Refinement of international recommendations for cubicles, based on the identification of associations between cubicle characteristics and dairy cow welfare measures.

Maladjusted cubicles for dairy cattle may cause increased skin alterations, lameness, and dirtiness. The International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering has produced several recommendations for cubicle design, but a previous study showed that not all of them seem efficient. Here, we aim to refine and complete these recommendations. We collected data on 76 dairy farms (2,404 cows). We modeled the association between combinations of cubicle properties (e.g., type of bedding litter) and dimensions (e.g., cubicle width) relative to cow size, and prevalence of cow skin alterations, lameness, and dirtiness. We used weighted multivariable logistic regression models to predict the presence of skin alteration on the carpus; the neck, shoulder, and back; the flank, side, and udder; and the tarsus or hindquarters. We also evaluated the presence of lameness as well as the dirtiness of the lower hind legs including hocks; the hindquarters, upper hind legs, and flank; the cow rear including tail; and the udder. The risk factors highlighted led us to recommend (1) position cubicles in a way that leaves more than 1 m of clearance from any obstacle in front of the cubicle; (2) if there is an obstacle on the lateral plane (i.e., where the cubicle partition is) in front ahead of the cow, put the obstacle in front of the fore knees; (3) if there is an obstacle in front of the cow on the median plane (e.g., neck or front rail), the position the obstacle between 1.25 and 1.5 of the cow length from the curb and between 1.0 and 1.25 of its height; (4) use curb height between 0.11 and 0.15 of cow height with no sharp edges on the curb; (5) use round or at least has no sharp edges brisket board; (6) use a stone-free soil instead of concrete or use a mattress thicker than 1 cm, with microrelief, and a soft fixing area at the curb, (7) litter with straw (rather than nothing or sawdust) and keep it dry. This risk factor analysis should be followed by experiments in controlled environments to further validate these conclusions and used to update the International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering recommendations.

A prospective exploration of farm, farmer, and animal characteristics in human-animal relationships: An epidemiological survey.

Human-animal relationships are essential for dairy farming. They affect work comfort and efficiency, as well as milk production. A poor human-animal relationship can result in stress and accidents to both animals and caretakers and needs to be improved. However, many studies have demonstrated the multifactoriality of these relationships. We aimed at assessing the relative importance of the various factors expected to be associated with poor human-animal relationships. On 118 dairy farms, we applied a standardized avoidance distance test to cows at the feeding rack. The sample of farms covered a wide range of situations: lowland versus highland, small versus medium size farms, cubicles versus deep-bedded systems, milking parlor versus automatic milking systems, and Holstein versus Montbéliarde breeds. We used Poisson regression to analyze the links between the number of cows that accepted being touched, and farm characteristics, animals, management, and farmers' attitudes. A multivariate analysis yielded a final model that explained 32.7% of the variability between farms. Calving conditions ("Main calving location" and "Cleaning or adding litter after calving") accounted for a significant part of the variability observed (respectively 25.8 and 13.6% of variability explained by the model, SSB). Fewer cows accepted being touched on farms where the main calving location was in the barn, and where farmers cleaned or added litter after calving. The proportion of cows that accepted being touched increased with the proportion of lean cows in the herd (18.8%), with worker/cow ratio on the farm (11.7%), when farmers considered "health" or "human-cow relationships" as most important issues for farm success (10.4%), and with farmers' years of experience (10.8%). Farmers with more negative behavioral attitudes toward cows had a lower proportion of cows that accepted being touched (8.9%). In conclusion, the human-animal relationship was not found to be associated with farm characteristics (e.g., housing or milking system) but varied with farmers' attitudes and management. We confirm that cows' fear of people is linked to negative attitudes displayed by caretakers toward cows, and is reduced in farms where several caretakers are present. Our study also suggests further exploring the key role of factors linked to calving conditions, as cows are more likely to be afraid of people when disturbed at calving.