Discussion and incorporation of best practices for animal welfare have been increasing in research, and in commercial operations, including through welfare assessment initiatives. The aim of this study was to explore dairy farmers' perceptions about being approached and receiving advice about animal welfare (i.e., lameness, hock injuries, and disbudding practices). It is useful for dairy consultants, researchers, or animal welfare assessment programs to gain an in-depth understanding of farmers' expectations when broaching the subject of animal welfare issues to facilitate communication about what can be perceived as a sensitive topic. We collected qualitative data using a focus group methodology. Five focus groups of farmers (n = 36 in total), took place in Ontario, Canada. Discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participant age ranged from 21 to 80 yr (median = 47). Represented herd size ranged from 25 to 550 milking cows (median = 75). Farm type included free stall (n = 14) and tie stall (n = 22). Rigor was incorporated by using systematic thematic analysis: transcripts were coded line by line, and codes were categorized and then expanded and collapsed into themes, which were further refined to reflect farmer perceptions in a thematic map. Thematic analysis of the focus group discussions suggested 6 major themes related to farmers' receptivity to and expectations of animal welfare advice. Themes 1 to 4 provided insights into what farmers expected from those who were broaching topics: (1) an established relationship with the farmer;(2) expertise in dairy care/welfare; (3) prevention of "barn blindness"; and (4) provision of animal care services before and after welfare issues are broached. Theme 5 helped determine how welfare topics should be broached: the communication approach. Theme 6 identified who farmers feel should broach animal welfare topics on farm. Focus group discussions also provided insights into potential disconnects between farmer and veterinary expectations about animal welfare issues during herd health visits. Those who have established relationships with farmers are better received and are expected to broach welfare issues, especially if they are perceived to be an expert in animal care and welfare, and if they communicate the issue tactfully and work with the farmer to establish a plan of action.

The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effect of GnRH early postpartum on induction of ovulation, uterine health, and fertility in dairy cows. Holstein cows without a corpus luteum (CL) at 17 ± 3 DIM were assigned randomly to receive i.m. GnRH (n = 245) at 17 ± 3 and 20 ± 3 DIM or remain as controls (n = 245). Ovaries were scanned by ultrasonography twice weekly totaling 4 examinations. Ovulation was characterized by the appearance of a CL ≥ 20 mm at any ultrasound or CL <20mm in 2 consecutive examinations. Clinical and cytological endometritis were diagnosed at 35 DIM. Compared with control, GnRH increased ovulation up to 3.5d after the last treatment (78.7 vs. 45.0%) and did not affect the prevalence of clinical endometritis (23.9 vs. 18.6%) or cytological endometritis (30.9 vs. 32.8%). Prevalence of clinical endometritis increased in cows that had calving problems (32.6 vs. 15.9%) and metritis (40.6 vs. 15.8%). Metritis increased prevalence of cytological endometritis (50.7 vs. 23.5%). Treatment with GnRH did not affect pregnancy per artificial insemination at 32 (37.6 vs. 38.6%) or 74 d after artificial insemination (35.0 vs. 31.5%), but reduced pregnancy loss (6.8 vs. 18.1%). No overall effect of GnRH treatment on hazard of pregnancy was observed; however, an interaction between GnRH treatment and ovulation showed that GnRH-treated cows that ovulated had increased hazard of pregnancy by 300 DIM compared with GnRH-treated and control cows that did not ovulate (hazard ratio=2.0 and 1.3, respectively), but similar to control cows that ovulated (hazard ratio=1.1). Gonadotropin-releasing hormone early postpartum induced ovulation without affecting uterine health, but failed to improve pregnancy per artificial insemination or time to pregnancy, although it reduced pregnancy loss.

Farmer decisions surrounding culling have an important effect on the health and welfare of cull cows. The objectives of this study were to describe the self-reported shipment behaviors of Canadian dairy producers and understand farmer perspectives on the factors that were most influential in their decision to cull a cow. A nationwide survey was administered between March and April 2015 that included 192 questions covering producer background information, farm characteristics, biosecurity practices, disease prevalence, calf health, cow welfare, lameness, milking hygiene, reproduction, and Internet and social media use. The survey yielded a 12% response rate; a total of 1,076 respondents (78% of all survey respondents completed the culling section of the survey) were included in this study for analysis. Approximately 80, 51, and 38% of respondents reported shipping at least 1 cow to auction, direct to slaughter, and to another dairy farm in the past 12 mo, respectively. Ability of the cow to remain standing (93% of respondents) and drug withdrawal times (92% of respondents) were identified as the most important factors for consideration when culling cows. The time between culling decision and when the cow was actually transported was longer for lame cows than sick cows; almost 70% of respondents reported that cows culled for illness were typically shipped within 1 wk of culling decision, whereas only 51% of respondents indicated the same was true for lame cows. Last, Canadian dairy producers generally exhibited strong confidence that their culled cows would arrive at slaughter in the same condition as they left, but felt very unsure about knowing the location of their final destination. These results highlight several gaps between producer perceptions and the true situation, and can be used to develop tailored programs and inform policy and regulatory decisions aimed at improving cull cow decisions and cow welfare.

Recommended milking practices (RMP) are protective against mastitis. However, many producers do not adopt, or only partially adopt, these measures. This study aimed to explore the attitudes and perceptions of Ontario dairy farmers toward barriers to implementation of RMP and to investigate what motivates behavior change in relation to milking hygiene. Four focus groups with Ontario dairy producers were conducted, and verbatim transcripts were analyzed thematically. The main barriers to adoption of RMP were identified and categorized into 2 groups: intrinsic barriers and physical barriers. Intrinsic barriers included personal habits and convenience, not perceiving udder health as a priority on their farm, and lack of information. Physical barriers included employee training and compliance, convenience of implementing RMP, and time, money, and labor barriers. Producers used their bulk tank somatic cell count (SCC) as a measure of perceived severity of udder health problems on farm. Those with lower SCC were less likely to prioritize udder health compared with peers experiencing elevations in SCC. Lack of udder health problems translated for some producers into non-adoption of certain RMP, as they felt these practices were not needed unless a problem arose. Others felt motivated to implement more practices and work toward better udder health if such efforts translated into rewards for better-quality milk. Some producers perceived RMP as not meaningful or useful, seemingly due to a lack of education about the reasons behind RMP implementation. Understanding the importance of these practices is one key to implementing them. To overcome some of the intrinsic barriers, increased efforts in knowledge translation are needed, including efforts in retraining current practices, as well as in establishing best practices.

The objective of this study was to describe mortality rates and euthanasia practices used for cows, heifer calves, and male dairy calves on Canadian dairy farms. An internet survey was administered to Canadian dairy producers between March and April 2015 to collect information on current management practices. Approximately 81% (867/1,076) and 63% (673/1,065) of respondents reported that at least one animal died unassisted and at least one animal was euthanized on the farm in the preceding 12-mo period, respectively. Overall, mean mortality was 8% for cows, and 6 and 2% for preweaning and weaned heifers, respectively. On average, 48, 76, and 89% of all reported mortality events in cows, weaned heifers, and preweaning heifers were recorded as unassisted deaths. Cows that died without assistance were necropsied more often than preweaning heifers dying without assistance; these cows were also necropsied more than cows that were euthanized. Conversely, preweaning heifers that were euthanized were necropsied more frequently than those that died without assistance. Choosing not to perform necropsies on animals that die of unknown causes could represent a missed opportunity to identify cause of death and inform changes to prevent future deaths. The use of a firearm was the most common method for euthanizing cows and heifers (54%) and male dairy calves (51%). Approximately 7% of respondents reported using blunt force to euthanize animals. The use of this method was much higher for euthanasia of male dairy calves (34%) than for heifer calves (7%). Québec respondents euthanized their animals using blunt force more often than farmers from other regions. Further, 53% of respon-dents using blunt force indicated it was their primary method of calf euthanasia; these results are extremely concerning. Approximately 31% of respondents who reported that they do not use blunt force to euthanize heifers and cows did report using blunt force to euthanize male dairy calves. These results can be used to inform veterinarian-client communication, broader extension tools and programs, and industry policies to improve dairy cattle health and welfare, a goal that is becoming of increasing importance from a consumer assurance perspective.