Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:20:53.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Register-based predictors of violations of animal welfare legislation in dairy herds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2014

N. D. Otten ,
L. R. Nielsen ,
P. T. Thomsen  and
H. Houe
N. D. Otten*
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Groennegaardsvej 8, DK – 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
L. R. Nielsen
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Groennegaardsvej 8, DK – 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
P. T. Thomsen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
H. Houe
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Groennegaardsvej 8, DK – 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
*
†E-mail: nio@sund.ku.dk
Get access

Abstract

The assessment of animal welfare can include resource-based or animal-based measures. Official animal welfare inspections in Denmark primarily control compliance with animal welfare legislation based on resource measures (e.g. housing system) and usually do not regard animal response parameters (e.g. clinical and behavioural observations). Herds selected for welfare inspections are sampled by a risk-based strategy based on existing register data. The aim of the present study was to evaluate register data variables as predictors of dairy herds with violations of the animal welfare legislation (VoAWL) defined as occurrence of at least one of the two most frequently violated measures found at recent inspections in Denmark, namely (a) presence of injured animals not separated from the rest of the group and/or (b) animals in a condition warranting euthanasia still being present in the herd. A total of 25 variables were extracted from the Danish Cattle Database and assessed as predictors using a multivariable logistic analysis of a data set including 73 Danish dairy herds, which all had more than 100 cows and cubicle loose-housing systems. Univariable screening was used to identify variables associated with VoAWL at a P-value<0.2 for the inclusion in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Backward selection procedures identified the following variables for the final model predictive of VoAWL: increasing standard deviation of milk yield for first lactation cows, high bulk tank somatic cell count (⩾250 000 cells/ml) and suspiciously low number of recorded veterinary treatments (⩽25 treatments/100 cow years). The identified predictors may be explained by underlying management factors leading to impaired animal welfare in the herd, such as poor hygiene, feeding and management of dry or calving cows and sick animals. However, further investigations are required for causal inferences to be established.

Keywords

register datapredictorsanimal welfare controldairy cattle
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 12 , December 2014 , pp. 1963 - 1970
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agricultural Statistics 2011. Landbrug 2011. Statistik om landbrug, gartneri og skovbrug. Danmarks Statistik. Retrieved September 17, 2013, from www.dst.dk/Publ/Landbrug Google Scholar
Alban, L, Agger, JF and Lawson, LG 1996. Lameness in tied Danish dairy cattle: the possible influence of housing systems, management, milk yield, and prior incidents of lameness. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 29, 135–149.Google Scholar
Alvåsen, K, Jannson Mörck, M, Hallén Sandgren, C, Thomsen, PT and Emanuelson, U 2012. Herd-level risk factors associated with cow mortality in Swedish dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 4352–4362.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2011. Dyrevelfærdsrapport 2011, Videnscenter for Dyrevelfærd, Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen, Glostrup.Google Scholar
Barkema, HW, Deluyker, H, Schukken, Y and Lam, TGJM 1999. Quarter-milk somatic cell count at calving and at the first six milkings after calving. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 38, 1–9.Google Scholar
Danish Animal Welfare Act 2013. Dyreværnsloven LBK nr 252. Danish Ministry of Food Agriculture and Fisheries, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Danish Act on the Keeping of Dairy Cattle and their Offspring 2010. Lov om hold af malkekvæg og afkom af malkekvæg Lov nr. 520 . Danish Ministry of Jusitice, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
DeVries, M 2013. Assuring dairy cattle welfare: towards efficient assessment and improvement. PhD Thesis, dissertation no. 5486, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Dippel, S, Dolezal, M, Brenninkmeyer, C, Brinkmann, J, March, S, Kierim, U and Winckler, C 2009. Risk factors for lameness in freestall-housed dairy cows across two breeds, farming systems, and countries. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5476–5486.Google Scholar
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare 2012. Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare. EFSA Journal 10, p. 6. doi: 2513.10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513.Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1992. FAWC updates the five freedoms. Veterinary Record 17, 357.Google Scholar
Green, LE, Hedges, VJ, Schukken, YH, Blowey, RW and Packington, AJ 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2250–2256.Google Scholar
Haskell, MJ, Rennie, LJ, Bowell, VA, Bell, MJ and Lawrence, AB 2006. Housing system, milk production, and zero-grazing effects on lameness and leg injury in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 4259–4266.Google Scholar
Keeling, L (ed.) 2009. An overview of the development of the Welfare Quality Project© Assessment Systems. Welfare Quality Reports No. 11. Cardiff University, UK.Google Scholar
Kelly, PC, Moore, SJ, Blake, M and Hanlon, AJ 2011. Identification of key performance indicators for on-farm animal welfare incidents: possible tools for early warning and prevention. Irish Veterinary Journal 64(13), doi: 10.1186/2046-0481-64-13.Google Scholar
Kielland, C, Ruud, LE, Zanella, AJ and Østerås, O 2009. Prevalence and risk factors for skin lesions on legs of dairy cattle housed in freestalls in Norway. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5487–5496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, T 2010. Produktionssystemer i de danske malkekvægbedrifter. Landbrugsinfor 2117. Retrieved February 10, 2013, from https://www.landbrugsinfo.dk/Kvaeg/Foder/Grovfoder/Afgraesning/Sider/Produktionssystemeridanskemalkekvaegbedrifter.aspx Google Scholar
Nyman, AK, Lindberg, A and Sandgren, CH 2011. Can pre-collected register data be used to identify dairy herds with good cattle welfare? Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 53 (S1), S8.Google Scholar
Nyman, AK, Emanuelson, U, Holtenius, K, Ingvartsen, KL, Larsen, T and Persson Waller, K 2008. Metabolites and immune variables associated with somatic cell counts. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 2996–3009.Google Scholar
Rutherford, KMD, Langford, FM, Jack, MC, Sherwood, L, Lawrence, AB and Haskell, MJ 2008. Hock injury prevalence and associated risk factors on organic and nonorganic dairy farms in the United Kingdom. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 2265–2274.Google Scholar
R Core Team 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Sandgren, CH, Lindberg, A and Keeling, LJ 2009. Using a national dairy database to identify herds with poor welfare. Animal Welfare 18, 523–532.Google Scholar
Thomsen, PT, Kjeldsen, AM, Sørensen, JT and Houe, H 2004. Mortality (including euthanasia) among Danish dairy cows (1990–2001). Preventive Veterinary Medicine 62, 19–33.Google Scholar
Watters, AME, Meier, KMA, Barkema, HW, Leslie, KE, von Keyserlingk, MAG and DeVries, TJ 2013. Associations of herd- and cow-level factors, cow lying behavior, and risk of elevated somatic cell count in free-stall housed lactating dairy cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 111, 245–255.Google Scholar