There is a trend toward increasing intensification in dairy farming in the United Kingdom. In particular, there is concern over systems in which cows are housed throughout the year, as the behavioural restriction implicit in these systems is associated with poor welfare in other species. The aim of this on-going project is to determine how this affects the behaviour and welfare of dairy cattle. A range of behavioural, physical and health measures are being used to assess cow welfare on about 40 commercial British dairy farms. Initially, five farm types were identified from analysis of returns from a farmer questionnaire. Milk production level and housing type were the principal factors explaining variation in farm type. The sample groups are: high-, mid- and low-production cubicle-housing units, mid-production straw-court units, and cubicle-housing high-production zero-grazing units. Observations will take place over three winter housing periods (2000/01 to 2002/03), with recording on each unit taking five days. Our main hypothesis is that the behavioural and physical responses of ‘at-risk’ younger cows provide a sensitive indication of farm-level ‘stress’. Cows are marked according to age, and the feed-face videotaped continuously to record feeding time and social interactions. Temporal organisation of behaviour will be analysed using fractal mathematics and qualitative assessment approaches used in a human interaction test. Cow cleanliness, condition score, response to a novel object and the incidences of lameness and leg injury are recorded, and building quality is assessed. Ultimately, multivariate methods will be used to test our underlying hypothesis and to assess effects of housing and production type on behaviour and welfare. This analysis may identify key objective measures of welfare for use in farm assurance schemes.

The aim of this study was to illustrate the integration of different parameters into an overall assessment of animal welfare on the basis of studies with dairy cows. Behavioural observations were carried out on 36 farms with cubicle houses. Summed variables of resting behaviour were constructed by summing the results for three to nine behaviours. These summed variables showed higher correlations with cubicle features than did single behaviours. Individual animals may react differently to the same causes (cubicle features), and adding up may compensate for these different reactions of individuals to the same causes. Most recorded behaviours correlated with one another; this could be interpreted as evidence for identical causes. A cubicle sum variable was constructed, giving scores for cubicle features. The cubicle sum variable showed higher correlations with resting behaviours than did single cubicle features. This suggests that certain behaviours are affected by several cubicle features (additive effects). This hypothesis was confirmed by multivariate analysis.

This paper describes an approach to assessing the overall welfare of cows on dairy farms. Veterinary and behaviour experts were shown results for ten selected welfare parameters for 25 pairs of dairy farms paired for farm assurance status but with similar geographical location and husbandry system. From this information alone they were asked to state which farms had better welfare. Overall, there were no significant differences between the conclusions of veterinary and behaviour experts. There was a significant relationship between the proportion of experts rating a farm as poorer and the measured difference in the number of cows with lameness or rising restrictions between the paired farms. There were no significant relationships between the expert decisions and differences in milk yield, flight distance, swollen hocks, mastitis incidence, dystocia level, conception rates, prevalence of thin cows and proportion of cows with dirty udders. Clearly, experts rate lameness and discomfort as highly important indices of poor welfare in dairy cows.

Suitable systems for the assessment of animal welfare are in increasing demand. In Austria, the TGI 35 L Animal Needs Index is widely used and has been shown to be a feasible and reliable tool for animal welfare assessment on farms. Here we focus on the validity of TGI 35 L assessments, and explore the correlation between animal welfare as assessed by the TGI 35 L and animal health and behavioural parameters. From the results, it can be determined whether the criteria assessed by the TGI 35 L are preconditions for a high level of health and normal behaviour. Behaviour and health were examined in 11 cattle houses, totalling 169 animals. Behaviour was observed for two days on each farm. Data on resting behaviour, comfort behaviour, social behaviour, feed intake behaviour and eliminative behaviour were collected. Health was assessed using veterinary examinations carried out according to the General Clinical and the Orthopaedic Examination Proceedings. Significant correlations were found between the TGI scores and behaviour and health, including results for skin lesions and injuries. This indicates good validity of the TGI 35 L assessment system for cattle. A comprehensive system for the assessment of animal welfare on farms must comprise parameters of housing, climate, management and stockmanship, and animal-related parameters.

Some aspects of on-farm assessment of social behaviour and avoidance distance were investigated on 20 Austrian dairy farms. The avoidance distance of at least 75% of cows was assessed. Social behaviour of the cows was observed for one hour and the number of animals standing was recorded every 10 min. Lameness of each animal was scored, and Spearman correlations were calculated. Generally, the avoidance distance of the cows was very low. Lameness did not correlate significantly with avoidance distance. The number of agonistic interactions with body contact per cow correlated negatively with the percentage of lame animals (rs = -0.49; P = 0.029). However, this correlation was no longer found (rs = -0.22; not significant) when calculated on the basis of standing animals only. The total number of social interactions correlated highly with the number of social interactions when interactions in the feeding rack were disregarded. The present study suggests that lameness confounds the assessment of social behaviour but not that of avoidance distance of cows, and that social interactions of animals standing in the feeding racks can be disregarded without decreasing the reliability of the assessments.