Щоб переглянути інші типи публікацій з цієї теми, перейдіть за посиланням: Cow welfare.
Статті в журналах з теми "Cow welfare"
Оформте джерело за APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard та іншими стилями
Ознайомтеся з топ-50 статей у журналах для дослідження на тему "Cow welfare".
Біля кожної праці в переліку літератури доступна кнопка «Додати до бібліографії». Скористайтеся нею – і ми автоматично оформимо бібліографічне посилання на обрану працю в потрібному вам стилі цитування: APA, MLA, «Гарвард», «Чикаго», «Ванкувер» тощо.
Також ви можете завантажити повний текст наукової публікації у форматі «.pdf» та прочитати онлайн анотацію до роботи, якщо відповідні параметри наявні в метаданих.
Переглядайте статті в журналах для різних дисциплін та оформлюйте правильно вашу бібліографію.
1
Esslemont, D. "Improving dairy cow welfare." Veterinary Record 168, no. 16 (April 21, 2011): 433–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.d2470.
Повний текст джерела
2
McLaughlin, C., and B. Lindsay. "Improving dairy cow welfare." Veterinary Record 168, no. 18 (May 6, 2011): 489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.d2785.
Повний текст джерела
3
van der Burgt, G., E. Berry, and K. Lancaster. "Cow welfare and 'quarter culling'." Veterinary Record 168, no. 17 (April 28, 2011): 465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.d2656.
Повний текст джерела
4
Sharma, Arvind, Catherine Schuetze, and Clive J. C. Phillips. "Public Attitudes towards Cow Welfare and Cow Shelters (Gaushalas) in India." Animals 9, no. 11 (November 14, 2019): 972. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani9110972.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Public attitudes towards cows and cow shelters in India need to be assessed in the contemporary context, as India is facing an overpopulation of street cows, leading to traffic hazards, public health issues, and pollution. We investigated the attitudes of the general public in India towards cow welfare in general and cow shelters (gaushalas) in particular. Eight hundred and twenty-five members of the public, residing in the vicinity of 54 cow shelters, were interviewed for this purpose. Their perception of animal welfare centred on animal care, cows as goddesses and mothers, and doing things properly. More than half visited a shelter daily for religious reasons. Most believed that cow shelters were the best way to manage the stray cow population and felt a community responsibility towards all breeds of cows for animal welfare reasons. Space availability for the cows was the key welfare issue voiced. Older people were more likely to identify animal welfare and culture as the main reason for sheltering cows. Better educated, wealthier, and more religious people visited the shelters most, rating religion and breeding higher as the shelter’s main purpose. Males favoured indigenous cow breeds more than females. Village respondents were more likely to consider the facilities adequate compared with country town and urban respondents. In contrast to married respondents, single people were more likely to say that they visited for leisure rather than for religious purposes. The survey indicated that the Indian community was generally supportive of cow sheltering and that visits to the shelters helped them to know that unwanted cattle were being well cared for.
5
Hristov, Slavca, Zvonko Zlatanovic, Branislav Stankovic, Dusica Ostojic-Andric, Vesna Davidovic, Mirjana Joksimovic-Todorovic, Budimir Plavsic, and Marija Dokmanovic. "Welfare assessment for dairy cows in loose stalls." Veterinarski glasnik 65, no. 5-6 (2011): 399–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/vetgl1106399h.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
In this paper, welfare assessment using the methodology of the Welfare quality ? assessment protocol for cattle (2009) was performed for dairy cows maintained in the loose system of rearing on three dairy farms. This methodology includes quantitative measurements and qualitative evaluation of certain welfare parameters, criteria and principles of welfare, as well as assessment of the overall welfare of dairy cows. The results showed that the overall level of dairy cow welfare was acceptable on two farms, and was good on one. On two farms, the state of the cows? social behavior expression was unacceptable. Furthermore, on all three farms, the expression of other types of cow behavior was not acceptable. At one farm, it was determined that the result for the absence of prolonged thirst was unacceptable. Based on these results, it can be concluded that it is necessary to improve the quality of cow welfare on these farms. The applied methodology provides a multidimensional insight into the quality of cow welfare in the loose system.
6
Nurhayati, Nurhayati, Nur Annis Hidayati, and Budi Afriyansyah. "KAJIAN KESEJAHTERAAN SAPI PADA BEBERAPA PETERNAKAN DI KOTA PANGKALPINANG." EKOTONIA: Jurnal Penelitian Biologi, Botani, Zoologi dan Mikrobiologi 2, no. 1 (September 24, 2018): 42–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.33019/ekotonia.v2i1.467.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Animal welfare is importan to improve life quality of animal in husbandry. Statistically, Pangkalpinang has the highest number of cow husbandry among other cities in Bangka. This study aimed to asses the animal welfare on several cow husbandries in Pangkalpinang. The assesment was held on September 2015 on 6 husbandries in Pangkalpinang. Interview, observation and Animal Needs Index (ANI) to collect data. Based on ANI method, there are 5 categories of animal welfare, wich are movement, social contact, quality flooring, light and air, and cleanlines cowshed. Study showed that in general, cattle cow in welfare candition (ANI score 23,8)
7
Leliveld, Lisette M. C., and Giorgio Provolo. "A Review of Welfare Indicators of Indoor-Housed Dairy Cow as a Basis for Integrated Automatic Welfare Assessment Systems." Animals 10, no. 8 (August 15, 2020): 1430. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10081430.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
For on-farm welfare assessment many automatic methods have been developed to detect indicators of reduced welfare. However, there is still a need to integrate data from single sources to obtain a complete picture of the welfare of an animal. This review offers a basis for developing integrated automatic systems to assess dairy cow welfare by providing an overview of the main issues that challenge cow welfare (e.g., lameness) and of well-established indicators that could detect these issues on the farm. Based on a literature review of 4 reviews on cow welfare in general and 48 reviews on single welfare issues, we identified 18 different major welfare issues and 76 matching indicators that could be detected automatically on the farm. Several indicators, e.g., feed intake, showed a consistent association with welfare across many different issues. Although some of these indicators are discussed critically, this means there are many indicators that potentially could detect reduced welfare in general. Other types of indicators could detect one specific welfare issue, e.g., increased respiratory rate for heat stress. These different types of indicators combined provide a basis to develop integrated automatic systems that ultimately would help farmers to detect welfare problems at an early stage.
8
Sharma, Arvind, Catherine Schuetze, and Clive J. C. Phillips. "The Management of Cow Shelters (Gaushalas) in India, Including the Attitudes of Shelter Managers to Cow Welfare." Animals 10, no. 2 (January 28, 2020): 211. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10020211.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Gaushala management is a specialized profession requiring particular skills relating to the management of cow shelters or gaushalas, which are traditional and ancient Indian institutions that shelter old, unproductive and abandoned cows, The 1800 registered cow shelters in India have managers who are important stakeholders in the management of cows in these unique institutions. It is important to survey the routine management of these shelters and attitudes of the managers towards cow welfare to identify the constraints and welfare issues. We visited 54 shelters in six states of India for a face-to-face structured interview of the managers. Quantitative data collection included questions on demographics, routine management operations, protocols followed in the shelters and attitudes of the managers towards cow welfare. All shelters except one were managed by males, half of them were in the age range of 45–65 years, were university graduates or post-graduates, with 5–15 years shelter management experience, and with the majority having lived in rural areas for most of their lives. Each shelter housed a median of 232 cattle were housed, out of which 13 were lactating cows. The majority of managers vaccinated their animals against endemic diseases like foot and mouth disease, haemorrhagic septicaemia and black quarter (gangraena emphysematosa) and administered endo-and ectoparasiticidal treatments, however, hardly any screened the cattle for brucellosis and tuberculosis. Only 17% of the shelters had in house veterinarians and most cows died of old age, with an annual mortality rate of 14%. The majority of the shelters allowed the cows to reproduce. Access to pasture was available in only 41% of the shelters, while most allowed some access to yards. Most (57%) had limited biosecurity measures, but 82% of the shelters disposed of the carcasses by deep burial on their own premises or through the municipality, with 18% disposing of them in open spaces or nearby creeks. About one half of the shelters maintained records of the protocols followed routinely. Charitable societies ran half of the shelters, mostly through public donations, with accounts audited regularly. Most managers thought that shelter cows’ welfare was important and that they should attempt to improve it. They were less in agreement that their knowledge of animal welfare was adequate. Local support, more moral than financial, was recognized more than government support. Managers perceived cow welfare as important from a religious perspective, citing the mother god and caring for abandoned animals as frequent themes in their definition of cow welfare. Caring for animals, mother and goddess were key elements in managers’ perception of animal welfare. The recommendations arising from this survey include that the shelter managers should be involved in the decision-making process for the welfare of cows in shelters, which is vital for the sustainability of these unique institutions. Welfare could be improved by strict compliance with biosecurity measures and disease surveillance protocols, avoidance of unrestricted reproduction in cows and separation of males and females.
9
Kaurivi, Y. Baby, Richard Laven, Rebecca Hickson, Tim Parkinson, and Kevin Stafford. "Developing an Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Cows in Extensive Beef Cow–Calf Systems in New Zealand. Part 1: Assessing the Feasibility of Identified Animal Welfare Assessment Measures." Animals 10, no. 9 (September 8, 2020): 1597. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10091597.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Potential measures suitable for assessing welfare in pasture-based beef cow–calf systems in New Zealand were identified from Welfare Quality and UC Davis Cow-Calf protocols. These were trialled on a single farm and a potential protocol of 50 measures created. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of the measures included in this protocol on multiple farms in order, to develop a credible animal welfare assessment protocol for pasture-based cow–calf farms systems in New Zealand. The assessment protocol was trialled on 25 farms over two visits and took a total of 2.5 h over both visits for a 100-cow herd. The first visit in autumn included an animal welfare assessment of 3366 cows during pregnancy scanning, while the second visit in winter included a questionnaire-guided interview to assess cattle management and health, and a farm resource evaluation. Through a process of eliminating unsuitable measures, adjustments of modifiable measures and retaining feasible measures, a protocol with 32 measures was created. The application of the protocol on the farms showed that not all measures are feasible for on-farm assessment, and categorisation of identified animal welfare measures into scores that indicate a threshold of acceptable and non-acceptable welfare standards is necessary.
10
A, Benatallah, Ghozlane F, and Marie M. "Dairy cow welfare assessment on Algerian farms." African Journal of Agricultural Research 10, no. 9 (February 26, 2015): 895–901. http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/ajar2015.9483.
Повний текст джерела
11
Ellis, KA, K. Billington, B. McNeil, and DEF McKeegan. "Public opinion on UK milk marketing and dairy cow welfare." Animal Welfare 18, no. 3 (August 2009): 267–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s096272860000052x.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractInterview questionnaires were administered to the general public in central Scotland and northern England during summer 2007 to investigate consumer awareness of UK dairy production methods, welfare issues and recognition of ‘quality assurance’ product logos. Fifty percent of respondents gave UK dairy animal welfare a positive rating. Recognition of individual quality assurance logos was poor and 75% of respondents stated that they did not intentionally seek to buy products with any of the logos. Respondents’ perceptions of good dairy welfare included: appropriate feeding, good stockmanship, plenty of space, freedom to roam/free range and environmental cleanliness. Half of respondents felt they were poorly informed about food production and the majority of respondents (68%) would like more information on food production. Respondents believed that information on animal welfare provided by veterinarians and farmers would be reliable. Most respondents (93%) said they would pay more for good dairy welfare. The findings show that the general public are interested in animal welfare but could be better informed on dairy animal production and welfare. Veterinarians and farmers may have a potentially important role in providing this information with increasing demand for higher welfare provenance products potentially helping to improve animal welfare.
12
Sharma, Kennedy, Schuetze, and Phillips. "The Welfare of Cows in Indian Shelters." Animals 9, no. 4 (April 16, 2019): 172. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani9040172.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Cow shelters (gaushalas) are unique traditional institutions in India, where aged, infertile, diseased, rescued, and abandoned cows are sheltered for the rest of their life, until they die of natural causes. These institutions owe their existence to the reverence for the cow as a holy mother goddess for Hindus, the majority religion in India. There is a religious and legal prohibition on cow slaughter in most Indian states. A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the welfare of cows in these shelters, which included the development of a welfare assessment protocol, based on direct animal-based measurements, indirect resource-based assessments, and description of the herd characteristics by the manager. A total of 54 cow shelters in 6 states of India were studied and 1620 animals were clinically examined, based on 37 health, welfare, and behavior parameters. Thirty resources provided to the animals, including housing, flooring, feeding, watering, ease of movement, cleanliness of facilities, lighting, temperature, humidity, and noise levels in the sheds were measured. The study showed that the shelters contained mostly non-lactating cows, with a mean age of 11 years. The primary welfare problems appeared to be different to those in Western countries, as the major issues found in the shelters were facility-related—the low space allowance per cow, poor quality of the floors, little freedom of movement, and a lack of pasture grazing. Very few cows were recorded as lame, but about one half had carpal joint hair loss and swelling, and slightly less had lesions from interacting with shelter furniture. Some shelters also had compromised biosecurity and risks of zoonosis. These issues need to be addressed to aid in ensuring the acceptability of these institutions to the public. This welfare assessment protocol aims to address the welfare issues and problems in the shelters, by providing feedback for improvement to the stakeholders.
13
Lalović, Miroslav, Tatjana Krajišnik, and Nikolina Mašić. "Body condition as an indicator of cow welfare." Acta agriculturae Serbica 25, no. 50 (2020): 187–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/aaser2050187l.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The main objective of this research was to determine the quality level of welfare of milk cows at various stages of lactation (the first 60 days of the lactation period and the dry period) and of different breeds (Holstein-Friesian and Simmental) on farms (A, B, C, D) with different systems of housing (free and tie-stall), based on nutritional status as a direct individual indicator of wellbeing. Results showed that the body condition scores of cows were statistically very highly significantly (p<0.001) influenced by breed, production stage and the breed x production stage interaction; statistically highly significantly (p<0.01) by the breed x housing system interaction, and significantly (p<0.05) by the housing system x production stage interaction.
14
Jackson, A., M. Green, and J. Kaler. "59. Understanding public perceptions of dairy cow welfare." Animal - science proceedings 13, no. 1 (April 2022): 38–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anscip.2022.03.060.
Повний текст джерела
15
Calamari, Luigi, and Giuseppe Bertoni. "Model to evaluate welfare in dairy cow farms." Italian Journal of Animal Science 8, sup1 (January 2009): 301–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.s1.301.
Повний текст джерела
16
Logue, D. N., D. McNulty, and A. M. Nolan. "Lameness in the dairy cow: Pain and welfare." Veterinary Journal 156, no. 1 (July 1998): 5–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1090-0233(98)80054-3.
Повний текст джерела
17
van Eerdenburg, Frank J. C. M., Tessa Hof, Benthe Doeve, Lars Ravesloot, Elly C. Zeinstra, Rebecca E. Nordquist, and Franz Josef van der Staay. "The Relation between Hair-Cortisol Concentration and Various Welfare Assessments of Dutch Dairy Farms." Animals 11, no. 3 (March 15, 2021): 821. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11030821.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Many protocols have been developed to assess farm animal welfare. However, the validity of these protocols is still subject to debate. The present study aimed to compare nine welfare assessment protocols, namely: (1) Welfare Quality© (WQ), (2) a modified version of Welfare Quality (WQ Mod), which has a better discriminative power, (3) WelzijnsWijzer (Welfare Indicator; WW), (4) a new Welfare Monitor (WM), (5) Continue Welzijns Monitor (Continuous Welfare Monitor; CWM), (6) KoeKompas (Cow Compass; KK), (7) Cow Comfort Scoring System (CCSS), (8) Stall Standing Index (SSI) and (9) a Welfare Index (WI Tuyttens). In addition, a simple welfare estimation by veterinarians (Estimate vets, EV) was added. Rank correlation coefficients were calculated between each of the welfare assessment protocol scores and mean hair cortisol concentrations from 10 cows at 58 dairy farms spread over the Netherlands. Because it has been suggested that the hair cortisol level is related to stress, experienced over a long period of time, we expected a negative correlation between cortisol and the result of the welfare protocol scores. Only the simple welfare estimation by veterinarians (EV) (ρ = −0.28) had a poor, but significant, negative correlation with hair cortisol. This correlations, however, failed to reach significance after correction of p-values for multiple correlations. Most of the results of the different welfare assessment protocols had a poor, fair or strong positive correlation with each other, supporting the notion that they measure something similar. Additional analyses revealed that the modified Welfare Quality protocol parameters housing (ρ = −0.30), the new Welfare Monitor (WM) parameter health (ρ = −0.33), and milk yield (ρ = −0.33) showed negative correlations with cortisol. We conclude that because only five out of all the parameter scores from the welfare assessment protocols showed a negative, albeit weak, correlation with cortisol, hair cortisol levels may not provide a long term indicator for stress in dairy cattle, or alternatively, that the protocols might not yield valid indices for cow welfare.
18
Otten, ND, T. Rousing, VHS de Oliveira, M. Reiten, A.-M. Michelsen, F. Hakansson, VP Lund, et al. "A weak point analysis of welfare in Danish dairy herds using two different welfare assessment systems." Animal Welfare 29, no. 2 (May 1, 2020): 197–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.29.2.197.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This study aimed to identify current weak points in animal welfare in Danish dairy production at herd level using the Welfare Quality® (WQ) protocol, and at national level using the Danish Animal Welfare Index (DAWIN) protocol. The DAWIN was developed as a monitoring tool for the welfare of the Danish dairy cow population, derived from the aggregation of DAWIN assessments at herd level. The DAWIN dairy cow protocol covers 29 measures (13 resource- and 16 animal-based measures) that were weighted and aggregated into a final overall population welfare score. A total of 3,591 cows from 60 dairy herds were assessed throughout 2015. Results from both the WQ and DAWIN were presented at six criteria levels in order to identify specific areas of concern relating to animal welfare at herd versus population level. Both protocols indicated a good general level of welfare across study herds, but also identified insufficient water supply as the main area of concern. In addition, resting comfort (ie time needed to lie down, collisions with barn equipment, cleanliness of rear body parts, animals lying outside of the designated lying area) and disease (in terms of the proportion of cows with chronically elevated somatic cell counts) were identified as problematic areas. The two assessment protocols both identified behavioural deficits, but in the WQ it was due to zero-grazing systems in contrast to the insufficient numbers of cow brushes in the DAWIN protocol. Despite differences in the aggregation, similar areas of concern were identified at criteria level.
19
Nielsen, B. L. "Perceived welfare issues in dairy cattle, with special emphasis on metabolic stress." BSAP Occasional Publication 24 (1999): 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1463981500043028.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractThere appears to be little consensus on the extent and the exact nature of the dairy cow welfare problem. In the present paper the welfare of cows is described in the light of metabolic stress. The duration of lactation relative to level of production is highlighted as the main factor which sets the dairy cow apart from other lactating mammals. A conceptual diagram of the components and effects of metabolic load is given, a number of questions are raised and two aspects of dairy production are highlighted which relate to the welfare of modern dairy cows. These relate to decreased fertility in high yielding cows and the cumulative effects of successive lactations. Finally, the need for the dairy industry to participate actively and openly in the welfare debate is emphasized.
20
Mark, T., and P. Sand⊘e. "Genomic dairy cattle breeding: risks and opportunities for cow welfare." Animal Welfare 19, S1 (May 2010): 113–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0962728600002311.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractThe aim of this paper is to discuss the potential consequences of modern dairy cattle breeding for the welfare of dairy cows. The paper focuses on so-called genomic selection, which deploys thousands of genetic markers to estimate breeding values. The discussion should help to structure the thoughts of breeders and other stakeholders on how to best make use of genomic breeding in the future. Intensive breeding has played a major role in securing dramatic increases in milk yield since the Second World War. Until recently, the main focus in dairy cattle breeding was on production traits, but during the past couple of decades more emphasis has been placed on a few rough, but useful, measures of traits relevant to cow welfare, including calving ease score and ‘clinical disease or not’; the aim being to counteract the unfavourable genetic association with production traits. However, unfavourable genetic trends for metabolic, reproductive, claw and leg diseases indicate that these attempts have been insufficient. Today, novel genome-wide sequencing techniques are revolutionising dairy cattle breeding; these enable genetic changes to occur at least twice as rapidly as previously. While these new genomic tools are especially useful for traits relating to animal welfare that are difficult to improve using traditional breeding tools, they may also facilitate breeding schemes with reduced generation intervals carrying a higher risk of unwanted side-effects on animal welfare. In this paper, a number of potential risks are discussed, including detrimental genetic trends for non-measured welfare traits, the increased chance of spreading unfavourable mutations, reduced sharing of information arising from concerns over patents, and an increased monopoly within dairy cattle breeding that may make it less accountable to the concern of private farmers for the welfare of their animals. It is argued that there is a need to mobilise a wide range of stakeholders to monitor developments and maintain pressure on breeding companies so that they are aware of the need to take precautionary measures to avoid negative effects on animal welfare and to invest in breeding for increased animal welfare. Researchers are encouraged to further investigate the long-term effects of various breeding schemes that rely on genomic breeding values.
21
Millman, Suzanne T. "Animal Welfare Assurance – Impacts on Cattle Production and Export Markets." Ceiba 54, no. 1 (August 3, 2016): 59–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.5377/ceiba.v54i1.2780.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Given the strong and sustained public interest in animal welfare, globally sustainable agricultural systems must include animal welfare within the areas of consideration. Animal welfare relates to an animal’s quality of life and can range from very good to very poor. A number of conceptual frameworks have been proposed for animal welfare and humane animal care. To varying degrees, these frameworks include aspects of animal health and animal behavior, with relative importance of these criteria weighted by ethics or values. Animal care standards may be dictated by legislation, but are increasingly governed through purchasing decisions by food companies and retailers. Animal welfare assessment protocols that include animal-based parameters provide farmers with benchmarking data for comparison between and within farms, as well as flexibility to modify husbandry or housing when addressing weaknesses within the farm system. Within the laboratory and on commercial farms, researchers are identifying solutions to key animal welfare issues in cattle production, including painful husbandry procedures, restrictive housing and cow comfort, calf feeding, care of the compromised cow and low stress handling.
22
Cooper, M. D., D. R. Arney, and C. J. C. Phillips. "Differences in the behaviour of high and low yielding dairy cows selected by genetic merit." Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science 2002 (2002): 220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1752756200008760.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The effects of high milk yields on the behaviour and welfare of the dairy cow are unclear. A high milk yield increases the need to consume sufficient fodder in an attempt to meet high nutrient demands. The failure to meet the demands may result in persistent hunger in the dairy cow having to modify her behaviour by employing various coping strategies. These modifications may help the cow overcome a state of hunger but at the expense of being unable to express other important behaviours. The objective of this study was therefore to determine whether the behaviour and welfare of the genetically high yielding dairy cow is being compromised by the increased nutritional demands of milk production, and to investigate the possibility that an increased amount of time spent in food-directed behaviours may have a detrimental effect on the time available to perform other important behaviours.
23
Kaurivi, Yolande Baby, Richard Laven, Tim Parkinson, Rebecca Hickson, and Kevin Stafford. "Effect of Animal Welfare on the Reproductive Performance of Extensive Pasture-Based Beef Cows in New Zealand." Veterinary Sciences 7, no. 4 (December 11, 2020): 200. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vetsci7040200.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
One key area where animal welfare may relate to productivity is through reproductive performance. This study assesses welfare on 25 extensively managed pastoral New Zealand beef farms, and explores the relationship between welfare and reproductive performance. Relationships between welfare measures and key reproductive performance indicators (pregnancy rate, weaning rate, mating period and bull: cow ratio) are investigated using an exploratory principal components analysis and linear regression model. Seven welfare measures (thinness, poor rumen fill, dirtiness, blindness, mortality, health checks of pregnant cows and yarding frequency/year) showed a potential influence on reproductive performance, and lameness was retained individually as a potential measure. Mean pregnancy rates, in both 2018 (PD18) and 2017 (PD17), were ~91% and mean weaning rate was 84%. Of the welfare measures, only lameness had a direct association with pregnancy rate, as well as a confounding effect on the association between mating period and pregnancy rate. The bull: cow ration (mean 1:31) and reproductive conditions (dystocia, abortion, vaginal prolapse) did not influence pregnancy and weaning rates. In the study population, there was no clear association between welfare and reproductive performance, except for the confounding effects of lameness.
24
Lutz, Barbara, Sibylle Zwygart, Christina Rufener, Joan-Bryce Burla, Beat Thomann, and Dimitri Stucki. "Data-Based Variables Used as Indicators of Dairy Cow Welfare at Farm Level: A Review." Animals 11, no. 12 (December 4, 2021): 3458. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11123458.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
During the last years, the interest in data-based variables (DBVs) as easy-to-obtain, cost-effective animal welfare indicators has continued to grow. This interest has led to publications focusing on the relationship between DBVs and animal welfare. This review compiles 13 papers identified through a systematic literature search to provide an overview of the current state of research on the relationship between DBVs and dairy cow welfare at farm level. The selected papers were examined regarding their definition of animal welfare and classified according to this definition into three categories: (a) papers evaluating DBVs as predictors of animal welfare violations, (b) papers investigating the relationship between DBVs and animal-based measurements, and (c) papers investigating the relationship of DBVs to scores of welfare assessments like the Welfare Quality protocol or to overall welfare scores at farm level. In addition, associations between DBVs and indicators of animal welfare were extracted, grouped by the type of DBV, and examined for replications that may confirm the associations. All the identified studies demonstrated associations between DBVs and animal welfare. Overall, the first indications of a possible suitability of DBVs for predicting herds with animal welfare violations as well as good or poor animal welfare status were given. The evaluation of relationships between DBVs and animal-based measurements (ABMs) found mortality-based DBVs to be frequently associated with ABMs. However, owing to varying definitions of animal welfare, the use of different variants of DBVs, and different methods used to assess DBVs, the studies could only be compared to a limited extent. Future research would benefit from a harmonisation of DBVs and the use of valid measurements that reflect the multidimensionality of welfare. Data sources rarely investigated so far may have the potential to provide additional DBVs that can contribute to the monitoring of cow welfare at farm level.
25
Kaurivi, Y., Richard Laven, Rebecca Hickson, Kevin Stafford, and Tim Parkinson. "Identification of Suitable Animal Welfare Assessment Measures for Extensive Beef Systems in New Zealand." Agriculture 9, no. 3 (March 25, 2019): 66. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9030066.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Farm animal welfare assessment protocols use different measures depending on production systems and the purpose of the assessment. There is no standardized validated animal welfare protocol for the assessment of beef cattle farms in New Zealand, despite the importance of beef exports to the country. The aim of this study was therefore to identify welfare measures that would be suitable for an animal welfare assessment protocol for use in extensive pasture-based cow–calf beef cattle systems in New Zealand. The proposed animal welfare assessment measures were selected from the Welfare Quality protocol and the rangeland-based UC Davis Cow–Calf Health and Handling assessment protocol. Measures that were deemed impractical and/or unsuitable were excluded from the protocol. After testing the applicability of selected measures at one farm, additional measures that were deemed to be practical to undertake in New Zealand were identified and incorporated into the protocol. The intention was to identify animal welfare indicators that were assessable in the yard during a single farm visit, a questionnaire guided interview, and a farm resource assessment visit that evaluated cattle health and management. Further testing of the 50 measures that were identified as being appropriate will be undertaken on commercial beef farms to develop a practicable welfare protocol for extensive pasture-based beef systems.
26
Gudaj, R. T., E. Brydl, J. Lehoczky, and I. Komlósi. "Study of animal welfare status in dairy cow herds in Hungary." Biotehnologija u stocarstvu 28, no. 3 (2012): 509–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/bah1203509g.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Animal welfare is a hot topic among consumers, producers and researches nowadays. The major welfare problems of dairy cows are mastitis, lameness, and any conditions which lead to impaired reproduction, inability to express normal behaviour, emergency physiological responses or injury. This paper summarizes preliminary results of project taken in 27 Hungarian dairy farms evaluating general animal welfare. The most important areas for improving animals? wellbeing are related to facilities and comfort of resting. Findings include slippery floors, cows struggling laying and standing in cubicles. Other measures include hair loss, hocks, neck rail injuries and number of thin cows (Body Condition Score 1 and 2). Mouldy silage and low quality of other feedstuff was also found. In conclusion, preliminary results confirm strong demand for monitoring farms and discussions with managers and farmers about welfare measures needed to be taken on farms immediately.
27
Tucker, C. B. "0275 Assessing and improving welfare in cow calf systems." Journal of Animal Science 94, suppl_5 (October 1, 2016): 131. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jam2016-0275.
Повний текст джерела
28
Cosgrave, Francis. "Dairy cow welfare: A common theme at the ICPD." Livestock 19, no. 1 (January 2014): 30–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/live.2014.19.1.30.
Повний текст джерела
29
Kaurivi, Y. Baby, Rebecca Hickson, Richard Laven, Tim Parkinson, and Kevin Stafford. "Developing an Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Cows in Extensive Beef Cow-Calf Systems in New Zealand. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures." Animals 10, no. 9 (September 7, 2020): 1592. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10091592.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The intention of this study was to develop standards for a welfare assessment protocol by validating potential categorisation thresholds for the assessment of beef farms in New Zealand. Thirty-two measures, based on the Welfare Quality and the University of California (UC) Davis Cow-Calf protocols, plus some indicators specific to New Zealand, that were assessed during routine yardings of 3366 cattle on 25 cow-calf beef farms in the Waikato region were categorised on a three-point welfare score, where 0 denotes good welfare, 1 marginal welfare, and 2 poor/unacceptable welfare. Initial categorisation of welfare thresholds was based upon the authors’ perception of acceptable welfare standards and the consensus of the literature, with subsequent derived thresholds being based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of farms for each measure. Imposed thresholds for lameness, dystocia, and mortality rate were retained in view of the significance of these conditions for the welfare of affected cattle, while higher derived thresholds appeared more appropriate for dirtiness and faecal staining which were thought to have less significant welfare implications for cattle on pasture. Fearful/agitated and running behaviours were above expectations, probably due to the infrequent yarding of cows, and thus the derived thresholds were thought to be more appropriate. These thresholds provide indicators to farmers and farm advisors regarding the levels at which intervention and remediation is required for a range of welfare measures.
30
Haas, Rainer, Alina Schnepps, Anni Pichler, and Oliver Meixner. "Cow Milk versus Plant-Based Milk Substitutes: A Comparison of Product Image and Motivational Structure of Consumption." Sustainability 11, no. 18 (September 16, 2019): 5046. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11185046.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Cow milk is under increased scrutiny due to its environmental impact and ethical considerations concerning animal welfare. At the same time, a rising share of consumers is switching to plant-based milk substitutes (abbreviated “plant milk”). The objective of this study was (1) to analyze the product image of plant milk and cow milk and (2) to compare the motivational structure behind the consumption of both product categories. For this purpose, a quantitative survey with Austrian consumers was carried out to analyze the product image of plant milk in comparison to cow milk (n = 1001). The product image analysis revealed that the product image of cow milk is still much better than that of plant milk. Amongst others, cow milk is considered to be healthier, more natural, and better for bones. Product image valuation was dependent on the (non-)consumption of plant milk. Plant milk consumers evaluated plant milk significantly better; they considered plant milk to be much better digestible and allergy-free. The qualitative study using means-end-chain analysis, with two sub-samples of interviewees (plant milk consumers, n = 30, and cow milk consumers, n = 30), identified different motives for the consumption of cow milk and plant milk. Motives that were only reported from cow milk consumers are the origin of milk and the support of small-scale dairy production of farmers. Motives of plant milk consumers were much more diverse and included animal welfare and sustainability aspects.
31
Bruijnis, M. R. N., H. Hogeveen, and E. N. Stassen. "Measures to improve dairy cow foot health: consequences for farmer income and dairy cow welfare." Animal 7, no. 1 (2013): 167–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1751731112001383.
Повний текст джерела
32
Angus, LJ, H. Bowen, LAS Gill, TG Knowles, and A. Butterworth. "The use of conjoint analysis to determine the importance of factors that affect on-farm welfare of the dairy cow." Animal Welfare 14, no. 3 (August 2005): 203–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0962728600029365.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractA large range of variables can affect the welfare of the dairy cow, making it difficult to assess the overall ‘level of welfare’ of the individual animal. Two groups of individuals completed a questionnaire based upon the ‘five freedoms’: 26 respondents had expertise either in the field of dairy cow welfare or as practicing veterinary surgeons, and 30 were veterinary students in their penultimate year of study. Conjoint analysis was used to calculate the average importance scores (AIS) for 34 variables presented to the respondents as 52 ‘model cows’ in the form of grouped questions, phrases and pictures. Conjoint analysis identified the most important factors for each ‘freedom’: access to forage, body condition score, foot conformation, hock lesions, and the encouragement required for a dairy cow to walk into the parlour. There was a significant difference between the expert and student groups for seven out of 34 factors, which may be attributed to individual variation of opinion, knowledge, experience and expectation. The factors were ranked within each ‘freedom’ using the experts' AIS but it was not assumed that each freedom had equal ‘weight’; therefore, the factors within each freedom were compared only with factors within the same freedom. These scores produced a weighting scale, which was applied on-farm, in a preliminary exercise comparing ‘model’ and ‘perceived’ welfare scores.
33
Garcia-Ispierto, Irina, and Fernando López-Gatius. "Benefits and Risks of Preventing Twin Pregnancies." Animals 11, no. 1 (January 11, 2021): 148. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11010148.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Clinical problems associated with twin pregnancies have been well established, and twin births are now considered undesirable or even disastrous for the dairy cattle industry and the individual cow. The high incidence of early fetal loss, abortion during the mid-lactation period, dystocia, stillbirth, and placenta retention should be considered a preventable consequence of management, as these disorders greatly compromise the welfare and productive lifespan of a cow carrying or delivering twins. The use of sexed semen generates herd replacements and additional heifers, so a proposed strategy for twin pregnancy prevention is the transfer of a single in vitro-produced female beef cow embryo to cows not suitable for producing replacements. Another proposed strategy is drainage at insemination of co-dominant follicles to prevent twin pregnancies in cows with genetic merit. As a result, embryo survival should improve, economic losses associated with twin pregnancies will be prevented, beef output from the herd will be increased, and the health and welfare of the cow will certainly benefit. In this review, the clinical prospects of preventing or avoiding twin pregnancies using both procedures are discussed.
34
Garcia-Ispierto, Irina, and Fernando López-Gatius. "Benefits and Risks of Preventing Twin Pregnancies." Animals 11, no. 1 (January 11, 2021): 148. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11010148.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Clinical problems associated with twin pregnancies have been well established, and twin births are now considered undesirable or even disastrous for the dairy cattle industry and the individual cow. The high incidence of early fetal loss, abortion during the mid-lactation period, dystocia, stillbirth, and placenta retention should be considered a preventable consequence of management, as these disorders greatly compromise the welfare and productive lifespan of a cow carrying or delivering twins. The use of sexed semen generates herd replacements and additional heifers, so a proposed strategy for twin pregnancy prevention is the transfer of a single in vitro-produced female beef cow embryo to cows not suitable for producing replacements. Another proposed strategy is drainage at insemination of co-dominant follicles to prevent twin pregnancies in cows with genetic merit. As a result, embryo survival should improve, economic losses associated with twin pregnancies will be prevented, beef output from the herd will be increased, and the health and welfare of the cow will certainly benefit. In this review, the clinical prospects of preventing or avoiding twin pregnancies using both procedures are discussed.
35
Hristov, Slavca, B. Stankovic, Z. Zlatanovic, M. Joksimovic-Todorovic, and V. Davidovic. "Rearing conditions, health and welfare of dairy cows." Biotehnologija u stocarstvu 24, no. 1-2 (2008): 25–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/bah0802025h.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This paper provides an overview of recent developments in rearing conditions, health and welfare issues of dairy cows. The last approximately 30 years has witnessed worldwide increasing scientific research, consumer activity, and political response towards housing condition, health and welfare issues of dairy cattle. All buildings and housing systems for dairy cattle should be designed, constructed, maintained and managed to assist in the achievement of the Five Freedoms: freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from discomfort, freedom from pain, injury and disease, freedom to express normal behavior and freedom from fear and distress. Whether dairy cows are housed in cubicles, straw yards or cow sheds, in order to maximize their performance and to ensure satisfactory standards of welfare, the accommodation must provide the most basic behavioral and physiological needs. As an absolute minimum, the housing must provide a comfortable, clean, well drained and dry lying area together with shelter from adverse weather. Also, it must allow the cow to move freely around without risk of injury and certain diseases. If the housing system does not provide for these basic needs, then not only will health, welfare and production of dairy cattle be compromised, but it is likely that failure to comply with the welfare codes and the law relating to animal welfare will occur.
36
Ostojic-Andric, D., S. Hristov, Z. Novakovic, V. Pantelic, M. M. Petrovic, Z. Zlatanovic, and D. Niksic. "Dairy cows welfare quality in loose vs tie housing system." Biotehnologija u stocarstvu 27, no. 3 (2011): 975–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/bah1103975o.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The subject of this research was to determine the effect of the housing system on quality of welfare of dairy cattle in Serbia. Study was realized on six farms, capacity of 30 to 900 cows, with loose and tie housing system. Assessment of the welfare quality parameters was done by using the Welfare Quality? Assessment Protocol for Cattle, 2009. Results of the research show that the welfare quality of dairy animals is under the significant effect of housing system, and that loose system has the advantage when it comes to comfort around resting, easy of movements and health condition of cows. Share of not lame cows (81%) and cows with no lesion (86%) was significantly higher (p<0.01) in loose system. Indicator values: duration of lying down movements (6.53 sec), lying down movements with collisions (18.7%) and lying outside lying area (28.4%) in tie system were significantly higher (p<0.01) compared to loose system indicating the inadequacy of the housing and lack of comfort. Analysis of indicators associated with cow hygiene (dirty legs and udder) and diseases (dystocia) points to significant gaps in management in both housing systems which represent significant threat to cow welfare quality.
37
Sharma and Phillips. "Avoidance Distance in Sheltered Cows and Its Association with Other Welfare Parameters." Animals 9, no. 7 (June 28, 2019): 396. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani9070396.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The human–animal relationship is an important welfare parameter in animal welfare assessment in cows, and the avoidance distance of cows to a stranger at the feed bunk is measured to assess this relationship. The assessment of the human–animal relationship in cow shelters in India, where old, unproductive, and abandoned cows are sheltered, is important to explore the welfare of cows in these shelters. The cows observed were of indigenous Indian breeds and breeds which were crosses between indigenous breeds and pure bred exotic cows. The human–animal contact in this context is of particular interest for welfare assessment as traditional Indian farming and sheltering systems involves regular close human–animal contact. In a cross-sectional study across 6 states, 54 cow shelters were visited and 30 cows in each shelter were randomly selected (1620 in total) for the assessment of avoidance distance and other cow-based (27 parameters) and resource-based (15 parameters) welfare parameters. Avoidance distance was assessed 1 h after morning feeding. Cows standing at the feeding manger were approached from the front at a rate of one step/s, starting 2 m away from the manger. The distance between the assessor’s hand and the cow’s head was estimated at the moment the cow moved away and turned its head, using a four-point scale (0, touched; 1, 0–50 cm; 2, 51–100 cm; and 3, >100 cm). The majority, 52%, of the cows allowed touch by the assessor and another 32% allowed approach within 50 cm, demonstrating tolerance, or even solicitation of close human–animal relationships by the cows. Avoidance distance increased with the proportion of cows with dirty hind limbs, tarsal joint swellings, and hair loss, and the extent of rumen fill. There was also evidence of reduced avoidance distances in cows with high levels of body condition score (BCS), dirty flanks, tarsal joint ulceration, carpal joint injuries, diarrhoea, hampered respiration, lesions on the body due to traumatic injuries, and body coat condition, probably as a result of moving difficulties. The avoidance distance was thus related to the health and welfare of the cows, providing a vital insight into the factors affecting human–animal contact in the shelters.
38
Fisher, A. D., and J. R. Webster. "Dairy cow welfare: the role of research and development in addressing increasing scrutiny." Animal Production Science 53, no. 9 (2013): 924. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/an12276.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Pasture-based dairying in New Zealand and Australia has come under increasing animal welfare scrutiny as a result of changing public expectations for farm animal management. Concurrently, efficiency-driven changes in dairy management practices and a broadening of the feedbase beyond traditionally grazed pasture have resulted in increased intensification and stocking density within the dairy industries. This intensification has included a higher proportion of grain concentrates in the diet (particularly in Australia), and the greater management of cows off pasture and even in housing (particularly in New Zealand). Research to assess the animal welfare implications of these changes and to recommend good practice management has concentrated on issues of cow environments and cow feeding, including body condition. Research has shown that cows may be managed for a few hours per day on concrete surfaces without compromising their lying behaviour and other indicators of welfare, but that longer periods off pasture require the provision of a well drained and comfortable lying surface. Other research has defined the extremes of hot and cold/wet conditions beyond which cows benefit from provision of adequate shade and shelter. Research on cow body condition has indicated that welfare responses are aligned with measures of health and productivity in supporting the need to maintain a minimum body condition before calving and during the subsequent weight loss period of early lactation. Continued research, extension and industry adoption will enable dairy producers to address community expectations as they continue to change their farming practices.
39
Bowell, V. A., L. J. Rennie, G. Tierney, A. B. Lawrence, and M. J. Haskell. "Relationships Between Building Design, Management System and Dairy Cow Welfare." Animal Welfare 12, no. 4 (November 2003): 547–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0962728600026166.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractAs part of a larger on-farm dairy cow welfare and behaviour project, data were collected from 22 commercial dairy farms over two winters (2000-2001 and 2001-2002). A further winter of farm sampling will complete the project (2002-2003), with five types of housing and production systems being assessed: high-, medium- and low-milk-production herds with cubicle housing, high-production herds with zero grazing and cubicle housing, and medium-production herds with straw courts. All cows in one early or mid-lactation group from each farm were observed. For the current analysis, locomotion, cleanliness and body condition were scored for the group, and an audit of building quality was carried out. Analysis of the available data shows that some aspects of building design affect the welfare of dairy cows. A positive correlation was found between mean body condition score of the cows and mean locomotion score (P = 0.047). Body condition score correlated negatively with the number of cows in the group (P = 0.049). Negative correlations were found between locomotion score and the ratio of cubicles to cows (P = 0.033) and between the size of cubicles and leg cleanliness (P = 0.012). Trends were also seen in the relationships between farm type and locomotion score (P = 0.048), production level and locomotion score (P = 0.074) and cow cleanliness and cubicle size (P = 0.061). These results indicate that the quality of the housing and the management system can affect cow welfare. These measures may be useful to include in on-farm welfare assessment schemes.
40
Pastell, M., H. Takko, H. Gröhn, M. Hautala, V. Poikalainen, J. Praks, I. Veermäe, M. Kujala, and J. Ahokas. "Assessing Cows’ Welfare: weighing the Cow in a Milking Robot." Biosystems Engineering 93, no. 1 (January 2006): 81–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2005.09.009.
Повний текст джерела
41
Whay, Helen Rebecca, and J. K. Shearer. "The Impact of Lameness on Welfare of the Dairy Cow." Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 33, no. 2 (July 2017): 153–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2017.02.008.
Повний текст джерела
42
Wang, Zhen, Shuai Wang, Chunguang Wang, Yong Zhang, Zheying Zong, Haichao Wang, Lide Su, and Yingjie Du. "A Non-Contact Cow Estrus Monitoring Method Based on the Thermal Infrared Images of Cows." Agriculture 13, no. 2 (February 6, 2023): 385. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020385.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Traditional methods of cow estrus monitoring technology are not suitable for the current needs of large-scale, intensive and welfare-based farming. There is a need to improve the detection rate of cow estrus and to reduce the emergency response caused by wearing contact devices. Furthermore, it is necessary to verify the practical effectiveness of the LOGISITC and SV (support vector machine) models for modeling cow estrus. In this paper, we have proposed a non-contact cow estrus monitoring method based on the thermal infrared images of cows and have proposed a lab-color-space-based feature extraction method for the thermal infrared images of cow eyes and vulvas. The test subjects were 10 Holstein cows, monitored on a fixed basis, to determine the best segmentation contour. The LOGISTIC and SVM (support vector machine) models were used to establish the cow estrus model using the thermal infrared temperature variation in cows in estrus and cows not in estrus. The experimental results showed that the heat detection rate of the LOGISTIC-based model was 82.37% and the heat detection rate of the SVM-based model was 81.42% under the optimal segmentation profile. The highest temperature in the eye and vulva of cows was the input, and the recall rate was above 86%. The heat monitoring method based on thermal infrared images does not cause stress to cows and meets the needs of modern dairy farming for welfare breeding.
43
Webster, A. J. F. "Welfare considerations in future selection and management strategies." BSAP Occasional Publication 19 (1995): 87–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0263967x00031839.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractThis paper considers the welfare implications of breeding, feeding and managing dairy cows for increased productivity. The physiological demands of lactation for the high genetic merit dairy cow are exceptional, less in their intensity and more in their duration. Most welfare problems can be attributed less to productivity per se than to systems of feeding, milking and management that are unsuitable to the genotype of the high yielding cow. These include the inadequacies of wet grass silage as a staple food and the abnormal restriction of cows to twice-daily milking. It is also necessary to consider welfare problems that may arise from the application of new technologies to increase milk yield or to increase the rate of genetic progress. These may be related to the process itself or to its consequences. It is proposed that the commercial exploitation of these new technologies should be controlled by legislation similar to that for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes which applies a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the cost to the animal can be justified in terms of any potential benefit to society.
44
Wagner, Kathrin, Jan Brinkmann, Solveig March, Peter Hinterstoißer, Sylvia Warnecke, Maximilian Schüler, and Hans Paulsen. "Impact of Daily Grazing Time on Dairy Cow Welfare—Results of the Welfare Quality® Protocol." Animals 8, no. 1 (December 22, 2017): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani8010001.
Повний текст джерела
45
Burow, E., T. Rousing, P. T. Thomsen, N. D. Otten, and J. T. Sørensen. "Effect of grazing on the cow welfare of dairy herds evaluated by a multidimensional welfare index." Animal 7, no. 5 (2013): 834–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1751731112002297.
Повний текст джерела
46
Ahmed, Haseeb, Karin Alvåsen, Charlotte Berg, Helena Hansson, Jan Hultgren, Helena Röcklinsberg, and Ulf Emanuelson. "Assessing Animal Welfare and Farm Profitability in Cow-Calf Operations with Stochastic Partial Budgeting." Animals 11, no. 2 (February 3, 2021): 382. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11020382.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The societal demand for good farm animal welfare (FAW) has increased over time. Yet, very little is known about the economic consequences of improvements in FAW in cow–calf operations. This study investigates on-farm economic consequences of improved FAW measures in cow–calf operations. It uses a stochastic partial budgeting approach to examine the relationship between contribution margins and improvements in FAW in terms of increased space allowance for a typical Swedish cow-calf operation, as compared to current practices. In the current practice, a cow should be given at least 5 m2 and the calf 2.2 m2. We found that a 0.5 m2 increase in space allowance per calf (achieved by a corresponding reduction of herd size) was associated with a 6.9 to 18.7% reduction in contribution margins in the short term. Our analysis does not include possible indirect gains like decrease in disease incidence and enhanced non-use or ‘soft’ values associated with increased FAW. However, our analysis indicates that high FAW standards can be costly and careful cost–benefit analysis should be a part of decision-making processes regarding FAW standards. Our results also suggest a need for government support payments and/or the development of market mechanisms to stimulate farmers to continue producing livestock-based foods with high FAW.
47
McKENDREE, MELISSA G. S., GLYNN T. TONSOR, and CHRISTOPHER A. WOLF. "ANIMAL WELFARE PERCEPTIONS OF THE U.S. PUBLIC AND COW-CALF PRODUCERS." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 50, no. 4 (June 26, 2018): 544–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/aae.2018.14.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractThe U.S. livestock industry is increasingly faced with pressure to adjust practices in response to societal concerns—specifically related to farm animal welfare. Using best-worst scaling, we determine which practices the U.S. public and cow-calf producers view as the most effective and most practical practices to improve beef cattle welfare. Latent class models are used to understand heterogeneity within and across the public and producers. Fresh, clean feed and water was viewed by most groups as both effective and practical. Furthermore, castrate with pain control and dehorn with pain control were seen as the least effective and practical practices.
48
Ginestreti, Jessica, Rosa Maria Strano, Valentina Lorenzi, Francesca Fusi, Alessandra Angelucci, Giandomenico Ferrara, Giorgio Galletti, et al. "Bulk tank milk quality data is unlikely to give useful information about dairy cow welfare at herd level." Journal of Dairy Research 87, no. 2 (May 2020): 208–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022029920000187.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractThis research communication explores the value of routinely collected bulk tank milk quality data for estimating dairy cattle welfare at herd level. Selected bulk tank milk quality parameters (somatic cell count, total bacterial count, urea, protein and fat contents) recorded during the years 2014–2016 in 287 Italian dairy farms were compared with the animal welfare data of each farm. The welfare assessment data were extracted from the database of the Italian Reference Centre for Animal Welfare (CReNBA), which includes the outputs of the application of the CReNBA welfare assessment protocol for dairy cows, used at national level for on-farm controls. The statistical analysis was carried out using the correlation coefficient for Kendall's Tau ranks, in order to investigate the presence of a categoric relationship between the selected bulk tank milk quality parameters and the overall animal welfare score or the scores of the single areas A (farm management and staff training), B (housing) and C (animal-based measures). Somatic cell count, total bacterial count, urea and proteins demonstrated only a few statistically significant and very weak correlations with farm animal welfare data, while no significant correlations were obtained for milk fat content. Given the weak correlations found, the selected bulk tank milk parameters seems to be able to provide only limited information about the welfare level of the herd, thus it could be difficult to use them for drawing up a pre-screening model for identifying herds at risk of poor welfare.
49
Weyl-Feinstein, Sarah, Yaniv Lavon, Noa Yaffa Kan, Meytal Weiss-Bakal, Ayelet Shmueli, Dganit Ben-Dov, Hillel Malka, Gilad Faktor, and Hen Honig. "Welfare Issues on Israeli Dairy Farms: Attitudes and Awareness of Farm Workers and Veterinary Practitioners." Animals 11, no. 2 (January 24, 2021): 294. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11020294.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Attitudes toward practical dairy cow welfare issues were evaluated based on a questionnaire answered by 500 dairy farm workers and 27 veterinary practitioners. Primarily, the effect of demographic characteristics on attitudes toward cattle welfare was tested. Professionally, five themes were identified: effect of welfare awareness on productivity, knowledge of cattle’s senses and social structure, effects of man–animal interactions on milk yield, pain perception and prevention, and knowledge transfer from veterinary practitioners to farm workers. Farms with a higher welfare awareness score also had higher annual milk yield, with an annual mean difference of 1000 L of milk per cow between farms with higher and lower awareness scores. Veterinary practitioners showed high awareness of cows’ social structure, senses, and pain perception. Farm workers were aware of the influence of man–animal interactions during milking and stress effects on milk yield, and the possible effect of man’s behavior on heifers and cows. Practitioners and farm workers had different views regarding pain perception, mostly involving mutilation procedures. All veterinary practitioners advocated the use of pain alleviation in painful procedures, but only some of them instructed the farm workers to administer it. The survey results emphasize the variation in welfare knowledge and practical applications across farms, and the interest of both the animals and their managers to improve applied knowledge of best practice.
50
Simon, G. E., B. R. Hoar, and C. B. Tucker. "Assessing cow–calf welfare. Part 2: Risk factors for beef cow health and behavior and stockperson handling1." Journal of Animal Science 94, no. 8 (August 1, 2016): 3488–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016-0309.
Повний текст джерела