Effects of cubicle characteristics on animal welfare indicators in dairy cattle

被引:19
作者
Gieseke, D. [1 ,3 ]
Lambertz, C. [2 ]
Gauly, M. [2 ]
机构
[1] Georg August Univ Gottingen, Dept Anim Sci, Albrecht Thaer Weg 3, D-37075 Gottingen, Germany
[2] Free Univ Bolzano, Fac Sci & Technol, Univ Pl 5, I-39100 Bolzano, Italy
[3] Univ Kassel, Fac Organ Agr Sci, Nordbahnhofstr 1a, D-37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
关键词
dairy cows; housing system; cubicle design; Welfare Quality (R) protocol; well-being; RISK-FACTORS; LEG INJURIES; COW COMFORT; LYING TIME; LAMENESS; SYSTEMS; CLEANLINESS; QUALITY(R); BEHAVIOR; HOCK;
D O I
10.1017/S1751731120000609
中图分类号
S8 [畜牧、 动物医学、狩猎、蚕、蜂];
学科分类号
0905 ;
摘要
Cubicle characteristics such as cubicle dimensions or management factors such as cow-to-cubicle ratio could affect health and behaviour of dairy cows. The objective of this study was to estimate effects of cubicle characteristics on animal welfare indicators in dairy cattle. A total of 64 loose housing farms in Germany were assessed once during the winter housing period by one experienced assessor. Nearly 15% of the dairy cows had access to pasture during summer months for <6 h/day, whereas 85% were zero-grazing farms. Selected animal welfare indicators (duration of the lying down process, collisions of cows with cubicles, cows lying outside cubicles, cow cleanliness, integument alterations, lameness and subclinical mastitis incidence) of the Welfare Quality (R) protocol and cubicle characteristics such as cow-to-cubicle ratio and cubicle dimensions were recorded. Data were statistically analysed using a multiple linear regression approach. Pasture access and cubicle type were considered as potential influencing factors. Wider cubicles positively affected the proportion of dairy cows with dirty flanks (-18.5% per 10 cm increase) but increased the number of cows with severe integument alterations (+8.9% per 10 cm increase). Larger lying areas reduced the percentage of cows with dirty udders (-2.9% per 10 cm(2) increase). Longer distances from neck rail to curb were associated with higher prevalence of cows with dirty flanks (+3.1% per 10 cm increase) and subclinical mastitis incidence (+1.2% per 10 cm increase). With increasing neck rail height, the duration of the lying down process (-0.1 s per 10% increase), the percentages of cows with dirty legs (-8.4% per 10 cm increase), dirty udders (-7.0% per 10 cm increase) and severe lameness (-3.0% per 10 cm increase) decreased. Compared with rubber mat-equipped cubicles, deep-bedded cubicles showed a reduction in the lying down duration (-0.8 s), percentages of cows with dirty legs (-34.2%), dirty udders (-30.5%) and lesions and swellings (-13.1%). Compared with farms that did not provide any summer grazing, pasture access was associated with an increase of cows with severe lameness (+5.6%). Contrastingly, the number of cows with subclinical mastitis incidence was lower when cows had access to pasture in summer (-5.4%). Findings of the present study indicate several associations between cubicle characteristics and animal welfare in dairy cattle. Bedding type was found as the most influencing factor in terms of health and behaviour. Results of this study are valuable for farmers to identify the optimal cubicle design and improve the animal welfare level.
引用
收藏
页码:1934 / 1942
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Compost bedded-pack barn as an alternative housing system for dairy cattle in Italy: effects on animal health and welfare and milk and milk product quality
    Biasato, Ilaria
    D'Angelo, Antonio
    Bertone, Ride
    Odore, Rosangela
    Bellino, Claudio
    ITALIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2019, 18 (01) : 1142 - 1153
  • [22] An Investigation of Dairy Cattle Welfare in Commercial Iranian Farms: Results from Animal- and Stockperson-Based Measures
    Jafari-Gh, Ali
    Laven, Richard
    Khaloubagheri, Fatima
    Mirrahimi, Mohsen Haji
    Jafari-Gh, Saeid
    Banadaky, Mehdi Dehghan
    Mueller, Kristina Ruth
    Vallee, Emilie
    ANIMALS, 2025, 15 (03):
  • [23] Assessment Methods and Indicators of Animal Welfare
    Sejian, Veerasamy
    Lakritz, Jeffrey
    Ezeji, Thaddeus
    Lal, Rattan
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL AND VETERINARY ADVANCES, 2011, 6 (04): : 301 - 315
  • [24] Assessment of welfare indicators in grazing dairy cows in Northeast Brazil
    Caetano Goncalves dos Santos, Severino Guilherme
    Saraiva, Edilson Paes
    Carvalho Fonseca, Vinicius de Franca
    Soares Saraiva, Carla Aparecida
    Gonzaga Neto, Severino
    Fidelis, Sergio da Silva
    Cabral Menezes de Amorim, Mikael Leal
    Cavalcante dos Santos, Jose Danrley
    SEMINA-CIENCIAS AGRARIAS, 2020, 41 (06): : 3225 - 3235
  • [25] The effects of welfare-related management practices on carcass characteristics for beef cattle
    Sonoda, Yuta
    Oishi, Kazato
    Kumagai, Hajime
    Aoki, Yoshikazu
    Hirooka, Hiroyuki
    LIVESTOCK SCIENCE, 2017, 197 : 112 - 116
  • [26] Associations between on-farm animal welfare indicators and productivity and profitability on Canadian dairies: I. On freestall farms
    Robichaud, M. Villettaz
    Rushen, J.
    de Passille, A. M.
    Vasseur, E.
    Orsel, K.
    Pellerin, D.
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2019, 102 (05) : 4341 - 4351
  • [27] Dairy farmers' heterogeneous preferences for animal welfare-enhancing flooring properties: A mixed logit approach applied in Sweden
    Owusu-Sekyere, E.
    Hansson, H.
    Telezhenko, E.
    LIVESTOCK SCIENCE, 2021, 250
  • [28] Dairy farmer attitudes and empathy toward animals are associated with animal welfare indicators
    Kielland, C.
    Skjerve, E.
    Osteras, O.
    Zanella, A. J.
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2010, 93 (07) : 2998 - 3006
  • [29] Animal welfare indicators in dairy cows in a silvopastoril system of the high Colombian tropic
    Zuniga Lopez, Aldemar
    Rodriguez Serrano, Andres Camilo
    Benavides Cruz, Juan Carlos
    Medrano Galarza, Catalina
    Garcia Castro, Fredy Enrique
    REVISTA DE INVESTIGACIONES VETERINARIAS DEL PERU, 2020, 31 (04):
  • [30] Welfare of dairy cows in Kosovo and intervention thresholds for selected welfare indicators as suggested by farmers and veterinarians
    Zhitia, E.
    Leeb, C.
    Muji, S.
    Winckler, C.
    ANIMAL WELFARE, 2022, 31 (04) : 483 - 493