Devereaux et al. reply.

T. Devereaux,D. Einzel,B. Stadlober,Rudi Hackl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PHYSREVLETT.72.3291

IF: 8.6

1994-05-16

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Use of surface-modifying macromolecules to enhance the biostability of segmented polyurethanes.

Y. Tang,J. Santerre,R. Labow,D. Taylor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(19970605)35:3<371::AID-JBM11>3.0.CO;2-I

1997-06-05

Journal of Biomedical Materials Research

Abstract:Polyurethanes are widely used as biomaterials for medical implants because of their excellent mechanical properties and moderate biocompatibility. However, the demand for more bioresistant and biocompatible polyurethanes to meet the needs of long-term implant devices still remains an important issue. Since most biological interactions with materials occur at the interface, a significant number of studies for improving the biocompatibility of polyurethanes have concentrated on surface modification. It is well known that additives used in polymeric materials as processing aids, mold releasing agents, antioxidants, etc., migrate to the surface and change the surface properties of the material. Under certain conditions polymeric additives may also migrate toward surfaces. This study describes two fluorine-containing, surface-modifying macromolecules (SMMs) that have been evaluated for their ability to inhibit polyurethane degradation. These materials actively migrate to the upper surface of a material film when they are mixed with a base polymeric materia. Contact angle measurements for the mixture of SMM with base polyurethane indicate that the surface becomes more hydrophobic after adding the SMMs, while X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy analysis shows an enrichment of fluorine on the polymer surfaces. Differential scanning calorimetry thermograms indicate that the micro-structure, as defined by the thermal transitions of the base polymer, are not altered by the addition of SMMs. Enzyme-induced biodegradation tests exhibit a significant reduction of polyurethane degradation in the presence of these surface-resident materials. The results indicate that the SMMs have the potential to resist hydrolytic degradation mediated by lysosomal enzymes while generating a surface chemistry on the native elastomer which is similar in nature to that of a fluoropolymer, e.g., Teflon.
Towards the creation of a welfare assessment system in intensive beef cattle farms

Flaviana Gottardo,Marta Brscic,Barbara Contiero,Giulio Cozzi,Igino Andrighetto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.s1.325

2009-01-01

Italian Journal of Animal Science

Abstract:This study aimed to develop an assessment scheme for the evaluation at farm level of beef cattle welfare in the intensive rearing system that is capable of both identifying weak points in animal welfare and grading farms to such extent. The basic principle of the method was the avoidance of animal handling and the prolonged observation of cattle using animal-based and resource provision measures grouped in four classes of parameters: 1) Housing systems and facilities; 2) Health and cleanliness; 3) Animal behaviour and reactivity; 4) Quality of management and stockmanship. Each parameter was graded giving the highest scores to the best option for animal welfare, and the threshold value for distinguishing good from poor welfare conditions was set primarily on the results of scientific reports and investigations. An overall Welfare Index was calculated summing the scores of the 4 classes of parameters to formulate a general judgement of the farm and to allow comparison among them. The protocol was applied to 102 Italian intensive beef cattle farms rearing more than 300 young bulls/year. Regarding housing and facilities, the study showed that space allowance and space at the manger were the most frequent critical points. Within the “poor welfare” farms, more than 80% provided less than 3.5 m2/head to bulls weighing more than 500 kg, and none adopted a feeding frontage of at least 60 cm/head. Negatively judged farms compared to those ranked in the good welfare area for health and cleanliness showed a higher incidence of emergency slaughter (score 1.7: >1% vs score 3: 0.5-1%, P<0.05) and lameness (score 1.9: 1.5-3% vs score 3.3: <1.5%, P<0.05). Animal behaviour and reactivity parameters showed that in the “poor welfare” farms, bulls had a quicker flight reaction to the presence of both farmer and observer (P<0.01) likely due to a negative human-animal interaction. The quality of stockmanship was the category in which the highest number of farms failed to reach the acceptable threshold. Animal welfare was mainly impaired by the practice of tail docking and reduced feed availability. Although none of the farms included in the survey reached the maximum overall score, less then 30% were graded in the poor welfare area, penalized mainly by low management quality. The protocol was shown to be effective in detecting specific critical points for animal welfare, even if further development should be addressed to testing repeatability at different fattening stages.

agriculture, dairy & animal science,veterinary sciences
Animal-based welfare indicators for dairy cows and their validity and practicality: a systematic review of the existing literature

Jenny Linstädt,Christa Thöne-Reineke,Roswitha Merle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1429097

2024-07-11

Abstract:Animal welfare is of increasing importance, with consumers preferring animal products made with ethical practices due to growing awareness. This shift highlights the need for reliable methods to evaluate welfare. This systematic review aims to assess the validity of current animal-based welfare indicators for dairy cows to aid farmers and agricultural professionals in evaluating and improving welfare amidst the lack of a clear legislative definition. The literature search spanned five databases: CAB Direct, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and Livivo, covering publications in English and German from 2011 to 2021. Specific search terms were employed, and abstracts were screened for relevance. Publications were categorized based on exclusion criteria, with a final verification process conducted by three independent scientists. Research highlights correlations between welfare measures, farm characteristics and innovative indicators like hair cortisol concentration. Farming systems and housing methods significantly affect welfare, with pasture-based systems generally resulting in reduced lameness and improved behavior. Proper housing design and management practices are important, as they influence indicators like lameness and cleanliness. Heart rate variability and heart rate monitoring provide insights into dairy cow stress levels during milking and other stressors, making them valuable for welfare assessment. Biomarker research emphasizes the need to balance productivity and health in breeding strategies, as high milk production alone does not indicate good welfare. Behavioral studies and the human-animal relationship are key to understanding welfare. Precision Livestock Farming offers real-time assessment capabilities, although validation is needed. Stress physiology is complex, and while cortisol measurement methods are promising, further research is necessary. Assessment tools like the Animal Needs Index and routine herd data analysis are valuable for identifying welfare concerns. Key findings highlight the WQ® protocol's effectiveness and versatility, the challenge of its time demands, and the DCF protocol's promise for more practical and efficient welfare assessments. Commercial animal welfare audits should prioritize easily observable indicators and herd records due to logistical constraints in measuring biomarkers or heart rate variability. This focus on easily accessible indicators, such as body condition score, lameness, claw health, cleanliness, and somatic cell count allows effective welfare assessments, enabling prompt action to enhance wellbeing.
Assessing dairy cow welfare during the grazing and housing periods on spring-calving, pasture-based dairy farms

Robin E Crossley,Eddie A M Bokkers,Natasha Browne,Katie Sugrue,Emer Kennedy,Imke J M de Boer,Muireann Conneely

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skab093

2021-03-24

Journal of Animal Science

Abstract:Abstract The different periods characterizing spring-calving, pasture-based dairy systems common in Ireland have seldom been the focus of large-scale dairy cow welfare research. Thus, the aim of this study was to devise and conduct an animal-based welfare assessment during both the grazing and housing periods on spring-calving, pasture-based dairy farms, to identify areas for improvement and establish benchmarks for indicators of good welfare. Assessment of seven animal-based welfare indicators was conducted during two visits (one each at grazing and housing) to 82 commercial dairy farms in southern Ireland. Herd-level descriptive statistics were performed for all welfare indicators at each visit, and differences between visits were analyzed using paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. A mean of 9% and 10% clinically lame cows (mobility scores 2 and 3) were observed at housing and grazing, respectively. Recommended body condition scores (BCS) were not met for a mean of 13% of cows at grazing and 23% at housing, with more over-conditioned cows present at housing than grazing (P < 0.001). Ocular discharge was uncommon in both periods. Prevalence of moderate and severe nasal discharge combined was lower during housing (5%) than grazing (7%). In both periods, similar mean levels of tail injury were observed: 2% to 3% of cows with tail lacerations, 9% with broken tails, and 8% (measured at housing only) with docked tails. Integument alterations involved primarily hair loss and were most prevalent on the hindquarters (26%) during grazing and on the head–neck–back (66%) and the hindquarter (32%) regions during housing. Cows displayed an avoidance distance of >1 m (indicative of a fearful response) from an approaching human in an average of 82% of grazing cows and 42% to 75% of housed cows, dependent on test location. Opportunities to improve welfare in this system were identified in the areas of tail injury prevention, nasal health, and the management of indoor housing and feeding. The performance of the top 20% of farms for each welfare indicator was used to establish benchmarks of: 0% to 5% clinical lameness, 0% to 12% of cows outside recommended BCS, 0% to 27% ocular discharge, 2% to 16% nasal discharge, 0% tail lacerations and docked tails, 0% to 3% tail breaks, 0% to 14% integument alterations, and 4% to 74% for avoidance distance of >1 m. These represent attainable targets for spring-calving pasture-based farms to promote good dairy cow welfare.

agriculture, dairy & animal science
A Review of Welfare Indicators of Indoor-Housed Dairy Cow as a Basis for Integrated Automatic Welfare Assessment Systems

Lisette M C Leliveld,Giorgio Provolo,Lisette M.C. Leliveld

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10081430

2020-08-15

Animals

Abstract:For on-farm welfare assessment many automatic methods have been developed to detect indicators of reduced welfare. However, there is still a need to integrate data from single sources to obtain a complete picture of the welfare of an animal. This review offers a basis for developing integrated automatic systems to assess dairy cow welfare by providing an overview of the main issues that challenge cow welfare (e.g., lameness) and of well-established indicators that could detect these issues on the farm. Based on a literature review of 4 reviews on cow welfare in general and 48 reviews on single welfare issues, we identified 18 different major welfare issues and 76 matching indicators that could be detected automatically on the farm. Several indicators, e.g., feed intake, showed a consistent association with welfare across many different issues. Although some of these indicators are discussed critically, this means there are many indicators that potentially could detect reduced welfare in general. Other types of indicators could detect one specific welfare issue, e.g., increased respiratory rate for heat stress. These different types of indicators combined provide a basis to develop integrated automatic systems that ultimately would help farmers to detect welfare problems at an early stage.

agriculture, dairy & animal science,veterinary sciences
Exploring positive welfare measures: preliminary findings from a prototype protocol in loose housing dairy cattle farms

Silvana Mattiello,Stefania Celozzi,Federica Manila Soli,Monica Battini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1368363

2024-06-27

Abstract:Introduction: Following the increasing interest about the development of indicators of positive welfare and affective state in farm animals, the aim of this research is to present some preliminary results on the application of a prototype protocol based exclusively on positive welfare measures and to suggest potential benefits that can promote positive welfare. Methods: The protocol was applied in 20 loose housing dairy cattle farms (6 on deep litter with straw, 14 in cubicles) and included only indicators of positive welfare and emotional states: feeding and resting synchronization, rumination during resting, comfortable lying postures, no visible eye white, relaxed ear postures, percentage of cow contacts with humans in the Avoidance Distance test. Potential benefits in terms of housing, feeding and management were then related to these variables (Mann-Whitney U test). Qualitative Behavior Assessment (QBA) was also carried out and analyzed by Principal Component Analysis to explore the effect of factors that were not evenly distributed in our sample (number of feed distributions, access to pasture, presence of paddock or environmental enrichments, automatic milking systems). Results: When hay was included in the diet, higher feeding synchronization (93.7 ± 1.6 vs. 52.2 ± 4.7%; p < 0.01), percentage of cows with relaxed ear postures (35.8 ± 5.4 vs. 15.5 ± 2.1%; p < 0.01) and percentage of cows with no visible eye white (55.9 ± 17.0 vs. 36.6 ± 4.1%; n.s.) were recorded. A higher level of feeding synchronization was observed also when the feeding places/cow ratio was > 1 (72.1 ± 9.9 vs. 53.8 ± 5.8%), although differences were not significant (p = 0.14). Deep litter had a more positive effect than cubicles on comfort at resting, with a significantly higher percentage of ruminating cows (65.8 ± 10.2 vs. 34.2 ± 3.7%; p < 0.01), a higher percentage of cows with no visible eye white (55.6 ± 9.9 vs. 33.1 ± 3.7%; p < 0.05) and a higher percentage of cows in a more comfortable posture, with stretched legs (14.3 ± 5.1 vs. 5.6 ± 1.6%; p = 0.09). QBA highlighted the most positive emotional state in the only farm that allowed access to pasture. Conclusions: This study represents a first attempt to apply a protocol for on-farm welfare evaluation based exclusively on the use of positive welfare indicators and provides suggestions on possible benefits (e.g., deep litter, feeding places/cow ratio > 1, hay in the diet and access to pasture) to enhance dairy cattle welfare.
Measuring dairy cow welfare with real-time sensor-based data and farm records: a concept study

A H Stygar,L Frondelius,G V Berteselli,Y Gómez,E Canali,J K Niemi,P Llonch,M Pastell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2023.101023

IF: 3.73

animal

Abstract:Welfare assessment of dairy cows by in-person farm visits provides only a snapshot of welfare and is time-consuming and costly. Possible solutions to reduce the need for in-person assessments would be to exploit sensor data and other routinely collected on-farm records. The aim of this study was to develop an algorithm to classify dairy cow welfare based on sensors (accelerometer and/or milk meter) and farm records (e.g. days in milk, lactation number). In total, 318 cows from six commercial farms located in Finland, Italy and Spain (two farms each) were enrolled for a pilot study lasting 135 days. During this time, cows were routinely scored using 14 animal-based measures of good feeding, health and housing based on the Welfare Quality® (WQ®) protocol. WQ® measures were evaluated daily or approximately every 45 days, using disease treatments from farm records and on-farm visits, respectively. WQ® measures were supplemented with daily temperature-humidity index to account for heat stress. The severity and duration of each welfare measure were evaluated, and the final welfare index was obtained by summing up the values for each cow on each pilot study day, and stratifying the result into three classes: good, moderate and poor welfare. For model building, a machine-learning (ML) algorithm based on gradient-boosted trees (XGBoost) was applied. Two model versions were tested: (1) a global model tested on unseen herd, and (2) a herd-specific model tested on unseen part of the data from the same herd. The version (1) served as an example on the model performance on a herd not previsited by the evaluator, while version (2) resembled a custom-made solution requiring in-person welfare evaluation for model training. Our results indicated that the global model had a low performance with average sensitivity and specificity of 0.44 and 0.68, respectively. For the herd-specific version, the model performance was higher reaching an average of 0.64 sensitivity and 0.80 specificity. The highest classification performance was obtained for cows in poor welfare, followed by cows in good and moderate welfare (balanced accuracy of 0.77, 0.71 and 0.68, respectively). Since the global model had low classification accuracy, the use of the developed model as a stand-alone system based solely on sensor data is infeasible, and a combination of in-person and sensor-based welfare evaluation would be preferable for a reliable welfare assessment. ML-based solutions, even with fair discriminative abilities, have the potential to enhance dairy welfare monitoring.
Description and factors of variation of the overall health score in French dairy cattle herds using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol

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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.018

IF: 3.372

2013-11-01

Preventive Veterinary Medicine

Abstract:Extensive information is available in the literature on the specific risk factors of the main health disorders afflicting dairy cattle herds. However, it remains difficult to manage a herd's overall health because measures to control one risk factor can exacerbate the risk of another disease. To achieve and maintain good overall herd health, livestock systems and management practices need to simultaneously take into account all of the main health disorders. We aimed to identify the characteristics of systems and practices conducive to good herd health using the Welfare Quality(®) assessment protocol for cattle. This protocol allows an assessment of the level of health and welfare at the herd level according to the opinion of a selected group of 13 experts from animal sciences. Our objectives were to (i) describe the distribution of dairy herds' health scores in a representative sample of French dairy cattle herds, and (ii) to investigate systems (housing system, milking system, herd size, breed, farm location) and management practices associated with variations of the overall health score of dairy herds. This protocol was carried out on 130 farms between December 2010 and March 2011. A multivariable analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to investigate the factors of variation of the overall health score at the herd level. The overall health scores of the farms in the sample were classified as moderate for the vast majority of farms (95.4%) (mainly due to subclinical mastitis, dystocia and pain induced by disbudding/dehorning) and varied little between farms. Some livestock systems were associated with a higher overall health score: straw yards and milking parlors (P<0.0001), highland vs. lowland locations (P=0.013), Montbeliarde rather than Holstein breeds (P=0.006). Some management practices also were associated with a higher level of health: medium herd average parity (P=0.03), low proportion of dirty cows (P=0.002) and low proportion of cows with abnormal body condition (P=0.04). These results suggest that some systems contribute to better health and that improvement of health can be obtained in the short term by the modification of routine management practices.

veterinary sciences
Otosclerosis with bilateral stapes mobilization.

F. Altmann,M. Basek,J. Hough

1960-07-01

Abstract:
Antenatal diagnosis of the adrenogenital syndrome.

M. New

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(70)91868-4

IF: 202.731

1970-01-10

The Lancet

Abstract:
Systems for evaluation of welfare on dairy farms

Angela Krueger,Jenifer Cruickshank,Erminio Trevisi,Massimo Bionaz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000461

2020-08-17

Journal of Dairy Research

Abstract:Animal welfare is an essential component of dairy production and several systems exist to evaluate the welfare of dairy cows. Here, we review and compare three well-known systems that operate at farm level from around the world (FARM, Welfare Quality ® , and The Code of Welfare) and discuss their advantages and limitations. Despite having some commonalities, the programs evaluate different elements. We also briefly review an emerging system (Integrated Diagnostic Welfare System) that might address some of the shortcomings of the existing systems, especially the possibility of automating the evaluation of animal well-being and identifying any cause of poor welfare. None of the aforementioned systems has been fully validated for their ability to assess animal welfare using independent measurements. The future holds increased attention around the well-being of dairy cows and increased use of sensing technologies. There is an urgent need for dairy welfare evaluation systems that are scientifically validated, holistic, and that can take advantage of the use of sensing technologies to continuously monitor animal welfare.

food science & technology,agriculture, dairy & animal science
Identifying areas of animal welfare concern in different production stages in Danish pig herds using the Danish Animal Welfare Index (DAWIN)

Anne Marie Michelsen,Franziska Hakansson,Vibe Pedersen Lund,Marlene Katharina Kirchner,Nina Dam Otten,Matthew Denwood,Tine Rousing,Hans Houe,Björn Forkman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2023.37

2023-01-01

Animal Welfare

Abstract:Abstract Animal welfare is of increasing public interest, and the pig industry in particular is subject to much attention. The aim of this study was to identify and compare areas of animal welfare concern for commercial pigs in four different production stages: (1) gestating sows and gilts; (2) lactating sows; (3) piglets; and (4) weaner-to-finisher pigs. One welfare assessment protocol was developed for each stage, comprising of between 20 and 29 animal welfare measures including resource-, management- and animal-based ones. Twenty-one Danish farms were visited once between January 2015 and February 2016 in a cross-sectional design. Experts (n = 26; advisors, scientists and animal welfare controllers) assessed the severity of the outcome measures. This was combined with the on-farm prevalence of each measure and the outcome was used to calculate areas of concern, defined as measures where the median of all farms fell below the value defined as ‘acceptable welfare.’ Between five and seven areas of concern were identified for each production stage. With the exception of carpal lesions in piglets, all areas of concern were resource- and management-based and mainly related to housing, with inadequate available space and the floor type in the resting area being overall concerns across all production stages. This means that animal-based measures were largely unaffected by perceived deficits in resource-based measures. Great variation existed for the majority of measures identified as areas of concern, demonstrating that achieving a high welfare score is possible in the Danish system.

veterinary sciences,zoology
Animal welfare index: an animal welfare evaluation of beef production farms in Ireland

Peter Lawrence,Mark McGee,Bernadette Earley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2022.2126478

2022-10-12

Journal of Applied Animal Research

Abstract:The study objective was to examine the animal welfare status of Irish beef production farms using an animal welfare index (AWI). Beef production farms ( n = 105) including suckler calf-to-beef ( n = 30), suckler calf/weaning/finishing ( n = 63), dairy calf-to-beef ( n = 12) were assessed during the winter housing period using the AWI. Fifty-one indicators were grouped into six categories: 'locomotion'; six indicators, 'social interactions'; eight indicators, 'flooring'; four indicators, 'environment'; nine indicators, 'stockperson'; thirteen indicators and 'husbandry management' seven indicators. Two indicators relating to the size of the farm and number of animals on the farm were also collected. The overall mean AWI percentage for the suckler calf-to-beef, suckler calf/weaning/finishing, dairy calf-to-beef farms were 70.3%, 71.9% and 66.6%, respectively. There was no difference ( P > 0.05) in AWI between full-time and part-time farmers. This study demonstrated the application of the AWI for use in beef production systems.

agriculture, dairy & animal science
Benchmarking calf health: Assessment tools for dairy herd health consultancy based on reference values from 730 German dairies with respect to seasonal, farm type, and herd size effects

Linda Dachrodt,Alexander Bartel,Heidi Arndt,Laura Maria Kellermann,Annegret Stock,Maria Volkmann,Andreas Robert Boeker,Katrin Birnstiel,Phuong Do Duc,Marcus Klawitter,Philip Paul,Alexander Stoll,Svenja Woudstra,Gabriela Knubben-Schweizer,Kerstin Elisabeth Müller,Martina Hoedemaker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.990798

IF: 3.471

2022-09-24

Frontiers in Veterinary Science

Abstract:Good calf health is crucial for a successfully operating farm business and animal welfare on dairy farms. To evaluate calf health on farms and to identify potential problem areas, benchmarking tools can be used by farmers, herd managers, veterinarians, and other advisory persons in the field. However, for calves, benchmarking tools are not yet widely established in practice. This study provides hands-on application for on-farm benchmarking of calf health. Reference values were generated from a large dataset of the "PraeRi" study, including 730 dairy farms with a total of 13,658 examined preweaned dairy calves. At herd level, omphalitis (O, median 15.9%) was the most common disorder, followed by diarrhea (D, 15.4%) and respiratory disease (RD, 2.9%). Abnormal weight bearing (AWB) was rarely detected (median, 0.0%). Calves with symptoms of more than one disorder at the same time (multimorbidity, M) were observed with a prevalence of 2.3%. The enrolled farms varied in herd size, farm operating systems, and management practices and thus represented a wide diversity in dairy farming, enabling a comparison with similar managed farms in Germany and beyond. To ensure comparability of the data in practice, the reference values were calculated for the whole data set, clustered according to farm size (1–40 dairy cows ( n = 130), 41–60 dairy cows ( n = 99), 61–120 dairy cows ( n = 180), 121–240 dairy cows ( n = 119) and farms with more than 240 dairy cows ( n = 138), farm operating systems (conventional ( n = 666), organic ( n = 64)) and month of the year of the farm visit. There was a slight tendency for smaller farms to have a lower prevalence of disorders. A statistically significant herd-size effect was detected for RD ( p = 0.008) and D ( p < 0.001). For practical application of these reference values, tables, diagrams, and an Excel ® (Microsoft ® ) based calf health calculator were developed as tools for on-farm benchmarking (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6172753). In addition, this study provides a detailed description of the colostrum, feeding and housing management of preweaned calves in German dairy farms of different herd sizes and farm type (e.g., conventional and organic).

veterinary sciences
Dairy cattle welfare - the relative effect of legislation, industry standards and labelled niche production in five European countries

P Sandøe,H O Hansen,E A M Bokkers,P S Enemark,B Forkman,M J Haskell,F Lundmark Hedman,H Houe,R Mandel,S S Nielsen,E M de Olde,C Palmer,C S Vogeler,T Christensen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2023.101009

IF: 3.73

animal

Abstract:The only common European Union (EU) legislation set up specifically to ensure the welfare of dairy cattle is for calves. As a consequence, there is wide diversity in how dairy cattle welfare is ensured in EU countries. A few countries have legal requirements for dairy cattle welfare, while in others, it is left to industry standards or niche production requirements, typically linked to various premium labels. In this paper, we compared animal welfare provisions in dairy cattle production across five countries with different combinations of legislative and other approaches: Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Firstly, we aimed to map the diversity of animal welfare initiatives. Secondly, we used the Benchmark method of expert valuations and weightings of the relative importance of individual welfare provisions. We found that Denmark and Sweden have the highest level of dairy cattle welfare provisions as measured by the Benchmark method, partly due to high legislative welfare requirements, followed by the United Kingdom, which has an extensive industry standard with very high uptake. Germany and the Netherlands, on the other hand, have lower levels of documented welfare provisions, and correspondingly a Benchmark score closer to a baseline defined by legal requirements at EU level. We also found differences in what elements of animal welfare were focussed on. Some initiatives emphasised fulfilling the social needs of cattle, while others focused more on space and freedom to move. Also, the countries with the highest Benchmark score had a relatively high level of production of organic and other specialty dairy products. We found the effect of national legislation or ambitious industry standards on dairy cattle welfare to be much larger than previous studies have found in either pigs or poultry. At a time when the EU is considering stepping up its efforts to improve animal welfare in terms of common minimum standards, the results of this study could have important policy implications. The diversity in the level of dairy cattle welfare standards found across countries may speak in favour of having shared minimum standards, both at EU level and globally. However, even among countries with a similar Benchmark score, we found a difference in the kinds of welfare provisions at work, which may make full harmonisation of standards more challenging.
The effects of herd size on the welfare of dairy cows in a pasture-based system using animal- and resource-based indicators.

A. Fisher,P. Hemsworth,E. Jongman,D. Beggs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-14850

IF: 4.225

2019-04-01

Journal of Dairy Science

Abstract:Animal welfare assessments were conducted on 50 Australian pasture-based dairy farms of varying herd sizes: 16 small (<300 cows), 15 medium-sized (300-500 cows), 11 large (501-750 cows), and 10 very large (751+ cows). A protocol based on elements of Welfare Quality adapted for Australian conditions was developed to assess the broad categories of good feeding, housing, health, and appropriate behavior. Farm records, body condition scores, integument injuries, fecal plaques, avoidance distance of humans, and fecal pat scoring for acidosis assessment were undertaken. The mean maximum kilograms of grain fed per day significantly increased with herd size, from 5.2 ± 0.38 (small), 7.7 ± 0.29 (medium-sized), 8.8 ± 0.45 (large), to 10.1 ± 0.80 kg (very large). Acidosis was not related to herd size based on either farm records or fecal pat scoring. All cows had access to water for more than 12 h in a 24-h period. More larger farms had water points on the farm tracks or at the dairy. Very large farms (90%) were more likely than others (36-39%) to provide water suitable for human consumption. Integument lesions were not related to herd size and were uncommon; 56 and 84% of farms had no cows with lesions or hairless areas, respectively, and no farm had >6% integument lesions. Heat stress is an important welfare risk in Australia. All farms had some form of cooling strategy; shade in all paddocks was more common on smaller farms (>90%) than others (<75%). Sprinklers were more common on large or very large farms (>80%) than others (<65%). Mastitis and lameness were the most common health conditions, followed by dystocia, downer cows, and gastrointestinal diseases. Prevalence of lameness, mastitis, downer cows, dystocia, and gastrointestinal disease were not related to farm size. Larger farms were more likely to have electronic infrastructure to monitor or electronically draft cows for inspection. We found wide variation in the avoidance distance of humans, but this was not related to farm size. Larger farms had longer walking distances to pasture and longer time away from pasture, which could affect the time available for behaviors such as lying down. Animal welfare risks differ on Australian farms compared with housed cattle. As animal welfare is multidimensional, both animal- and resource-based indicators can be useful. Animal-based indicators have strengths in that, when measured accurately, they genuinely reflect the outcome being measured, but they also have weaknesses in that the point-estimate of a disease prevalence on a given day may not be representative of other times of year or differences in case definition may exist when farm records are used. Similarly, resource-based indicators have strengths in that they may be applicable to longer periods, but weaknesses because the fact a resource is present does not guarantee it is being used. Identifying the major risks to animal welfare on individual farms and ensuring a plan is in place to effectively manage them should be an important element of any on-farm animal welfare assessment protocol.

Biology,Medicine,Agricultural and Food Sciences
Scientific Opinion on the assessment of dairy cow welfare in small‐scale farming systems

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4137

2015-06-01

EFSA Journal

Abstract:This opinion reviews information on small‐scale dairy cow farming systems in Europe, including the impact of production diseases on welfare of cows, and proposes a methodology for welfare assessment in those systems. To address specific expectations of consumers that food be produced locally or regionally or maintaining acceptable animal welfare conditions, in addition to herd size, criteria to define farms as “non‐conventional” were proposed. Several sources were investigated for identifying criteria for the description and categorisation of small‐scale farms, including dairy umbrella organisations and literature. In addition to herd size (up to 75 cows), proposed criteria related to small‐scale farming comprise the workforce source, input level, indigenous breed use and production type certification. To cover the large diversity of farming systems across Europe, it was proposed that farms meeting at least two of these criteria be considered non‐conventional. To adapt the welfare assessment to small‐scale farms, the same risk factors and welfare consequences, as measured by corresponding animal‐based measures identified in previous opinions for intensive farming systems were considered to be also relevant for small‐scale systems. In addition, factors related to resources provided on pasture (e.g. shelter), management of pasture (e.g. mixing herds) and management of the cows (e.g. use of local breeds) were considered more likely to be present in small‐scale systems. An on‐farm survey was run to collect data for welfare assessment from 124 European farms. The distribution of risk factors and animal‐based measures varied across the full range in study farms and showed similar patterns in farms with different grazing systems (from no time to full year on pasture). The animal‐based measures identified for intensive farming are well suited for application in small‐scale dairy farms. Production disease impact on the individual animal's welfare state does not depend on herd size or farming system.

food science & technology
Diagnostic criteria of American and British psychiatrists.

R. Kendell,J. Cooper,A. Gourlay,J. Copeland,L. Sharpe,B. Gurland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/ARCHPSYC.1971.01750140027006

1971-08-01

Archives of General Psychiatry

Abstract:Videotapes of diagnostic interviews with eight patients, three American and five English, were shown to large audiences of trained psychiatrists in the eastern United States and in different parts of the British Isles. The diagnoses made by these audiences were compared and for some patients there were major disagreements between them. The overall pattern of diagnostic differences between the American and British raters indicates that the American concept of schizophrenia is much broader than the British concept, embracing not only part of what in Britain would be regarded as depressive illness, but also substantial parts of several other diagnostic categories—manic illness, neurotic illness, and personality disorder. These serious differences in the usage of diagnostic terms have important implications for transatlantic communication, and indeed for international communication in general.
Dairy cow welfare assessment on Algerian farms

A. Benatallah,F. Ghozlane,M. Marie,Benatallah A,Ghozlane F,Marie M

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5897/ajar2015.9483

2015-02-26

African Journal of Agricultural Research

Abstract:This study is the first to use the Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol (WQ® AP) in Algerian farms, with all dimensions of welfare considered together. It aims at estimating the welfare level of dairy cows by identifying their positive and negative aspects in order to improve them and prioritize corrective action for their better sustainability. The observations were conducted in 100 dairy farms; scores were calculated for each farm, expressing the degree of conformity with 11 well-being criteria (absence of hunger, thirst, injury, illness, housing conditions, normal behavior). The results showed a level of well-being degraded with 95 farms classified as unacceptable, 4 farms as acceptable and only one as enhanced. The most degraded scores were related to eight criteria: Absence of prolonged hunger (22.8) and thirst (5.6), ease of movement (23.2), comfort around resting (40.7), absence of injury (37.6), absence of disease (31.9), expression of other behavior (12.6) and good human-animal relationship (34.3). The 95 farms classified as unacceptable are related to a high percentage of very lean cows (33.1%), a high frequency of mastitis (33.6%), lameness (33.8%), respiratory diseases associated with cough (15.6%) and a pronounced state of poor cleanliness on: udder (62.6%), hindquarter (60.6%) and hind limbs (60.6%). Key words: Animal welfare, assessment protocol, dairy cow, sustainability, score.

English Else
On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future perspectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach

U Knierim,C Winckler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0962728600000865

2009-11-01

Animal Welfare

Abstract:Abstract This paper discusses the current state of development of on-farm cattle welfare assessment systems with special regard to the approach of Welfare Quality® that focuses on animal-related measures. The central criteria validity, reliability and feasibility are considered with regard to selected welfare measures. All welfare measures incorporated into the Welfare Quality® protocol possess face validity, but for most of them construct or criterion validity as, eg shown for lameness, have not been demonstrated. Exemplarily the cases of qualitative behaviour assessment and measurement of avoidance distance towards humans or social licking are discussed. Reliability issues have often been neglected in the past and require more thorough investigation and discussion in the future, especially with respect to appropriate test statistics and limits of acceptability. Means of improving reliability are the refinement of definitions or recording methods and training. Consistency of results over time requires further attention, especially if farms are to be certified, based on infrequent recordings. Considering feasibility, time constraints are the main concern for assessment systems that focus seriously on animal-based measures; currently they require several hours of on-farm recordings, eg about 6 h for a herd of 60 dairy cows. The Welfare Quality® project has promoted knowledge and discussion about validity, reliability and feasibility issues. Many welfare measures applied in the Welfare Quality® on-farm assessment approach can be regarded sufficiently valid, reliable and feasible. However, there are still a considerable number of challenges. They should be tackled while using the present assessment system in order to constantly improve it.

veterinary sciences,zoology

Devereaux et al. reply.

Use of surface-modifying macromolecules to enhance the biostability of segmented polyurethanes.

Towards the creation of a welfare assessment system in intensive beef cattle farms

Animal-based welfare indicators for dairy cows and their validity and practicality: a systematic review of the existing literature

Assessing dairy cow welfare during the grazing and housing periods on spring-calving, pasture-based dairy farms

A Review of Welfare Indicators of Indoor-Housed Dairy Cow as a Basis for Integrated Automatic Welfare Assessment Systems

Exploring positive welfare measures: preliminary findings from a prototype protocol in loose housing dairy cattle farms

Measuring dairy cow welfare with real-time sensor-based data and farm records: a concept study

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

Otosclerosis with bilateral stapes mobilization.

Antenatal diagnosis of the adrenogenital syndrome.

Systems for evaluation of welfare on dairy farms

Identifying areas of animal welfare concern in different production stages in Danish pig herds using the Danish Animal Welfare Index (DAWIN)

Animal welfare index: an animal welfare evaluation of beef production farms in Ireland

Benchmarking calf health: Assessment tools for dairy herd health consultancy based on reference values from 730 German dairies with respect to seasonal, farm type, and herd size effects

Dairy cattle welfare - the relative effect of legislation, industry standards and labelled niche production in five European countries

The effects of herd size on the welfare of dairy cows in a pasture-based system using animal- and resource-based indicators.

Scientific Opinion on the assessment of dairy cow welfare in small‐scale farming systems

Diagnostic criteria of American and British psychiatrists.

Dairy cow welfare assessment on Algerian farms

On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future perspectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach