Measures of weight distribution of dairy cows to detect lameness and the presence of hoof lesions

There is increasing interest in automated methods of detecting lame cows. Hoof lesion data and measures of weight distribution from 61 lactating cows were examined in this study. Lame cows were identified with different numerical rating scores (NRS) used as thresholds (NRS \u3e3 and NRS ≥3.5) for lameness. The ratio of weight applied to a pair of legs (LWR) when the cow was standing was calculated using a special weigh scale, and the cows were gait scored using a 1 to 5 NRS. Hoof lesions were scored and the cows placed into 1 of 4 mutually exclusive categories of hoof lesion: a) no lesions, b) moderate or severe hemorrhages, c) digital dermatitis, and d) sole ulcers. Regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to analyze the relation between hoof lesions and LWR. A clear relationship was found between NRS and LWR for the cows with sole ulcers (R2 = 0.79). The LWR could differentiate cows with sole ulcers from sound cows with no hoof lesions [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.87] and lame cows from nonlame cows with lameness thresholds NRS \u3e3 (AUC = 0.71) and NRS ≥3.5 (AUC = 0.88). There was no relationship between LWR and NRS for cows with digital dermatitis. Measurement of how cows distribute their weight when standing holds promise as a method of automated detection of lameness

Measures of weight distribution of dairy cows to detect lameness and the presence of hoof lesions

There is increasing interest in automated methods of detecting lame cows. Hoof lesion data and measures of weight distribution from 61 lactating cows were examined in this study. Lame cows were identified with different numerical rating scores (NRS) used as thresholds (NRS \u3e3 and NRS ≥3.5) for lameness. The ratio of weight applied to a pair of legs (LWR) when the cow was standing was calculated using a special weigh scale, and the cows were gait scored using a 1 to 5 NRS. Hoof lesions were scored and the cows placed into 1 of 4 mutually exclusive categories of hoof lesion: a) no lesions, b) moderate or severe hemorrhages, c) digital dermatitis, and d) sole ulcers. Regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to analyze the relation between hoof lesions and LWR. A clear relationship was found between NRS and LWR for the cows with sole ulcers (R2 = 0.79). The LWR could differentiate cows with sole ulcers from sound cows with no hoof lesions [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.87] and lame cows from nonlame cows with lameness thresholds NRS \u3e3 (AUC = 0.71) and NRS ≥3.5 (AUC = 0.88). There was no relationship between LWR and NRS for cows with digital dermatitis. Measurement of how cows distribute their weight when standing holds promise as a method of automated detection of lameness

Effects of sand and straw bedding on the lying behavior, cleanliness, and hoof and hock injuries of dairy cows

"This experiment compared the effects of sand and straw bedding in free stalls on resting time, cleanliness, hock injuries, and hoof health of dairy cows and tested whether cow preferences for a bedding material depended on the familiarity with the material. A total of 52 dairy cows were kept either on straw bedded concrete stalls or sand stalls for at least 21 wk. The lying behavior was observed, and hock lesions, hoof health, and cleanliness of the cows and stalls were measured. A 5-d preference test between sand and straw stalls was conducted at the end of the experiment. The total daily duration of lying was longer for cows on straw bedding than on sand bedding (straw 749 +/- 16 vs. sand 678 +/- 19 min). During the preference test, cows that had been kept on straw bedding preferred lying in straw stalls [straw 218.7 (133.4 to 239.7) vs. sand 9.0 min (2.8 to 44.8)]; however, cows that had been kept on sand showed no preference [straw 101.3 (51.7 to 205.9) vs. sand 94.3 min (54.1 to 156.1, median and interquartile range)]. Although there were no differences in the dirtiness of stalls, the cows using straw stalls were dirtier than cows using sand stalls [straw 6.04 (5.39 to 6.28) vs. sand 4.19 (3.62 to 5.16)]. At the end of experiment the severity of hock lesions was lower for cows on sand than for cows on straw [sand 0.5 (0.0 to 1.0) vs. straw 1.0 (1.0 to 2.0)]. The improvement in overall hoof health over the observation period was greater for cows kept on sand compared with cows kept on straw [sand -2.00 (-3.75 to -0.25) vs. straw 0.00 (-2.00 to 2.00)]. Straw bedding increased the time that cows spend lying, and cows preferred straw stalls to sand stalls. However, previous experience with sand reduces avoidance of sand stalls. Sand stalls were advantageous for cow cleanliness and health; hock lesions and claw diseases healed more quickly for cows using sand stalls compared with straw.""This experiment compared the effects of sand and straw bedding in free stalls on resting time, cleanliness, hock injuries, and hoof health of dairy cows and tested whether cow preferences for a bedding material depended on the familiarity with the material. A total of 52 dairy cows were kept either on straw bedded concrete stalls or sand stalls for at least 21 wk. The lying behavior was observed, and hock lesions, hoof health, and cleanliness of the cows and stalls were measured. A 5-d preference test between sand and straw stalls was conducted at the end of the experiment. The total daily duration of lying was longer for cows on straw bedding than on sand bedding (straw 749 +/- 16 vs. sand 678 +/- 19 min). During the preference test, cows that had been kept on straw bedding preferred lying in straw stalls [straw 218.7 (133.4 to 239.7) vs. sand 9.0 min (2.8 to 44.8)]; however, cows that had been kept on sand showed no preference [straw 101.3 (51.7 to 205.9) vs. sand 94.3 min (54.1 to 156.1, median and interquartile range)]. Although there were no differences in the dirtiness of stalls, the cows using straw stalls were dirtier than cows using sand stalls [straw 6.04 (5.39 to 6.28) vs. sand 4.19 (3.62 to 5.16)]. At the end of experiment the severity of hock lesions was lower for cows on sand than for cows on straw [sand 0.5 (0.0 to 1.0) vs. straw 1.0 (1.0 to 2.0)]. The improvement in overall hoof health over the observation period was greater for cows kept on sand compared with cows kept on straw [sand -2.00 (-3.75 to -0.25) vs. straw 0.00 (-2.00 to 2.00)]. Straw bedding increased the time that cows spend lying, and cows preferred straw stalls to sand stalls. However, previous experience with sand reduces avoidance of sand stalls. Sand stalls were advantageous for cow cleanliness and health; hock lesions and claw diseases healed more quickly for cows using sand stalls compared with straw.""This experiment compared the effects of sand and straw bedding in free stalls on resting time, cleanliness, hock injuries, and hoof health of dairy cows and tested whether cow preferences for a bedding material depended on the familiarity with the material. A total of 52 dairy cows were kept either on straw bedded concrete stalls or sand stalls for at least 21 wk. The lying behavior was observed, and hock lesions, hoof health, and cleanliness of the cows and stalls were measured. A 5-d preference test between sand and straw stalls was conducted at the end of the experiment. The total daily duration of lying was longer for cows on straw bedding than on sand bedding (straw 749 +/- 16 vs. sand 678 +/- 19 min). During the preference test, cows that had been kept on straw bedding preferred lying in straw stalls [straw 218.7 (133.4 to 239.7) vs. sand 9.0 min (2.8 to 44.8)]; however, cows that had been kept on sand showed no preference [straw 101.3 (51.7 to 205.9) vs. sand 94.3 min (54.1 to 156.1, median and interquartile range)]. Although there were no differences in the dirtiness of stalls, the cows using straw stalls were dirtier than cows using sand stalls [straw 6.04 (5.39 to 6.28) vs. sand 4.19 (3.62 to 5.16)]. At the end of experiment the severity of hock lesions was lower for cows on sand than for cows on straw [sand 0.5 (0.0 to 1.0) vs. straw 1.0 (1.0 to 2.0)]. The improvement in overall hoof health over the observation period was greater for cows kept on sand compared with cows kept on straw [sand -2.00 (-3.75 to -0.25) vs. straw 0.00 (-2.00 to 2.00)]. Straw bedding increased the time that cows spend lying, and cows preferred straw stalls to sand stalls. However, previous experience with sand reduces avoidance of sand stalls. Sand stalls were advantageous for cow cleanliness and health; hock lesions and claw diseases healed more quickly for cows using sand stalls compared with straw."Peer reviewe

Effect of floor type on the performance, physiological and behavioural responses of finishing beef steers

peer-reviewedBackground:The study objective was to investigate the effect of bare concrete slats (Control), two types of mats [(Easyfix mats (mat 1) and Irish Custom Extruder mats (mat 2)] fitted on top of concrete slats, and wood-chip to simulate deep bedding (wood-chip placed on top of a plastic membrane overlying the concrete slats) on performance, physiological and behavioral responses of finishing beef steers. One-hundred and forty-four finishing steers (503 kg; standard deviation 51.8 kg) were randomly assigned according to their breed (124 Continental cross and 20 Holstein–Friesian) and body weight to one of four treatments for 148 days. All steers were subjected to the same weighing, blood sampling (jugular venipuncture), dirt and hoof scoring pre study (day 0) and on days 23, 45, 65, 86, 107, 128 and 148 of the study. Cameras were fitted over each pen for 72 h recording over five periods and subsequent 10 min sampling scans were analysed. Results: Live weight gain and carcass characteristics were similar among treatments. The number of lesions on the hooves of the animals was greater (P < 0.05) on mats 1 and 2 and wood-chip treatments compared with the animals on the slats. Dirt scores were similar for the mat and slat treatments while the wood-chip treatment had greater dirt scores. Animals housed on either slats or wood-chip had similar lying times. The percent of animals lying was greater for animals housed on mat 1 and mat 2 compared with those housed on concrete slats and wood chips. Physiological variables showed no significant difference among treatments. Conclusions: In this exploratory study, the performance or welfare of steers was not adversely affected by slats, differing mat types or wood-chip as underfoot material

To swim or not to swim: an interpretation of farmed mink's motivation for a water bath

How an animal’s behavioural (ethological) needs can be met is a pivotal issue in the assessment of welfare for captive animals. The value of swimming water for farmed mink is an example how scientific and societal questions relating to animal welfare can be answered. A number of studies have addressed the issue of the indispensability of swimming water for mink; however, so far with inconclusive evidence. In this paper, the results of these studies and related literature are reviewed. First, the biological definition of need is discussed. Subsequently, attention is paid to the effects of the presence, absence and the removal of swimming water on behavioural and physiological correlates of well-being including stereotypic and anticipatory behaviour and urinary cortisol. Thereafter we discuss individual differences in the use of swimming water, the price animals pay for access to a water bath, and the effect of access to swimming water on juvenile play. The main conclusions of the literature review are that 1) the use of a water bath for mink is most likely related to foraging behaviour (foraging areas: land and water); 2) absence of swimming water, without prior experience, does not lead to consistent changes in level of stereotypic behaviour, or anticipatory responses; 3) removal of a previously experienced water bath may induce short-term stress as indicated by behavioural parameters and elevated cortisol responses; 4) mink work hard for access to a swimming bath and running wheel in consumer demand studies. Other cage modifications such as tunnels and biting objects, may also provide environmental enrichment, if they are added to otherwise impoverished conditions; 5) There are individual differences in the use of swimming water: these are related in part to variation in prior experience of aquatic resources.; 6) As prior experience is important both with respect to individual use of swimming water and the response to deprivation, swimming water can not be described as biological need in the sense of a fixed requirement for survival. As swimming water appears to act as an incentive that induces its own motivation a more accurate term may be an “incentive induced or environmentally facilitated need”. Given the available evidence, it is not possible to conclude whether mink that have never experienced swimming water, suffer as a consequence of its absence. However, it is possible to predict that mink with access to water have improved quality of life, due to increased behavioural opportunities, in comparison to farmed mink without access to swimming water. In practical terms, it is still open to debate whether mink should be provided with swimming water, or if alternative, less valued, but easier to install and maintain forms of environmental enrichment, should be provided in mink housing. To clarify these issues a number of future studies would be valuable. These include; 1) whether specific environmental cues affect motivation to swim, such as the form of drinking water delivery systems ; 2) whether prior experience of swimming water affects its incentive value; in other words “can you miss what you never experienced?”; 3) do behavioural parameters such as stereotypic behaviour; rebound effects and vacuum activity have any general utility in assessing the value of absent resources; 4) what are preferences for and the value of alternative resources which may act as substitutes for swimming water. In addition we would recommend further work investigating: relationship between access to swimming water and positive indicators of welfare such as play and/or anticipatory behaviour; the effects of preventing the performance of rewarding behaviours and deprivation of a previous experienced resource; and health and hygeine issues related to provision of a water bath. In future work, it would be desirable to present be the actual percentages of animals using a water bath during the experiment and the use of power analyses, to aid their interpretation

Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 1: a review of existing methods

Several systems have been proposed for the overall assessment of animal welfare at the farm level for the purpose of advising farmers or assisting public decision-making. They are generally based on several measures compounded into a single evaluation, using different rules to assemble the information. Here we discuss the different methods used to aggregate welfare measures and their applicability to certification schemes involving welfare. Data obtained on a farm can be (i) analysed by an expert who draws an overall conclusion; (ii) compared with minimal requirements set for each measure; (iii) converted into ranks, which are then summed; or (iv) converted into values or scores compounded in a weighted sum (e.g. TGI35L) or using ad hoc rules. Existing methods used at present (at least when used exclusively) may be insufficiently sensitive or not routinely applicable, or may not reflect the multidimensional nature of welfare and the relative importance of various welfare measures. It is concluded that different methods may be used at different stages of the construction of an overall assessment of animal welfare, depending on the constraints imposed on the aggregation proces

Boredom-like states in mink and their behavioural correlates: a replicate study

Scientists and laypeople have long expressed concern that animals in non-enriched, unchanging environments might experience boredom. However, this had attracted little empirical study: the state is difficult to assess without verbal self-reports, and spontaneous behavioural signs of boredom can vary in humans, making it hard to identify signs likely to be valid in other species. We operationally define boredom as a negative state that causes an increased, generalised interest in diverse stimuli. Previously, we demonstrated that this state existed in mink housed in non-enriched cages, compared to those in preferred, stress-reducing enriched enclosures; and that this heightened interest in stimuli positively correlated with time spent lying still but awake, while negatively correlating with locomotor stereotypic behaviour. However, these results needed replication. The current study tested for the same effects, in a new cohort of 20 male mink, by presenting 11 stimuli ranging from those predicted to typically be aversive (e.g. predator cues) to those predicted to be rewarding (e.g. food rewards; moving objects to chase). Where housing treatments differed, non-enriched mink were again more interested in the stimuli presented, spending longer oriented towards and in contact with them (e.g. for aversive stimuli: F1,9=6.27, p=0.034 and F1,9=8.24, p=0.019, respectively). Lying still but awake again correlated with interest in the stimuli (shorter latencies to contact rewarding stimuli: F1,17=3.70, p=0.036; in enriched mink only, more time oriented to and in contact with all stimuli: F1,8=9.49, p=0.015 and F1,8=15.9, p=0.004). In contrast, the previous correlations with stereotypic behaviour were not replicated. We therefore conclude that mink housed in non-enriched cages likely experience boredom-like states, and that time spent lying still while awake could potentially be used as a cage-side indicator of these states. We also suggest how future researchers might address further fundamental and practical questions about animal boredom, in mink and other species