic evaluation of dairy cattle using test-day models. Journal of Dairy Science 84: 2803–2812. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74736-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jolliffe, IT 2002 Springer Series in Statistics, Second Edition. Springer: NY, USAGoogle Scholar
Kester, E, Holzhauer, M and Frankena, K 2014 A descriptive review of the prevalence and risk factors of hock lesions in dairy cows. The Veterinary Journal 202: 222–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.07.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knierim, U and Winckler, C 2009 On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future per-spectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach. Animal Welfare 18: 451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivula, M, Nousiainen, JI, Nousiainen, J and Mäntysaari, EA 2007 Use of herd solutions from a random regression test-day model for diagnostic dairy herd manage-ment. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 2563–2568. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 122: 280–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.10.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, A, Thomsen, PT, Ersbøll, AK, Espetvedt, MN, Wolff, C, Rintakoski, S and Houe, H 2012 Validation of Nordic dairy cattle disease recording databases – Completeness for locomotor disorders. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 107: 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.06.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luke 2018 Milk and milk products statistics. http://stat.luke.fi/en/milk-and-milk-product-statisticsGoogle Scholar
Metz, JHM, Dijkstra, T, Franken, P and Frankena, K 2015 Development and application of a protocol to evaluate herd wel-fare in Dutch dairy farms. Livestock Science 180: 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mughal, M, Frondelius, L, Pastell, M, Lindeberg, H, Tuunainen, E and Mononen, J 2017 Comparing welfare assess-ment results from Welfare Quality® and a Finnish healthcare scheme for cattle. In: de Jong, IC and Koene, P (eds) Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level pp 138. 5-8 September 2017, Ede, The Netherlands. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Nyman, A-K, Lindberg, A and Sandgren, C 2011 Can pre-col-lected register data be used to identify dairy herds with good cat-tle welfare? Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 53(S1): S8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-53-S1-S8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oltenacu, PA and Broom, DM 2010 The impact of genetic selection for increased milk yield on the welfare of dairy cows. Animal Welfare 19(S): 39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, CJC and Rind, MI 2001 The effects on production and behavior of mixing uniparous and multiparous cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84: 2424–2429. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74692-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potterton, SL, Green, MJ, Harris, J, Millar, KM, Whay, HR and Huxley, JN 2011 Risk factors associated with hair loss, ulceration, and swelling at the hock in freestall-housed UK dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 2952–2963. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-4084CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rajala-Schultz, PJ, Gröhn, YT and McCulloch, CE 1999 Effects of milk fever, ketosis, and lameness on milk yield in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 288–294. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75235-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raussi, S 2003 Human-cattle interactions in group housing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80: 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00213-7Google Scholar
Rearte, R, LeBlanc, SJ, Corva, SG, de la Sota, RL, Lacau-Mendigo, IM and Giuliodorill, MJ 2018 Effect of milk production on reproductive performance in dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 101: 7575–7584. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13796Google ScholarPubMed
Roche, JR, Friggens, NC, Kay, JK, Fisher, MW, Stafford, KJ and Berry, DP 2009 Body condition score and its association with dairy cow productivity, health and welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 5769–5801. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2431CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J, de Passillé, AMB and Munksgaard, L 1999 Fear of people by cows and effects on milk yield, behavior, and heart rate at milking. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 720–727. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75289-6Google ScholarPubMed
Sandgren, CH, Lindberg, A and Keeling, LJ 2009 Using a national dairy database to identify herds with poor welfare. Animal Welfare 18: 523–532Google Scholar
Sarjokari, K, Hovinen, M, Seppä-Lassila, L, Norring, M, Hurme, T, Peltoniemi, OAT, Soveri, T and Rajala-Schultz, PJ 2018 On-farm deaths of dairy cows are associated with features of free-stall barns. Journal of Dairy Science 101: 6253–6261. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villettaz Robichaud, M, Rushen, A and de Passillé, AM 2018 Is the profitability of Canadian free-stall farms associated with their performance on an animal welfare assessment? Journal of Dairy Science 101: 2350–2358. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® Consortium 2009a Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. ASG Veehouderij BV: Lelystad, The Netherlands. http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/networkGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® Consortium 2009b An overview of the development of the Welfare Quality® project assessment sys-tems. In: Keeling, L (ed) Welfare Quality Reports No 12. Cardiff University: UKGoogle Scholar
Zaffino Heyerhoff, JC, LeBlanc, SJ, de Vries, TJ, Nash, CGR, Gibbons, J, Orsel, K, Barkema, HW, Solano, L, Rushen, J, de Passillé, AM and Haley, DB 2014 Prevalence of and factors associated with hock, knee, and neck injuries on dairy cows in freestall housing in Canada. Journal of Dairy Science 97: 173–184. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6367CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Frondelius et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 29.2 KB