The welfare of dairy cattle housed in tiestalls compared to less-restrictive housing types: a systematic review

Many dairy cattle worldwide are housed in tiestalls, meaning that they are tethered by the neck to individual stalls. On some farms, tied cattle are permitted seasonal access to pasture, but otherwise their movements are restricted compared with cows housed in freestall barns or other loose housing systems. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the scientific literature pertaining the welfare of tied dairy cattle through comparison with less-restrictive housing systems. Articles identified by PubMed and Web of Science underwent a 5-phase screening process, resulting in the inclusion of 102 papers. These papers addressed measures of welfare related to affective state, natural behavior, and health (with the lattermost category subdivided into hoof and leg disorders, lameness, mastitis, transition disease, and other diseases or conditions). Health was the most researched topic (discussed in 86% of articles); only 19% and 14% of studies addressed natural behavior and affective state, respectively. Our review highlights different health benefits for tethered and loose cattle. For example, tied cattle experience reduced prevalence of white line disease and digital dermatitis, whereas loose cattle experience fewer leg lesions and injuries. The prevalence of mastitis, transition diseases, and other conditions did not differ consistently across housing types. We found that the expression of certain natural behaviors, particularly those associated with lying down (e.g., time spent kneeling, unfulfilled intentions to lie down), were impaired in tiestalls. Articles addressing affective state found benefits to loose housing, but these studies focused almost exclusively on (1) physiological measurements and (2) cow comfort, a concept that lacks a consistent operational definition across studies. We call for future research into the affective state of tied cattle that extends beyond these explorations and employs more sophisticated methodologies

Differences in the fecal microbiota of dairy calves reared with differing sources of milk and levels of maternal contact

The practice of rearing cows and calves together is gaining popularity on dairy farms, with different systems currently under assessment in mainland Europe, the United Kingdom, and Oceania. Research into the effects of cow–calf rearing has primarily focused on direct health and welfare implications, and little work has examined the role of different rearing paradigms on calf microbiota. We trialed a cow–calf rearing system on a Canadian dairy farm and compared fecal microbiota of these calves with the microbiota of calves reared according to the conventional practice of the same farm (separated from the dam and fed waste milk). At 4 wk, the conventionally reared calves had reduced relative abundance of Lactobacillus and higher relative abundance of other taxa, including Sutterella, Prevotella, and Bacteroides. We also detected predicted functional differences, such as reduced l-tryptophan biosynthesis in conventionally reared calves. These results suggest that maternal contact may influence the calf microbiota, but the observed differences are also likely related to other aspects of the rearing environment independent of maternal contact (e.g., potential exposure to antibiotic residues in waste milk). These findings provide preliminary evidence of the effects of early rearing environments on the establishment of the dairy calf fecal microbiota. This research is needed, given the critical role of the bovine gut microbiome in behavioral, metabolic, and immune development

Measuring lameness prevalence: effects of case definition and assessment frequency

Lameness assessments are commonly conducted at a single point in time, but such assessments are subject to multiple sources of error. We conducted a longitudinal study, assessing the gait of 282 lactating dairy cows weekly during the first 12 wk of lactation, with the aim of assessing how lameness prevalence changed in relation to case definition and assessment frequency. Gait was scored using a 5-point scale where scores of 1 and 2 were considered sound, 3 was clinically lame, and 4 and 5 were severely lame. We created 5 lameness definitions using increasingly stringent thresholds based upon the number of consecutive events of locomotion score ≥3. In LAME1, a cow was considered lame when locomotion score was ≥3 at any scoring event, in LAME2, LAME3, LAME4, and LAME5, a cow was considered lame when locomotion score was 3 or higher during 2, 3, 4, and 5 consecutive scoring events, respectively. We also assessed the effect of assessment frequency on measures of prevalence and incidence using weekly assessment (ASSM1), 1 assessment every 2 wk (ASSM2), 1 assessment every 3 wk (ASSM3), and 1 assessment every 4 wk (ASSM4). Using LAME1, 69.2% of cows were considered lame at some point during the trial, with an average point prevalence of 31.8% (SD: 2.8) and average incidence rate of 10.9 cases/100 cow weeks (SD: 3.7). Lameness prevalence decreased to 28.0% when using LAME5. Survival analysis was used to assess the effects of parity, using these different case definitions. Parity is a known risk for lameness, such that case definitions and prevalence estimates should be stratified by parity to inform management decisions. Using the LAME3 criterion, primiparous cows had the highest chance of reaching 12 wk without a lameness event, and fourth and higher parities had the lowest. Weighted linear and quadratic kappa values were used to assess agreement between different assessment frequencies and lameness definitions; we found substantial to excellent agreement between ASSM1 and ASSM2 using LAME1, LAME2, and LAME3 definitions. Agreement was fair to substantial between ASSM1 and ASSM3 and low to fair between ASSM1 and ASSM4. Likewise, the agreement between LAME1 and LAME2 was fair in primiparous cows, substantial in second and third parity cows, and poor to fair in fourth and greater parity cows. We conclude that lameness prevalence estimates are dependent upon case definition and that the use of more stringent case definitions results in fewer cows classified as lame. These results suggest that routine locomotion assessments be conducted at least every 2 wk, and that cows should be defined as lame on the basis of 2 consecutive assessments

Early pair housing increases solid feed intake and weight gains in dairy calves

Dairy calves have traditionally been kept in individual pens throughout the milk-feeding period. Social rearing is associated with increased solid feed intake and hence higher weight gains before and after weaning. Little is known about the effect of the age at which social housing begins. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of early versus late pairing on feeding behavior and weight gain before and after weaning. Holstein bull calves were reared individually (n=8 calves), or paired with another calf at 6 ± 3 d (n=8 pairs) or 43 ± 3 d of age (n=8 pairs). All calves were fed 8 L of milk/d for 4 wk, 6 L/d from 4 to 7 wk and then milk was reduced by 20%/d until calves were completely weaned at 8 wk of age. Calves were provided ad libitum access to calf starter and a total mixed ration (TMR). Body weight and feed intake were measured weekly from 3 to 10 wk of age. Intake of calf starter was significantly higher for the early-paired calves than for individually-reared and late-paired calves throughout the experimental period. At 10 wk of age, starter dry matter intake (DMI) averaged 2.20 ± 0.22 kg/d, 1.09 ± 0.25 kg/d and 1.26 ± 0.33 kg/d for early pair, late pair and individually housed calves, respectively. Intake of TMR did not differ among treatments, TMR dry matter intake (averaged 3.27 ± 0.72 kg/d, 3.08 ± 0.46 kg/d, and 2.89 ± 0.54 kg/d for the same three treatments). Calves in the early pair treatment also showed significantly higher average daily gain (ADG) over the experimental period (0.89 ± 0.04 kg/d versus 0.76 ± 0.04 kg/d and 0.73 ± 0.04 kg/d for the early paired, individual and late-paired calves, respectively). These results indicate that social housing soon after birth can increase weight gains and intake of solid feed

Erratum to: Pessimism and fearfulness in dairy calves (Scientific Reports, (2018), 8, 1, (1421), 10.1038/s41598-017-17214-3)

A correction to this article has been published and is linked from the HTML and PDF versions of this paper. The error has not been fixed in the paper

Societal views and animal welfare science: understanding why the modified cage may fail and other stories

The innovations developed by scientists working on animal welfare are often not adopted in practice. In this paper, we argue that one important reason for this failure is that the solutions proposed do not adequately address the societal concerns that motivated the original research. Some solutions also fail because they do not adequately address perceived constraints within the industry. Using examples from our own recent work, we show how research methods from the social sciences can address both of these limitations. For example, those who persist in tail-docking cattle (despite an abundance of evidence showing that the practice has no benefits) often justify their position by citing concern for cow cleanliness. This result informs the nature of new extension efforts directed at farmers that continue to tail dock, suggesting that these efforts will be more effective if they focus on providing producers with methods (of proven efficacy) for keeping cows clean. Work on pain mitigation for dehorning shows that some participants reluctant to provide pain relief believe that the pain from this procedure is short lasting and has little impact on the calf. This result informs the direction of new biological research efforts to understand both the magnitude and duration of any suffering that result from this type of procedure. These, and other examples, illustrate how social science methodologies can document the shared and divergent values of different stakeholders (to ensure that proposed solutions align with mainstream values), beliefs regarding the available evidence (to help target new scientific research that meets the perceived gaps), and barriers in implementing changes (to ease adoption of ideas by addressing these barriers)