Avoidance Distance in Sheltered Cows and Its Association with Other Welfare Parameters
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Cow-Based Measures
2.2. Health Measures
2.3. Shelter-Based Measures
3. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Cow-Based Measures
4.2. Shelter-Based Measures
4.3. Relationship between Cow-Based Measures and Avoidance Distance
4.4. Relationship between Avoidance Distance and Shelter-Based Measures
5. Discussion
5.1. Relationship between Cow-Based Measures and AD
5.2. Relationship between Shelter-Based Resource Measures and AD
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Parameter (Reference) | Description | Scales and Scores |
---|---|---|
Avoidance distance (AD) [36] | Cows that were standing at the feeding manger were approached at the front at a rate of one step per second, starting at 2 m from the manger. The distance between the assessor’s hand and the cow’s head was estimated at the moment the cow moved away and turned its head | 0—touched; 1—0 to 50 cm; 2—51 cm to 100 cm; 3—>100 cm. |
Lactation | 0—non-lactating; 1—lactating. | |
General demeanor [39] | Visual examination | 0—docile; 1—aggressive. |
Body condition score (BCS) [37,38] | A cow with a score of ≤1.25 was considered emaciated, 1.5–2 thin, 2.25–3.75 normal and 4 or more obese; Visual examination | 1 to 5 with increments of 0.25. |
Dirtiness of the hind limbs, udder, and flanks [40] | By visual inspection of the cows from both sides (left and right) and from behind | 1—no dirtiness; 2—mildly dirty (small soiled areas of dirtiness with no thick scabs); 3—medium dirtiness (large soiled areas but with <1 cm thick scabs of dung); 4—severely dirty (large soiled areas with >1 cm thick dung scabs). |
Body hair loss [40] | Visual inspection | 0—absence of hair loss; 1—mild hair loss; 2—medium hair loss; 3—severe hair loss. |
Tarsal joint swellings [40,41] | Visual examination | 1—mild swollen joint; 2—medium swollen joint; 3—severely swollen joint. |
Tarsal joint hair loss and ulceration [40,41] | Visual examination | 0—no hair loss or ulceration; 1—mild hair loss or ulceration <2 cm2; 2—medium hair loss or ulceration (approx. 2.5 cm2); 3—severe hair loss or ulceration >2.5 cm2. |
Carpal joint injuries [41] | Visual examination | 0—no skin changes; 1—hairless; 2—swollen; 3—wound(s). |
Neck lesions [42] | Visual examination | 1—no observable skin changes; 2—hair loss; 3—swollen; 4—closed wounds (haematomas or closed abscesses); 5—open wounds. |
Ocular lesions [43] | Visual examination | 0—absent; 1—present. |
Coughing | Examination of the sampled cows | 0—absent; 1—present. |
Nasal discharge [43] | Visual examination | 0—absent; 1—present. |
Hampered respiration [43] | Visual examination | 0—absent; 1—present. |
Diarrhoea [43] | Visual examination | 0—absent; 1—present. |
Vulvar discharge [43] | Visual examination | 0—absent; 1—present. |
Rumen fill score [44] | Visually by standing behind the cow on the left side and observing the left para lumbar fossa between the last rib, the lumbar transverse processes and the hip bone | 1—the para lumbar fossa is empty, presenting a rectangular cavity that is more than a hand’s width behind the last rib and a hand’s width under the lumbar transversal processes; 2—the para lumbar fossa forms a triangular cavity with a width about the size of a hand behind the last rib, but less than this under the lumbar transverse processes; 3—the para lumbar fossa forms a cavity less than a hand’s width behind the last rib and about a hand’s width vertically downwards from the lumbar transverse processes and then bulges out; 4—the para lumbar fossa skin covers the area behind the last rib and arches immediately outside below the lumbar transverse processes due to a bloated rumen; 5—the rumen is distended and almost fills up the para lumbar fossa; the last rib and the lumbar transverse processes are not visible. |
Faecal consistency [44] | Visual inspection | 1—thin and watery and not truly recognisable as faeces; 2—thin custard-like consistency, structurally recognisable as faeces, splashing out wide upon falling on the floor; 3—thick custard-like consistency, making a plopping sound while falling on the floor and a well-circumscribed pad which spreads out and is about 2 cm thick; 4—stiff with a heavy plopping sound while falling on the floor and a proper circumscribed pad with visible rings and minimal spreading out; 5—hard faecal balls like horse faeces. |
Skin lesions/Integument alterations [45] | Visual examination | 0—normal (no apparent lesions);1—mild hair loss (<2 cm2); 2—moderate (>2 cm2 hair loss and inflamed skin); 3—severe (a large >4 cm2 area of hair loss with extensive skin inflammation and breakage). |
Body coat condition [46] | Visual examination | 1—dull and short; 2—shiny and short; 3—dull and hairy. |
Claw overgrowth [47] | Visual examination | 0—normal claws; 1—mild claw overgrowth; 2—moderate claw overgrowth; 3—severe claw overgrowth. |
Lameness score [48,49] | 1 to 5 scale Visual examination | 1—not lame (smooth and fluid movement); 2—mildly lame but not observable easily (an imperfect gait but able to freely move with a mildly arched back); 3—moderately lame (able to move but not freely, with an arched back) 4—lame, with the inability to move freely with and asymmetrical gait and abnormal head movement; 5—severely lame (severely restricted in movement, requiring considerable encouragement to move, and a severely arched back). |
Ectoparasitism [50] | Visual examination | 1—absence of ectoparasites; 2—mild infestation—no lesions (not easily visible by naked eye but on tactile perception in the neck region; 3—moderate-mild infestation visually observable ectoparasites or immature forms or eggs in the neck, groin, peri rectal, tail root and switch regions; 4—severe-visually observation of mature ectoparasites all over the body especially regions mentioned in score 3. |
Teat and/or udder condition | Visual inspection | 0—lactating udder and teats; 1—non-lactating udder and teats; 2—teat cracks; 3—warts on teats and udder; 4—acute lesions on the teats and udder; 5—chronic lesions on teats and udder. |
Skin tenting time [51] | Visual examination by skin pinch of the cervical region of the neck | 1—≤2 s; 2—>2 s; 3—≥6 s. |
References
- de Passille, A.M.; Rushen, J. Can we measure human–animal interactions in on-farm animal welfare assessment? Some unresolved issues. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005, 92, 193–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waiblinger, S.; Boivin, X.; Pedersen, V.; Tosi, M.V.; Janczak, A.M.; Visser, E.K.; Jones, R.B. Assessing the human–animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 101, 185–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rushen, J.; Passille, A.M.D.; Von Keyserlingk, M.A.; Weary, D.M. The Welfare of Cattle, 1st ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; p. 305. [Google Scholar]
- Munksgaard, L.; De Passillé, A.M.; Rushen, J.; Thodberg, K.; Jensen, M.B. Discrimination of People by Dairy Cows Based on Handling. J. Dairy Sci. 1997, 80, 1106–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munksgaard, L.; DePassillé, A.M.; Rushen, J.; Herskin, M.S.; Kristensen, A.M. Dairy cows’ fear of people: Social learning, milk yield and behaviour at milking. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001, 73, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rushen, J.; de Passillé, A.M.B.; Munksgaard, L. Fear of People by Cows and Effects on Milk Yield, Behavior, and Heart Rate at Milking. J. Dairy Sci. 1999, 82, 720–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waiblinger, S.; Menke, C.; Folsch, D.W. Influences on the avoidance and approach behaviour of dairy cows towards humans on 35 farms. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 84, 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemsworth, P.H.; Coleman, G.J. Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals, 2nd ed.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Hutson, G.D.; Ambrose, T.J.; Barnett, J.L.; Tilbrook, A.J. Development of a behavioural test of sensory responsiveness in the growing pig. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 66, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemsworth, P.H.; Barnett, J.L.; Coleman, G.J. The human–animal relationship in agriculture and its consequences for the animal. Anim. Welf. 1993, 2, 33–51. [Google Scholar]
- Broom, D.M. Responsiveness of stall-housed sows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1986, 15, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vandenheede, M.; Bouissou, M.F. Sex-differences in fear reactions in sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1993, 37, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boissy, A.; Bouissou, M.F. Assessment of individual differences in behavioural reactions of heifers exposed to various fear-eliciting situations. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1995, 46, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grandin, T. Animal Handling. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Food Anim. Pract. 1987, 3, 323–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purcell, D.; Arave, C.W.; Walters, J.L. Relationship of three measures of behavior to milk production. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1988, 21, 307–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jurkovich, V.; Kezer, F.L.; Ruff, F.; Bakony, M.; Kulcsar, M.; Kovacs, L. Heart rate, heart rate variability, faecal glucocorticoid metabolites and avoidance response of dairy cows before and after changeover to an automatic milking system. Acta Vet. Hung. 2017, 65, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lurzel, S.; Barth, K.; Windschnurer, I.; Futschik, A.; Waiblinger, S. The influence of gentle interactions with an experimenter during milking on dairy cows’ avoidance distance and milk yield, flow and composition. Animal 2018, 12, 340–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebinghaus, A.; Ivemeyer, S.; Lauks, V.; Santos, L.; Brugemann, K.; Konig, S.; Knierim, U. How to measure dairy cows’ responsiveness towards humans in breeding and welfare assessment? A comparison of selected behavioural measures and existing breeding traits. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017, 196, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beggs, D.S.; Jongman, E.C.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Fisher, A.D. The effects of herd size on the welfare of dairy cows in a pasture-based system using animal- and resource-based indicators. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 3406–3420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Destrez, A.; Haslin, E.; Elluin, G.; Gaillard, C.; Hostiou, N.; Dasse, F.; Zanella, C.; Boivin, X. Evaluation of beef herd responses to unfamiliar humans and potential influencing factors: An exploratory survey on French farms. Livest. Sci. 2018, 212, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sserunjogi, B.; Kaur, P. Spatial and temporal dynamics of bovine wealth in India: An economic analysis. Indian J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 69, 571–580. [Google Scholar]
- Bruckert, M. Protecting and slaughtering bovines in the country of the ‘holy cow’: The symbolic and economic uses of cattle and buffaloes in contemporary India. Anthropozoologica 2018, 53, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarkar, R.; Sarkar, A. Sacred Slaughter: An Analysis of Historical, Communal, and Constitutional Aspects of Beef Bans in India. Politics Relig. Ideol. 2016, 17, 329–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Windschnurer, I.; Boivin, X.; Waiblinger, S. Reliability of an avoidance distance test for the assessment of animals’ responsiveness to humans and a preliminary investigation of its association with farmers’ attitudes on bull fattening farms. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 117, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Windschnurer, I.; Schmied, C.; Boivin, X.; Waiblinger, S. Reliability and inter-test relationship of tests for on-farm assessment of dairy cows’ relationship to humans. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 114, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmied, C.; Boivin, X.; Waiblinger, S. Stroking Different Body Regions of Dairy Cows: Effects on Avoidance and Approach Behavior Toward Humans. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 596–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Breuer, K.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Coleman, G.J. The effect of positive or negative handling on the behavioural and physiological responses of non-lactating heifers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 84, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rushen, J.; Munksgaard, L.; de Passillé, A.M.B.; Jensen, M.B.; Thodberg, K. Location of handling and dairy cows’ responses to people. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998, 55, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulleder, C.; Troxer, J.; Waiblinger, S. Methodological aspects for the assessment of social behaviour and avoidance distance on dairy farms. Anim. Welf. 2003, 12, 579–584. [Google Scholar]
- Kennedy, U.; Sharma, A.; Phillips, C.J.C. The Sheltering of Unwanted Cattle, Experiences in India and Implications for Cattle Industries Elsewhere. Animals 2018, 8, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, A.; Kennedy, U.; Schuetze, C.; Phillips, C.J.C. The Welfare of Cows in Indian Shelters. Animals 2019, 9, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winckler, C.; capdeville, J.; Gebresenbet, G.; Horning, B.; Roiha, U.; Tosi, M.; Waiblinger, S. Selection of parameters for on-farm welfare-assessment protocols in cattle and buffalo. Anim. Welf. 2003, 12, 619–624. [Google Scholar]
- Hsieh, F.Y.; Bloch, D.A.; Larsen, M.D. A simple method of sample size calculation for linear and logistic regression. Stat. Med. 1998, 17, 1623–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Botreau, R.; Veissier, I.; Butterworth, A.; Bracke, M.B.M.; Keeling, L.J. Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2007, 16, 225–228. [Google Scholar]
- Botreau, R.; Veissier, I.; Perny, P. Overall assessment of animal welfare: Strategy adopted in Welfare Quality®. Anim. Welf. 2009, 18, 363–370. [Google Scholar]
- de Vries, M.; Engel, B.; den Uijl, I.; van Schaik, G.; Dijkstra, T.; de Boer, I.J.M.; Bokkers, E.A.M. Assessment time of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle. Anim. Welf. 2013, 22, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edmonson, A.; Lean, I.; Weaver, L.; Farver, T.; Webster, G. A body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1989, 72, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomsen, P.T.; Baadsgaard, N.P. Intra-and inter-observer agreement of a protocol for clinical examination of dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 2006, 75, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cafe, L.M.; Robinson, D.L.; Ferguson, D.M.; McIntyre, B.L.; Geesink, G.H.; Greenwood, P.L. Cattle temperament: Persistence of assessments and associations with productivity, efficiency, carcass and meat quality traits. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 89, 1452–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whay, H.R.; Main, D.C.J.; Green, L.E.; Webster, A.J.F. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: Direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. Rec. 2003, 153, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wechsler, B.; Schaub, J.; Friedli, K.; Hauser, R. Behaviour and leg injuries in dairy cows kept in cubicle systems with straw bedding or soft lying mats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 69, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kielland, C.; Bøe, K.E.; Zanella, A.J.; Østerås, O. Risk factors for skin lesions on the necks of Norwegian dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 3979–3989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coignard, M.; Guatteo, R.; Veissier, I.; de Boyer des Roches, A.; Mounier, L.; Lehébel, A.; Bareille, N. Description and factors of variation of the overall health score in French dairy cattle herds using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol. Prev. Vet. Med. 2013, 112, 296–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zaaijer, D.; Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M. A novel scoring system for monitoring the relationship between nutritional efficiency and fertility in dairy cows. Irish Vet. J. 2003, 56, 145–151. [Google Scholar]
- Leeb, C.; Main, D.; Whay, H.; Webster, A. Bristol Welfare Assurance Programme–Cattle Assessment; University of Bristol: Bristol, UK, 2004; Available online: http://www.vetschool.bris.ac.uk (accessed on 27 December 2018).
- Huxley, J.; Whay, H.R. Cow based assessments Part 1: Nutrition, cleanliness and coat condition. UK Vet. Livest. 2006, 11, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huxley, J.; Whay, H.R. Welfare: Cow based assessments Part 3: Locomotion scoring, claw overgrowth and injuries associated with farm furniture. UK Vet. Livest 2006, 11, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flower, F.C.; Weary, D.M. Effect of Hoof Pathologies on Subjective Assessments of Dairy Cow Gait. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sprecher, D.; Hostetler, D.; Kaneene, J. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 1997, 47, 1179–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popescu, S.; Borda, C.; Sandru, C.D.; Stefan, R.; Lazar, E. The welfare assessment of tied dairy cows in 52 small farms in North-Eastern Transylvania using animal-based measurements. Slovak Vet. Res. 2010, 47, 77–82. [Google Scholar]
- Roussel, A.J. Fluid therapy in mature cattle. Vet. Clin N. Am.-Food A 2014, 30, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otten, N.D.; Rousing, T.; Houe, H.; Thomsen, P.T.; Sorensen, J.T. Comparison of animal welfare indices in dairy herds based on different sources of data. Anim. Welf. 2016, 25, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Keyserlingk, M.A.; Barrientos, A.; Ito, K.; Weary, D.M. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 7399–7408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Phillips, C.; Morris, I. The locomotion of dairy cows on floor surfaces with different frictional properties. J. Dairy Sci. 2001, 84, 623–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, C.J. Principles of Cattle Production, 2nd ed.; CABI: Oxfordshire, UK, 2010; ISBN 987-1-84593-397-5. [Google Scholar]
- Sharma, A.; Kennedy, U.; Phillips, C. A Novel Method of Assessing Floor Friction in Cowsheds and Its Association with Cow Health. Animals 2019, 9, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cook, N.B. The influence of barn design on dairy cow hygiene, lameness and udder health. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Convention of American Association of Bovine Practitioners, Madison, WI, USA, 26–28 September 2002; pp. 97–103. [Google Scholar]
- Brenninkmeyer, C.; Dippel, S.; Brinkmann, J.; March, S.; Winckler, C.; Knierim, U. Hock lesion epidemiology in cubicle housed dairy cows across two breeds, farming systems and countries. Prev. Vet. Med. 2013, 109, 236–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Regula, G.; Danuser, J.; Spycher, B.; Wechsler, B. Health and welfare of dairy cows in different husbandry systems in Switzerland. Prev. Vet. Med. 2004, 66, 247–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Evans, D.L. The distribution of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Cramer-von Mises, and Anderson–Darling test statistics for exponential populations with estimated parameters. In Computational Probability Applications; Drew, J.H., Leemis, L.M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 165–190. [Google Scholar]
- Dohoo, I.R.; Martin, W.; Stryhn, H. Veterinary Epidemiologic Research, 2nd ed.; AVC Incorporated: Charlottetown, PE, Canada, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Waiblinger, S.; Menke, C. Influence of sample size and experimenter on reliability of measures of avoidance distance in dairy cows. Anim. Welf. 2003, 12, 585–589. [Google Scholar]
- Ebinghaus, A.; Ivemeyer, S.; Rupp, J.; Knierim, U. Identification and development of measures suitable as potential breeding traits regarding dairy cows’ reactivity towards humans. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016, 185, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winckler, C.; Brinkmann, J.; Glatz, J. Long-term consistency of selected animal-related welfare parameters in dairy farms. Anim. Welf. 2007, 16, 197–199. [Google Scholar]
- des Roches, A.D.; Veissier, I.; Boivin, X.; Gilot-Fromont, E.; Mounier, L. A prospective exploration of farm, farmer, and animal characteristics in human–animal relationships: An epidemiological survey. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 5573–5585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rushen, J.; Taylor, A.A.; de Passille, A.M. Domestic animals’ fear of humans and its effect on their welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1999, 65, 285–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivemeyer, S.; Knierim, U.; Waiblinger, S. Effect of human–animal relationship and management on udder health in Swiss dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 5890–5902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaplin, S.J.; Tierney, G.; Stockwell, C.; Logue, D.N.; Kelly, M. An evaluation of mattresses and mats in two dairy units. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 66, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abe, N. The deeper the “mud”, the dirtier the udder. Hoard’s Dairym. 1999, 144, 439. [Google Scholar]
- Kloosterman, P. Claw care. In Lameness in Cattle, 3rd ed.; Greenough, P.R., Ed.; Saunders: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1997; pp. 123–137. [Google Scholar]
- Herlin, A.H. Comparison of lying area surfaces for dairy cows by preference, hygiene and lying down behaviour. Swed. J. Agric. Res. 1997, 27, 189–196. [Google Scholar]
- Zurbrigg, K.; Kelton, D.; Anderson, N.; Millman, S. Tie-stall design and its relationship to lameness, injury, and cleanliness on 317 Ontario dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 3201–3210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lensink, B.J.; Veissier, I.; Florand, L. The farmers’ influence on calves’ behaviour, health and production of a veal unit. Anim. Sci. 2001, 72, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemsworth, P.H.; Coleman, G.J.; Barnett, J.L.; Borg, S.; Dowling, S. The effects of cognitive behavioral intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and the behavior and productivity of commercial dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 80, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Potterton, S.L.; Green, M.J.; Harris, J.; Millar, K.M.; Whay, H.R.; Huxley, J.N. Risk factors associated with hair loss, ulceration, and swelling at the hock in freestall-housed UK dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 2952–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haskell, M.J.; Rennie, L.J.; Bowell, V.A.; Bell, M.J.; Lawrence, A.B. Housing system, milk production, and zero-grazing effects on lameness and leg injury in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 4259–4266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kester, E.; Holzhauer, M.; Frankena, K. A descriptive review of the prevalence and risk factors of hock lesions in dairy cows. Vet. J. 2014, 202, 222–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aitchison, E.M.; Gill, M. The effect of digestibility and forage species on the removal of digesta from the rumen and the voluntary intake of hay by sheep. Br. J. Nutr. 1986, 56, 463–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Llamas-Lamas, G.; Combs, D.K. Effect of Forage to Concentrate Ratio and Intake Level on Utilization of Early Vegetative Alfalfa Silage by Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 526–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burfeind, O.; Sepúlveda, P.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Weary, D.M.; Veira, D.M.; Heuwieser, W. Technical note: Evaluation of a scoring system for rumen fill in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 3635–3640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huzzey, J.M.; Veira, D.M.; Weary, D.M.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Prepartum Behavior and Dry Matter Intake Identify Dairy Cows at Risk for Metritis. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 3220–3233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Oetzel, G.R. Monitoring and testing dairy herds for metabolic disease. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2004, 20, 651–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Otis, J.D.; Keane, T.M.; Kerns, R.D. An examination of the relationship between chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2003, 40, 397–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Woo, A.K. Depression and Anxiety in Pain. Rev. Pain 2010, 4, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lean, I.J. Association between feeding perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne cultivar Grasslands Impact) containing high concentrations of ergovaline, and health and productivity in a herd of lactating dairy cows. Aust. Vet. J. 2001, 79, 262–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Constable, P.D.; Hinchcliff, K.W.; Done, S.H.; Grünberg, W. Veterinary Medicine—A Textbook of the Diseases of Cattle, Horses, Sheep, Pigs and Goats, 11th ed.; Elsevier Ltd.: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2017; p. 2065. [Google Scholar]
- van der Tol, P.P.J.; Metz, J.H.M.; Noordhuizen-Stassen, E.N.; Back, W.; Braam, C.R.; Weijs, W.A. Frictional Forces Required for Unrestrained Locomotion in Dairy Cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 615–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galindo, F.; Broom, D.M. The Effects of Lameness on Social and Individual Behavior of Dairy Cows. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2002, 5, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, C.J.C.; Morris, I.D. The Locomotion of Dairy Cows on Concrete Floors That are Dry, Wet, or Covered with a Slurry of Excreta. J. Dairy Sci. 2000, 83, 1767–1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, C.J.C. (Ed.) Housing, handling and the environment for cattle. In Principles of Cattle Production, 2nd ed.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2009; pp. 95–128. [Google Scholar]
- Avery, D.; Lanier, J.L.; McGee, K.; Green, R.D.; Grandin, T. The relationship between reaction to sudden, intermittent movements and sounds and temperament1. J. Anim. Sci. 2000, 78, 1467–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnold, N.A.; Ng, K.T.; Jongman, E.C.; Hemsworth, P.H. The behavioural and physiological responses of dairy heifers to tape-recorded milking facility noise with and without a pre-treatment adaptation phase. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 106, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brouček, J. Effect of noise on performance, stress, and behaviour of animals. Slovak J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 47, 111–123. [Google Scholar]
- Večeřa, M.; Falta, D.; Filipčík, R.; Chládek, G.; Lategan, F. The Effect of Low and High Cowshed Temperatures on the Behaviour and Milk Performance of Czech Fleckvieh Cows. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2016, 16, 1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lefcourt, A.M.; Schmidtmann, E.T. Body Temperature of Dry Cows on Pasture: Environmental and Behavioral Effects. J. Dairy Sci. 1989, 72, 3040–3049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fournel, S.; Ouellet, V.; Charbonneau, É. Practices for Alleviating Heat Stress of Dairy Cows in Humid Continental Climates: A Literature Review. Animals 2017, 7, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, D.A.; Schuehle Pfeiffer, C.E.; Randel, R.D.; Welsh, T.H.; Oliphint, R.A.; Baird, B.E.; Curley, K.O.; Vann, R.C.; Hale, D.S.; Savell, J.W. Influence of animal temperament and stress responsiveness on the carcass quality and beef tenderness of feedlot cattle. Meat Sci. 2006, 74, 546–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanna, D.; Sneddon, I.A.; Beattie, V.E.; Breuer, K. Effects of the stockperson on dairy cow behaviour and milk yield. Anim. Sci. 2006, 82, 791–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seabrook, M.F. The physiological interaction between the stockman and his animals and its influence on performance of pigs and dairy cows. Vet. Rec. 1984, 115, 84–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breuer, K.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Barnett, J.L.; Matthews, L.R.; Coleman, G.J. Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 66, 273–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waiblinger, S.; Mulleder, C.; Schmied, C.; Dembele, I. Assessing the animals’ relationship to humans in tied dairy cows: Between-experimenter repeatability of measuring avoidance reactions. Anim. Welf. 2007, 16, 143–146. [Google Scholar]
Parameter | % Score and Number | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Avoidance distance score (Scale 0–3) | 51.2 (830) | 31.4 (508) | 15.4 (249) | 2.0 (33) | - | - |
Lactation (0: non-lactating; 1: lactating) | 88.0 (1425) | 12.0 (195) | - | - | - | - |
BCS | ≤1.25 (emaciated) 0.1 (2) | 1.5–2 (thin) 22.9 (371) | 2.25–3.75 (normal) 75.5 (1233) | 4 or more (obese) 1.5 (24) | - | - |
General demeanour (0: docile; 1: aggressive) | 76.4 (1238) | 23.4 (382) | - | - | - | - |
Dirty hind limbs score (Scale 0–3) | 2.4 (38) | 42.6 (690) | 43.0 (697) | 12.0 (195) | - | - |
Dirty udder score (Scale 0–3) | 17.5 (283) | 44.6 (722) | 31.4 (509) | 6.5 (106) | - | - |
Dirty flanks score (Scale 0–3) | 19.6 (316) | 42.2 (684) | 32.0 (519) | 6.2 (101) | - | - |
Body hair loss score (Scale 0–3) | 45.0 (728) | 30.3 (492) | 23.0 (373) | 1.7 (29) | - | - |
Tarsal joint swelling score (Scale 0–3) | 11.8 (191) | 22.4 (362) | 63.7 (1032) | 2.1 (35) | - | - |
Tarsal joint hair loss score (Scale 0–3) | 23.0 (372) | 49.4 (800) | 27.3 (443) | 0.3 (5) | - | - |
Tarsal joint ulceration score (Scale 0–3) | 53.6 (869) | 33.3 (539) | 13.0 (210) | 0.1 (2) | - | - |
Carpal joint injuries score (Scale 0–3) | 44.8 (726) | 31.9 (516) | 23.0 (373) | 0.3 (5) | - | - |
Neck lesions score (Scale 1–4) | - | 5.4 (1546) | 3.8 (62) | 0.4 (6) | 0.4 (6) | |
Ocular lesions score (Scale 0–1) | 91 (1474) | 9.0 (146) | - | - | - | - |
Lesions on the body score (Scale 0–3) | 45.3 (734) | 32.3 (524) | 20.5 (332) | 1.9 (30) | - | - |
Body coat condition score (Scale 1–3) | - | 47.1 (764) | 52.0 (843) | 0.8 (13) | - | - |
Nasal discharge score (Scale 0–1) | 90.7 (1470) | 9.3 (150) | - | - | - | - |
Diarrhoea score (Scale 0–1) | 95.7 (1551) | 4.3 (69) | - | - | - | - |
Faecal consistency score (Scale 1–5) | - | 0.3 (5) | 4.9 (79) | 35.1 (569) | 58.3 (944) | 1.4 (23) |
Rumen Fill Score (Scale 1–5) | - | 0.1 (2) | 3.7 (60) | 36.8 (594) | 58.7 (952) | 0.7 (12) |
Lameness score (Scale 1–5) | - | 84.7 (1373) | 11.0 (178) | 3.2 (53) | 1.0 (15) | 0.06 (1) |
Claw overgrowth score (Scale 0–3) | 52.5 (850) | 36.4 (589) | 9.6 (156) | 1.5 (25) | - | - |
Teat score (Scale 0–5) | 14.5 (235) | 83.2 (1348) | 0.4 (6) | 0.4 (7) | 0.0 (0) | 1.5 (24) |
Ectoparasitism score (Scale 0–4) | 0.4 (6) | 53.1 (861) | 34.5 (559) | 11.8 (191) | 0.2 (3) | - |
Skin tenting time score (Scale 0–4) | 92.2 (1494) | 5.3 (86) | 2.1 (35) | 0.3 (5) | - | - |
Parameter | Median | First Quartile (Q1) | Third Quartile (Q3) | Interquartile Range (IQR) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cows/shed | 70 | 47.8 | 137.3 | 89.5 |
Area/cow (m2) | 2.73 | 1.56 | 3.62 | 2.06 |
Gradient of shed lying area flooring (%) | 1.46 | 0.96 | 2.20 | 1.23 |
Gradient of shed passage flooring (%) | 2.36 | 1.27 | 3.52 | 2.24 |
CoF of shed flooring | 0.43 | 0.27 | 0.65 | 0.37 |
% dung in lying areas of shed | 15 | 5 | 40 | 35 |
% dung in passages of shed | 10 | 5 | 42.5 | 37.5 |
Dry bulb temperature of the shed (°C) | 29.5 | 27.2 | 32.8 | 5.6 |
Shed humidity (%) | 34 | 24.7 | 45.2 | 20.5 |
Shed luminosity level (Lux) | 582 | 89 | 1036 | 946 |
Shed noise levels (Decibel) | 27.6 | 21.3 | 37.1 | 15.8 |
Parameter | Variables | Correlation Coefficient (rs) | p |
---|---|---|---|
Avoidance Distance (Score 1–4) 0—touched 1—50 cm to >0 cm 2—100 cm to >50 cm 3—>100 cm | Carpal joint injuries | 0.232 | ≤0.001 |
Dirty flanks | 0.216 | ≤0.001 | |
Dirty udder | 0.186 | ≤0.001 | |
Claw overgrowth | 0.173 | ≤0.001 | |
Diarrhoea | 0.158 | ≤0.001 | |
Lesions on the body | 0.155 | ≤0.001 | |
Tarsal joint ulceration | 0.154 | ≤0.001 | |
Skin tenting time | 0.138 | ≤0.001 | |
Lameness | 0.119 | ≤0.001 | |
BCS | 0.093 | ≤0.001 | |
Body hair loss | 0.090 | ≤0.001 | |
Age of the cows | 0.082 | 0.001 | |
Ectoparasitism | 0.063 | 0.01 | |
Ocular lesions | 0.055 | 0.02 | |
Nasal discharge | 0.056 | 0.02 | |
Coat condition | 0.056 | 0.02 | |
Rumen Fill Score | −0.279 | ≤0.001 | |
General demeanour | −0.069 | 0.005 | |
Faecal consistency | −0.071 | 0.004 |
Predictor | Mean | Coefficient | SE Coefficient | p | Odds Ratio | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dirty hind limbs | 0.68 | 0.114 | 0.000 | 1.98 | 1.58–2.48 | |
Rumen fill score | 0.58 | 0.093 | 0.000 | 1.79 | 1.49–2.15 | |
Tarsal joint swelling | 0.24 | 0.080 | 0.002 | 1.28 | 0.09–1.50 | |
Tarsal joint hair loss | 0.23 | 0.095 | 0.012 | 1.27 | 1.05–1.53 | |
Lesions on the body | −0.22 | 0.018 | 0.006 | 0.80 | 0.68–0.94 | |
Tarsal joint ulceration | −0.27 | 0.091 | 0.002 | 0.76 | 0.63–0.91 | |
Carpal joint injuries | −0.33 | 0.070 | 0.000 | 0.72 | 0.62–0.82 | |
Coat condition | −0.39 | 0.129 | 0.002 | 0.67 | 0.52–0.87 | |
BCS | −0.56 | 0.109 | 0.000 | 0.57 | 0.46–0.71 | |
Dirty flanks | −0.58 | 0.150 | 0.000 | 0.56 | 0.42–0.75 | |
Diarrhoea | ||||||
Reference 0 | 1.65 | |||||
Reference 1 | 2.34 | −0.72 | 0.280 | 0.010 | 0.48 | 0.28–0.84 |
Hampered respiration | ||||||
Reference 0 | 1.67 | |||||
Reference 1 | 2.57 | −1.71 | 0.736 | 0.020 | 0.18 | 0.04–0.76 |
Parameter | Variables | Correlation Coefficient (rs) | p |
---|---|---|---|
Avoidance distance (Score 1–4) 0—touched 1—50 cm to >0 cm 2—100 cm to >50 cm 3—>100 cm | Cows/shed | 0.337 | 0.01 |
Shed average luminosity | 0.293 | 0.03 | |
Shed noise levels | 0.278 | 0.04 | |
Shed area/cow | −0.308 | 0.02 | |
Shed dry bulb temperature | −0.416 | 0.002 |
Term/Parameter | Coefficient | SE Coefficient | p |
---|---|---|---|
Constant | 3.87 | 0.506 | ≤0.001 |
Shed clean at the time of measurement | 0.21 | 0.084 | 0.01 |
Noise levels in the shed (decibels) | 0.008 | 0.003 | 0.02 |
Shed humidity (%) | −0.02 | 0.004 | ≤0.001 |
Dry bulb temperature in the sheds (°C) | −0.04 | 0.011 | ≤0.001 |
% dung in the lying area of the shed | −0.008 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sharma, A.; Phillips, C.J.C. Avoidance Distance in Sheltered Cows and Its Association with Other Welfare Parameters. Animals 2019, 9, 396. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9070396
Sharma A, Phillips CJC. Avoidance Distance in Sheltered Cows and Its Association with Other Welfare Parameters. Animals. 2019; 9(7):396. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9070396
Chicago/Turabian StyleSharma, Arvind, and Clive J. C. Phillips. 2019. "Avoidance Distance in Sheltered Cows and Its Association with Other Welfare Parameters" Animals 9, no. 7: 396. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9070396