A preliminary study on the feasibility of two different cow-calf contact systems in a pasture-based, seasonal calving dairy system: effects on cow production and health.

Internationally, consumer dissatisfaction with cow-calf separation at birth has led to increased interest in alternative calf-rearing methods, specifically cow-calf contact (CCC) systems. The objectives of this preliminary study were to estimate whether CCC could be incorporated into an Irish spring-calving, pasture-based system, and to investigate the effects on cow milk production and health. Three systems were compared: the conventional Irish system (CONV;18 cows), cow and calf were separated < 1 h postbirth, cows were pasture-based and milked twice-a-day; a full-time access system (FT;14 cows), cow and calf were allowed constant, unrestricted access, were pasture-based, and cows were milked twice-a-day; and a part-time access system (PT;18 cows), cow and calf had unrestricted access when indoors at night, cows grazed outdoors by day while calves remained indoors, and cows were milked once-a-day in the morning. Cows were blocked and balanced across the three systems by previous lactation machine milk yield (MMY), BW, and body condition score (BCS). Following an 8-week CCC period, all calves were weaned (FT and PT underwent a 7-d gradual weaning and separation process) and all cows were milked twice-a-day. Cow MMY was recorded daily and milk composition was recorded weekly; milk data were analysed from weeks 1 to 8 (CCC period), weeks 9 to 35 (post-CCC period), and weeks 1 to 35 (cumulative lactation). Cow BW and BCS were taken weekly for weeks 1-12, and at the end of the lactation. During the CCC period, all systems differed (P < 0.001) in MMY (mean ± SEM; 24.0, 13.6, and 10.3 ± 0.50 kg/d for CONV, FT, and PT cows, respectively). After the CCC period, CONV MMY (20.2 ± 0.48 kg/d) remained higher (P < 0.001) than the FT (16.6 kg/d) and PT cows (15.7 kg/d). The FT and PT cows yielded 24 and 31% less in cumulative lactation MMY and 26 and 35% less in cumulative lactation milk solids yield, respectively, compared to CONV (5 072 ± 97.0 kg and 450 ± 8.7 kg). During the CCC period, somatic cell score was higher (P = 0.030) in PT cows (5.15 ± 0.118) compared to FT cows (4.70 ± 0.118), while CONV (4.94 ± 0.118) were inconclusive to both. The PT cows (523 ± 4.9 and 520 ± 6.8 kg) were heavier than the CONV (474 ± 4.9 and 479 ± 6.8 kg) and FT (488 ± 4.9 and 487 ± 6.8 kg) cows at week 4 and week 8 (both P < 0.001). The PT cows had higher BCS than CONV and FT at all observed times. This preliminary research suggests that although CCC was incorporated without impacting cow health, the two CCC systems investigated negatively affected cow production.

Risk factors associated with indicators of dairy cow welfare during the housing period in Irish, spring-calving, hybrid pasture-based systems.

In a dairy production system where cows are grazing for a large portion of their lactation, little attention has been afforded to investigating multiple indicators of welfare for risk factors associated with the housing period. Yet regardless of the length of the housing period, cows still experience the positive and negative welfare impacts of both indoor and outdoor environments in a hybrid system. Thus, the objective of this study was to identify risk factors for indicators of dairy cow welfare during the housing period in a spring-calving, hybrid pasture-based system. Herd-level scores for seven indicators of welfare (locomotion, body condition, ocular and nasal discharge, integument damage, tail injury and human avoidance response) were collected from 82 Irish dairy farms during the housing period (October - February). Data were analysed using multiple beta regression or zero-inflated beta regression to identify associations between these welfare indicators and measured herd-level housing, resource and management factors. Thirty-six unique risk factors were associated with one or more welfare indicators (P < 0.05). Analyses identified two risk factors for body condition < 3.0 and four for body condition > 3.5, the target range during the housing period. Four risk factors were identified for each of ocular discharge, nasal discharge and avoidance response of > 1 m from human approach. Six risk factors each were associated with the proportion of lame cows and integument damage to the head-neck-back or hindquarter regions. The greatest number of risk factors, 12, were associated with tail injury (broken, lacerated or incomplete tails). Risk factors associated with multiple indicators of welfare were cow comfort index (tail lacerations and hindquarter integument damage), cubicle width (broken and incomplete tails), shed floor slipperiness (lameness and head-neck-back integument damage), shed light-level (tail lacerations, avoidance response and below target body condition), shed passage width (broken tails and head-neck-back integument damage) and presence (incomplete tails) or absence (broken tails) of a collecting yard backing gate. With the large number of risk factors associated with tail injury, continued research is necessary to identify causes and determine prevention methods to contribute to improved overall welfare of dairy cows. Housing features meeting recommended guidelines from the literature were frequently associated with greater negative indicators of welfare. In light of this, housing guidelines may benefit from regular re-evaluation to ensure facilities meet the welfare needs of cows during the housing period.

Hoof lesions in partly housed pasture-based dairy cows.

Lameness is a symptom of a painful disorder affecting the limbs, which impacts dairy cow welfare and productivity. Lameness is primarily caused by hoof lesions. The prevalence of different lesion types can differ depending on environmental conditions and farm management practices. The aims of this observational study were to establish the cow-level and herd-level lesion prevalence during both housing and grazing periods in a partly housed, pasture-based system, establish the prevalence of lesions always associated with pain ("alarm" lesion), identify the lesions associated with a higher lameness score, determine relationships between lesions, and identify risk factors for digital dermatitis. On 98 farms during the grazing period and on 74 of the same farms during the housing period, every cow was lameness scored (0-3 lameness scoring scale), and the hind hooves of lame cows (score 2 and 3) were examined (maximum 20 cows per visit) and the prevalence of each lesion type recorded. To gather data on potential predictors for the risk factor analysis, a questionnaire with the farmer was conducted on lameness management practices and infrastructure measurements were taken at each visit. Cow-level data were also collected (e.g., parity, breed, milk yield, and so on). Noninfectious lesions were found to be more prevalent than infectious lesions in this system type. The most prevalent lesion types during both grazing and housing periods were white line separation, sole hemorrhages and overgrown claws; all remaining lesions had a cow-level prevalence of less than 15%. The cow-level prevalence of alarm lesions was 19% during the grazing period and 25% during the housing period; the most prevalent alarm lesion was sole ulcers during both periods. We found significantly more foreign bodies within the hoof sole (grazing = 14%, housing = 7%) and overgrown claws (grazing = 71%, housing = 55%) during the grazing period compared with the housing period. Cows with foul of the foot, sole ulcer, white line abscess, toe necrosis or an amputated claw had higher odds of being more severely lame, compared with mildly lame. The strongest correlation between lesions were between toe necrosis and digital dermatitis (r = 0.40), overgrown claws and corkscrew claws (r = 0.33), and interdigital hyperplasia and digital dermatitis (r = 0.31) at herd level. At the cow level, the strongest correlation was between overgrown claws and corkscrew claws (r = 0.27), and digital dermatitis and heel erosion (r = 0.22). The farmers' perception of the presence of digital dermatitis (and lameness) was significantly correlated with the actual presence of digital dermatitis recorded. Additional risk factors for the presence of digital dermatitis were cow track and verge width near the collecting yard, and stone presence on the cow tracks. Results from this study help further our understanding of the causes of lameness in partly housed, pasture-based dairy cows, and can be used to guide prevention and treatment protocols.

Lameness prevalence and management practices on Irish pasture-based dairy farms.

BACKGROUND: Lameness is a painful disease, which negatively impacts dairy cow production and welfare. The aim of this observational study was to determine herd lameness prevalence, describe current lameness management practices and identify the presence of established risk factors for lameness on Irish pasture-based dairy farms. Farms were visited once during grazing (99 farms) and again during housing (85 farms). Lameness scoring was carried out at each visit (AHDB 0-3 scale); cows were classified as lame if they scored two or three. Farm management practices and infrastructure characteristics were evaluated via farmer questionnaires and direct measurements of farm infrastructure. RESULTS: Median herd-level lameness prevalence was 7.9% (interquartile range = 5.6 - 13.0) during grazing and 9.1% (interquartile range = 4.9 - 12.0) during housing; 10.9% of cows were lame at a single visit and 3.5% were lame at both visits (chronically lame or had a repeat episode of lameness). Fifty-seven percent of farmers were not familiar with lameness scoring and only one farm carried out lameness scoring. Only 22% of farmers kept records of lame cows detected, and 15% had a lameness herd health plan. Twenty-eight percent of farmers waited more than 48 h to treat a lame cow, and 21% waited for more than one cow to be identified as lame before treating. Six percent of farmers carried out routine trimming and 31% regularly footbathed (> 12 times per year). Twelve percent put severely lame cows in a closer paddock and 8% stated that they used pain relief to treat severely lame cows. Over 50% of farms had at least one cow track measurement that was classified as rough or very rough, and cow tracks were commonly narrow for the herd size. On 6% of farms, all cubicle beds were bare concrete (no matting or bedding) and on a further 6% of farms, there was a combination of cubicles with and without matting or bedding. On 56% of farms, all pens contained less than 1.1 cubicles per cow and on 28% of farms, a proportion of pens contained less than 1.1 cubicles per cow. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study identified infrastructure and management practices which could be improved upon. The comparatively low lameness prevalence demonstrated, compared to fully housed systems, also highlights the benefits of a pasture-based system for animal welfare; however, there remains scope for improvement.

Risk factors associated with the welfare of grazing dairy cows in spring-calving, hybrid pasture-based systems.

Large-scale investigation of risk factors for multiple welfare indicators in hybrid pasture-based dairy systems is scarce. Our objective was to identify grazing season welfare risk factors on spring-calving, hybrid pasture-based dairy farms where cows experience periods of both grazing and housing. Herd-level data were collected from visits to 93 farms in the primary dairy producing counties of Ireland. Zero-inflated beta regression analysis was used to assess potential associations between categorical management and resource factors, and commonly measured animal-based welfare indicators: locomotion, body condition, nasal and ocular discharge, tail injury, integument damage, and avoidance behaviour. To account for small sample size due to elimination of farms with missing data, analyses were conducted on both a dataset of complete cases, and a dataset where missing values had been substituted for the most common response through single imputation. Resulting risk factors from both methods of analysis were compared for each indicator. Analyses identified 14 risk factors associated with one or more welfare indicators. The proportion of lame cows was positively associated with a previous housing period of four months or more compared to three months, all cubicles being outside recommended lengths and repairing roadways every two to three years compared to either yearly or more than every four years to never. The proportion of cows below minimum target grazing body condition score of 2.75 was negatively associated with participation in elective herd disease-testing in the past year. The proportion of cows with tail lacerations was positively associated with using a single breeding method, not employing part-time staff and not using brisket boards in cubicles. Previous housing period length was significantly associated with the proportion of cows with integument damage, although the direction of association was unclear. Moderate to severe nasal discharge was positively associated with collecting yard holding times of ≤ 60 min compared to > 90 min. Ocular discharge was negatively associated with manual health record-keeping and a collecting yard below the recommended area of 1.4 m2/cow. The proportion of cows with an avoidance response distance > 1 m was positively associated with herding cows without a dog present and having no additional full-time staff. Multiple risk factors were related to the housing period, suggesting that potential carry-over effects of housing management on welfare persist into the grazing period. This emphasizes the need for research to consider both housing and grazing periods in the management of welfare in hybrid pasture-based systems.

Cow- and herd-level risk factors for lameness in partly housed pasture-based dairy cows.

Lameness in dairy cows is a major animal welfare concern and has substantial economic impact through reduced production and fertility. Previous risk factor analyses have focused on housed systems, rather than those where cows were grazed for the majority of the year and housed only for the winter period. Therefore, the aim of this observational study was to identify a robust set of cow-level and herd-level risk factors for lameness in a pasture-based system, based on predictors from the housing and grazing periods. Ninety-nine farms were visited during the grazing period (April 2019-September 2019), and 85 farms were revisited during the housing period (October 2019-February 2020). At each visit, all lactating cows were scored for lameness (0 = good mobility, 1 = imperfect mobility, 2 = impaired mobility, 3 = severely impaired mobility), and potential herd-level risk factors were recorded through questionnaires and infrastructure measurements. Routine cow-level management data were also collected. Important risk factors for lameness were derived though triangulation of results from elastic net regression, and from logistic regression model selection using modified Bayesian information criterion. Both selection methods were implemented using bootstrapping. This novel approach has not previously been used in a cow-level or herd-level risk factor analysis in dairy cows, to the authors' knowledge. The binary outcome variable was lameness status, whereby cows with a lameness score of 0 or 1 were classed as non-lame and cows with a score of 2 or 3 were classed as lame. Cow-level risk factors for increased lameness prevalence were age and genetic predicted transmitting ability for lameness. Herd-level risk factors included farm and herd size, stones in paddock gateways, slats on cow tracks near the collecting yard, a sharper turn at the parlor exit, presence of digital dermatitis on the farm, and the farmers' perception of whether lameness was a problem on the farm. This large-scale study identified the most important associations between risk factors and lameness, based on the entire year (grazing and housing periods), providing a focus for future randomized clinical trials.