A New, Practical Animal Welfare Assessment for Dairy Farmers

Abstract

The Welfare Quality® assessment protocol (WQ) is the most extensive way to measure animal welfare. This study was set up to determine if resource-based welfare indicators, that are easier and faster to measure, could replace the more time consuming, animal-based measurements of the WQ. The WQ was applied on 60 dairy farms in the Netherlands, with good, moderate and poor welfare. The WQ protocol classified most farms (87%) as ‘acceptable’. Several of the animal-based measures of WQ correlated well with measures in the environment. Using these correlations, an alternative welfare assessment protocol (new Welfare Monitor) was designed, which takes approximately 1.5 h for a farm with 100 dairy cows. Because the opinion of farmers about welfare assessment is important if one wants to improve conditions for the cows at a farm, another objective of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the new Welfare Monitor for the farmer. Over two years, the farms were visited, and advice was given to improve the conditions at the farm. After the first welfare assessment and advice, farmers improved the conditions for their cows substantially. Farms where the category score had increased made more improvements on average than those that did not upgrade.

The Relationship between Animal Welfare and Antimicrobial Use in Italian Dairy Farms

“…Recently, dairy cow welfare was defined as the second worst AW problem in Europe just after the welfare of sows, calves, and laying hens [5]. Contrary to the latter animal categories, there is however no specific European directive for dairy cow welfare, but several voluntary AW assessment protocols for dairy farms have been proposed either using human assessors [6][7][8] or automated systems [9][10][11]. Despite the current absence of a widely accepted standardized protocol for dairy cow welfare assessment, the proposed protocols are generally centered on the use of animal-based measures (ABMs) and non-animal-based measures [12].…”

Precision Technologies to Address Dairy Cattle Welfare: Focus on Lameness, Mastitis and Body Condition

“…Currently, there are three welfare evaluation systems for dairy cattle, farmers assuring responsible management in USA [ 18 ], the code in New Zealand [ 19 ], and welfare quality in Europe [ 20 ]. The latter system has been seriously disputed in several reports [ 21 , 22 , 23 ], which presented several suggestions for reducing the number of evaluated parameters to overcome the time-consuming observations, which is a constraint that limits its routine application in dairy farms. In addition to shortening the assessing procedures, the method of calculating the scores was also changed and made more flexible, so that measures may be substituted or added as considered appropriate [ 22 ].…”

“…Regarding dairy cattle welfare assessment, as is the case with the Welfare Quality ® protocol, its application has meaningful constraints, as its application is very time-consuming [ 22 ] and lacks correspondence with trained users on the importance of several welfare measures [ 152 ]. In addition to reducing the evaluation time, several authors proposed some changes to the calculations, such as the one reported by Van Eerdenburg et al [ 21 ] for drinking water. Moreover, the welfare calculations require more flexible methods, especially for the overall score [ 22 , 152 ].…”

Data-Based Variables Used as Indicators of Dairy Cow Welfare at Farm Level: A Review

“…Over the past decades, various assessment methods have been developed, e.g., the 'animal needs index' in Austria [35], the 'Centro di Referenza Nazionale per il Benessere Animale' (CReNBA) protocol in Italy [36], the 'Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e. V.' (KTBL) animal welfare protocol in Germany [37], and the Welfare Quality (WQ) protocol as a European approach [17]. At the present time, none of these assessment protocols can serve as a 'gold standard' for surveying animal welfare, but the WQ protocol is the most extensive approach [38]. The welfare assessments differ mainly in the number and type of measurements used.…”