What impact can H&W planning have?

Dr Nick Bell MA VetMB PhD PgCertVetEd FHEA MRCVS

Senior lecturer in Veterinary Livestock Extension, RVC

Diversity, passion for cow care, responsive to challenges

Annual welfare outcome assessments – 40-50 herds

2007 2008 2010 2012 2013 2014 20150.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%

Mobility score 3

Excellent welfare is critically important to….

Fit, Healthy, Feeling good

Productivity

Satisfaction – farmer and vet

Public perception – belief and assurance

High performing farms conduct H&W planning but H&W planning does not make a high performing farm

Bell et al 2006 Veterinary Record

Successful planning = farm specific goals, what to assess and targets?

Establishing WOA priorities

1. Industry priorities (FAWC)2. Iceberg indicators – calf mortality, cow

mortality, lameness, fertility3. Protocols (Assurewell)4. Farm specific

Role of welfare outcome assessment

Improving mobility

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

12-M

ar-0

7

12-A

pr-0

7

12-M

ay-0

7

12-J

un-0

7

12-J

ul-0

7

12-A

ug-0

7

12-S

ep-0

7

12-O

ct-0

7

12-N

ov-0

7

12-D

ec-0

7

12-J

an-0

8

12-F

eb-0

8

12-M

ar-0

8

12-A

pr-0

8

12-M

ay-0

8

12-J

un-0

8

% L

ame

Date

Score 3

Score 2&3

Fork through compacted rubber chip then deep bed conversion 2014

2012 20130.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Hock score 3Hock score 2Hock score 1

Are there iceberg indicators (FAWC 2009)?

Nyman et al 2011: • cow mortality• calf mortality• fertility

% correctly classified

QBA calm REV SQRT 51.2QBA happy 51.2% lame cows 53.7% very lame cows log10 36.6

Validity of snapshot measures – some more robust than others• Recorded disease – eg lameness vs clinical

mastitis• Mobility score – 2 vs 3• Cow comfort indicators – eg hock injury• BCS loss calving-peak/%fat cows at dry off• Cleanliness –June vs Oct

Could benchmark resources and management

Feed

Water

Rest

Air

Space

Light

Cow Signals

Field school=powerful by being empowering

Summary of WOA

• Comprehensive - Welfare encompasses a massive range of behaviours, emotions, health states and comfort

• Target your priorities - Some may be more important than others – farm specific strengths and weaknesses

• Plan your resources and management measures - to meet outcome performance goals

• Facilitation with peer support has great potency of fleshing out (or rejecting) plans

Thank you for listening – I welcome your questions

Acknowledgements – thanks to:

Part of the AHDB Dairy Research Partnership

Spare slides

Are welfare outcomes worth assessing (farmers)

strongly agree agree neither agree/disagree

disagree strongly disagree

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

% fa

rmer

s

90% agreed

Feasible for farmers?

strongly agree agree neither agree/disagree

disagree strongly disagree0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

% fa

rmer

s

Min 25th percentile

Median 75th percentile

Max No. missing

Mean no. coughs/cow/15min† 0.1 0.5 0.7 1.1 2.7 4% cows with dirty udders† 2.5 15.6 28.3 41.5 100.0 0% cows with very dirty udders† 0.0 0.0 1.9 4.3 40.0 0% cows with dirty hind legs† 44.8 76.9 92.2 98.4 100.0 0% cows with very dirty hind legs† 0.0 11.7 23.4 36.9 80.0 0% cows with dirty hindquarters 11.9 44.4 63.3 76.4 98.2 0% cows with very dirty hindquarters† 0.0 8.2 19.4 29.1 63.6 0

% cows BSC <2† 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.1 4.8 0% cows BSC ≥4† 0.0 0.0 1.9 5.5 42.9 0% cows ocular discharge† 0.0 5.5 11.0 19.0 41.3 0% cows nasal discharge 0.0 15.2 26.5 32.8 50.0 0% cows vulval discharge† 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 7.8 0% cows diarrhoea† 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0% cows hampered respiration† 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0% cows tail injury† 0.0 2.0 4.8 9.2 49.2 0% cows lame 6.9 18.1 22.2 27.6 42.4 0% cows severely lame† 0.0 3.0 5.7 8.3 26.9 0

Min 25th percentile

Median 75th percentile

Max No. missing

Mean time taken to lie down (sec) 3.9 4.4 4.9 5.2 6.4 15

% collisions during lying down† 0.0 0.0 23.6 38.2 83.3 15

Mean % cows feeding 17.4 26.8 33.0 42.4 63.6 7

Mean % cows ruminating 11.9 22.5 27.4 33.1 58.3 7

Mean % cows lying 18.9 32.5 41.9 50.8 62.3 7

Mean % cows lying incorrectly† 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 8.3 7

Mean % cows idling 0.9 4.5 6.3 8.8 15.2 7

% cows dull and depressed† 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.1 2.3 9

Mean lying time/day (hours)† 7.4 10.1 10.5 11.2 11.8 28

SD lying time/day (hours) 0.9 1.7 1.9 2.1 3.1 28

Mean no. lying bouts/day 9.0 10.4 11.5 12.4 13.7 28

SD no lying bouts/day 2.3 2.8 3.7 4.9 6.0 28

Mean lying bout duration/day (min) 51.0 55.5 60.8 66.0 77.1 28

SD lying bout duration/day (min) 13.0 15.1 18.1 22.3 28.0 28

Automated measures of lying time

Country

Cow and farm no.

Lying behaviour measure

Mean across cows

Range in cow means

Mean across herds

Range in herd means

Wechsler et al. (2000) Switzerland

463 cows

18 farms

Daily lying time (h) 11.2 - - -

Mean lying bout duration (min) 62.8 - - -

Lying bout frequency 13.0 - - -

Endres and Barberg (2007) USA

147 cows

12 farms

Daily lying time (h) 9.3 2.4 – 16.8 - 6.1 – 11.4

Mean lying bout duration (min) 50.8 3.0 – 358.0 - 36.9 – 59.8

Lying bout frequency 11.0 2.0 – 29.0 - 8.6 – 12.8

Ito et al. (2009) Canada

2033 cows

43 farms

Daily lying time (h) 11.0 4.2 – 19.5 - 9.5 – 12.9

Mean lying bout duration (min) 88.0 22.0 –

342.0 - 65.0 – 112.0

Lying bout frequency 9.0 1.0 – 28.0 - 7.0 – 10.0

Gomez and Cook (2010) USA

205 cows

16 farms

Daily lying time (h) 11.9 3.9 – 17.6 - -

Mean lying bout duration (min) 72.0 24 – 174.0 - -

Lying bout frequency 12.9 3.0 – 35.0 - -

von Keyserlingk et al. (2012)

Canada 121

farms

Daily lying time (h)

- 4.2 – 19.5 11.0 -

California - 3.7 – 17.5 10.4 -

NE-USA - 2.8 – 20.5 10.6 -

Lying times (hrs)

Median time spent lying down/day 10.4 hrs across the 23 lying study farms

7 hours/day

12 hours/day

3 hours/day!

17 hours/day!

3 – 14 hours/day!

Pasture

Bed comfort (lying time hrs)

Cubicles Straw yard02468

1012

10.5 11.3

Lying times on different cubicles (hrs)

Mat/mattress cubicles

Deep sand cubicles

02468

1012

10.1 11.5

P<0.05

Linear mixed effects multivariate analysis of cow-day level lying behaviour

Total lying time Bout frequency Bout duration

D1 vs D4 ↓ (p<0.05) ↑ day 1 (Fri) ↓ day 4 (Mon)

DIM (MY) ↑ (p<0.001) ↓ ↑

Very lame ↑ (p=0.01) ↓ ↑

Deep vs not ↑ (p=0.01) - ↑

↑ Cubicle length ↑ (p=0.01) ↑ -

↑ Cubicle width - - -

Milking frequency - - -

Cubicles per cow - - -

SCC - - -

Non lame Lame Very lame10

10.210.410.610.8

1111.211.411.6

10.5

10.7

11.5

Lying times (hrs) for different severities of lameness

Model‘s estimated mean

P<0.05