Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-x2lbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-12T11:15:24.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The major welfare problems of dairy cows in French commercial farms: an epidemiological approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

A de Boyer des Roches ,
I Veissier ,
M Coignard ,
N Bareille ,
R Guatteo ,
J Capdeville ,
E Gilot-Fromont  and
L Mounier
A de Boyer des Roches*
Affiliation:
Université de Lyon, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-69280 Marcy L’Etoile, France INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
I Veissier
Affiliation:
Université de Lyon, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-69280 Marcy L’Etoile, France INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
M Coignard
Affiliation:
LUNAM, ONIRIS, INRA, UMR1300 BIOEPAR, CS 40706, F-44307 Nantes, France
N Bareille
Affiliation:
LUNAM, ONIRIS, INRA, UMR1300 BIOEPAR, CS 40706, F-44307 Nantes, France
R Guatteo
Affiliation:
LUNAM, ONIRIS, INRA, UMR1300 BIOEPAR, CS 40706, F-44307 Nantes, France
J Capdeville
Affiliation:
Institut de l’Elevage, Antenne de Toulouse, Castanet Tolosan, F-31321 Castanet Tolosan Cedex, France
E Gilot-Fromont
Affiliation:
Université de Lyon,VetAgro Sup, F-69280 Marcy L’Etoile, France Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, UMR CNRS 5558 - LBBE, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France
L Mounier
Affiliation:
Université de Lyon, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-69280 Marcy L’Etoile, France INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
*
* Contact for correspondence and request for reprints: alice.deboyerdesroches@vetagro-sup.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Animal welfare enhancement requires that problems are reliably identified and ranked in order to prioritise corrective actions. Welfare problems vary with the conditions in which animals are maintained. The objectives were to highlight major welfare problems for dairy cows on farms in France, and find out how farm characteristics (housing and milking systems, breed) could impact specific welfare aspects on these farms. We conducted a cross-sectional survey on 131 French dairy farms. We used the Welfare Quality® protocol, which addresses all aspects of welfare, and yields scores for principles and criteria that represent how well farms meet welfare requirements (from 0 for a very adverse situation to 100 for an excellent one). We used descriptive statistics to highlight low welfare scores, and variance analyses to compare farms. Most farms were found ‘Acceptable’ according to the Welfare Quality® classification. Principles scores for Health, Feeding and Behaviour ranged from 33 to 39. The median score for eight of the welfare criteria was below 50 (‘Pain’, ‘Integument alterations’, ‘Diseases’, ‘Comfort around resting’, ‘Social behaviours’, ‘Human-animal relationship’, ‘Positive emotional state’, ‘Hunger’), while the median score was above 50 for the four other criteria (‘Thirst’, ‘Lameness’, ‘Expression of other behaviours’, ‘Ease of movement’). The scores varied widely between farms, within and between systems. Farms with cubicles obtained lower scores for ‘Comfort around resting’, ‘Injuries’; farms with Holstein cows obtained lower scores for ‘Hunger’; farms using an automatic milking system obtained lower scores for ‘Expression of other behaviours’ and ‘Diseases’ in Holstein herds. This survey yields information on bottlenecks in dairy cow welfare with all dimensions of welfare considered together. The results can be used by stakeholders to prioritise corrective actions in welfare plans, focusing either on the whole population of farms or on farms with characteristics that are at high risk for specific welfare problems.

Keywords

animal welfaredairy cowsfarm characteristicsrisks factorswelfare criteriawelfare plan

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , November 2014 , pp. 467 - 478
Copyright
© 2014 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agreste 2008 Enquête bâtiments d’élevage bovins, principaux résul-tats sur les exploitations, l'utilisation des déjections, les équipements, les bâtiments fosses et aires. http://www.agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/enquetes/productions-animales-625/batiments-d-elevage-bovin/.[Title translation: Survey on cattle barns, main results on farms, manure use, equipment and buildings]Google Scholar
Akaike, H 1973 Information theory and an extension of the max-imum likelihood principle. In: Petrov, BN and Csaki, F (eds) Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Information Theory pp 267–281. Budapest, Hungary. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_15Google Scholar
Botreau, R 2008 Evaluation multicritère du bien-être animal. PhD Thesis, Agro Paris Technical, Paris, France. [Title translation: Multi-criterion evaluation of animal welfare]Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007 Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225–228Google Scholar
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Matthews, LR and Coleman, GL 2000 Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 273–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00097-0Google ScholarPubMed
Broom, DM and Fraser, D 2007 Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Fourth Edition. CABI: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brörkens, N, Plesch, G, Laister, S, Zucca, D, Winckler, C, Minero, M and Knierim, U 2009 Reliability testing concerning behaviour around resting in cattle in dairy cows and beef bulls. In: Forkman B and Keeling LJ (eds) Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves. Welfare Quality® Reports No 11 pp 7–24. Welfare Quality®: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Burnham, KP, Anderson, DR and Huyvaert, KP 2011 AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some backgrounds, observations, and comparisons. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65: 23–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1029-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CIGR 1994 The design of dairy cows housing. Report of the CIGR working group No 14. ADAS Bridgets Dairy Research Centre, Farm Building Research Team, Reading, UKGoogle Scholar
Cook, NB and Nordlund, KV 2009 The influence of environ-ment on dairy cow behaviour, claw health and herd lameness dynamics. The Veterinary Journal 179: 360–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.09.016Google Scholar
Cooper, MD, Arney, DR and Phillips, CJC 2010 The motivation of high- and low-yielding dairy cows to obtain supplementary concentrate feed. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 5: 75–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2009.09.045Google Scholar
Danone Animal Welfare Program© 2011 A common ambition for Danone and dairy farms. Danone: Kiev, UkraineGoogle Scholar
de Koning, CJAM 2011 Robotic milking. In: Fuguay, JW, Fox, PF and McSweeney, PLH (eds) Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences, Second Edition. Academic Press: London, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374407-4.00360-5Google Scholar
de Vries, M, Engel, B, den Uijl, I, van Schaik, G, Dijkstra, T, de Boer, IJM and Bokkers, EAM 2013 Assessment time of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 22: 85–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.1.085Google Scholar
Edmondson, AJ, Lean, IJ, Weaver, LD, Farver, T and Webster, G 1989 A body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 68–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(89)79081-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Food Safety Authority 2009 Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare a request from European Commission on the overall effects of farming systems on dairy cow welfare and disease. EFSA 1143: 1–38Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority 2012 Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from European Commission on the guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare. EFSA Journal 10(1): 2513. http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1992 FAWC updates the five freedoms. Veterinary Record 131: 357Google Scholar
Forkman, B and Keeling, LJ 2009 Assessment of animal welfare measures for dairy cattle, beef bulls and veal calves. In: Forkman B and Keeling LJ (eds) Welfare Quality®Reports No 11 pp 297. Welfare Quality®: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Fourichon, C, Beaudeau, F, Bareille, N and Seegers, H 2001 Incidence of health disorders in dairy farming systems in western France. Livestock Production Science 68: 157–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00249-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1999 Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 171–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00090-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fregonesi, JA and Leaver, JD 2001 Behaviour, performance and health indicators of welfare for dairy cows housed in strawyard or cubicle system. Livestock Production Science 68: 205–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00234-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French Livestock Institute 2009 Dairy production in 2015 in France, to an accentuation of regional contrasts. Dossier Economie de l’élevage 391: 1–71Google Scholar
Fulwider, WK, Grandin, T, Rollin, BE, Engle, TE, Dalsted, NL and Lamm, WD 2008 Survey of dairy management practices on one hundred thirteen North Central and North Eastern United States dairies. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 1686–1692. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halasa, T, Huijps, K, Osteras, O and Hogeveen, H 2007 Economic effects of bovine mastitis and mastitis management: a review. Veterinary Quarterly 29: 18–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2007.9695224CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 1998 Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity and the Welfare of Intensive Farmed Animals. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Kielland, C, Ruud, LE, Zanella, AJ and ⊘sterås, 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2293CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidfors, L 1989 The use of getting up and lying down movements in the evaluation of cattle environments. Veterinary Research Communications 19: 307–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00420838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Whay, HR, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Effect of the RSPCA Freedom food scheme on the welfare of dairy cattle. Veterinary Record 153: 227–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.153.8.227CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mee, JF 2008 Prevalence and risk factors for dystocia in dairy cat-tle: a review. The Veterinary Journal 176: 93–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.12.032Google Scholar
Miele, M, Veissier, I, Evans, A and Botreau, R 2001 Animal welfare: establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare 20: 103–117Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2009 R Version 2.10.1: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Roche, JR, Friggens, NC, Kay, JK, Fisher, MW, Stafford, KJ and Berry, DP 2009 Invited review: body condition score and its associ-ation with dairy cow productivity, health, and welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 5769–5801. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, B 1993 Decision science of decision-aid science? European Journal of Operational Research 66: 184–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)90312-BCrossRefGoogle Scholar
SANCO 2009 ALCASDE Final Report. Study on the improved methods for animal friendly production, in particular on alternatives to the castration of pigs and on alternatives to the dehorning of cattle. http://ec.europa.eu/food/ani-mal/welfare/farm/docs/calves_alcasde_D.2.3.3.pdfGoogle Scholar
Stafford, KJ and Mellor, DJ 2005 Dehorning and disbudding dis-tress and its alleviation in calves. The Veterinary Journal 169: 337–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2004.02.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stock, ML, Baldridge, SL, Griffin, D and Coetzee, JF 2013 Bovine dehorning: assessing pain and providing analgesic manage-ment. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 29:103–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2012.11.001Google Scholar
Vasseur, E, Borderas, F, Cue, RI, Lefebvre, D, Pellerin, D, Rushen, J, Wade, KM, and De Passillé, AM 2010 A survey of dairy calf management practices in Canada that affect animal wel-fare. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 1307–1315. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2429Google Scholar
Veissier, I, Capdeville, J and Delval, E 2004 Cubicle housing systems for cattle: comfort of dairy cows depends on cubicle adjustment. Journal of Animal Science 82: 3321–3337CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veissier, I, Jensen, KK, Botreau, R and SandØe, P 2011 Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal wel-fare in the Welfare Quality®scheme Animal Welfare 20: 89–101Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and Coleman, GJ 2002 The relation-ship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79: 195–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00155-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM and Taszkun, I 2000 Hock lesions and free-stall design. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 697–702. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)74931-9Google ScholarPubMed
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle: Lelystad, The Netherlands. http://www.wel-farequality.net/everyone; Scoring system: http://www1.cler-mont.inra.fr/wq/index.php?id=home&prod>==>Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Millard, F, De Rosa, G and Napolitano, F 2009 Qualitative behaviour assessment. In: Forkman, B and Keeling, LJ (eds) Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Dairy Cattle, Beef Bulls and Veal Calves. Welfare Quality® Reports No 11. Welfare Quality®: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Veterinary Record 153: 197–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.153.7.197Google ScholarPubMed
Winckler, C, Tremetsberger, L and Leeb, C 2012 Challenges and opportunities for animal welfare in organic and low input dairy farming. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science pp 147. 27-31 August 2012, Bratislava, SlovakiaGoogle Scholar
Winckler, C and Willen, S 2001 The reliability and repeata-bility of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agricultura Scandinavica A Animal Science 51: 103–107Google Scholar