Dairy cows welfare quality in loose vs tie housing system

Abstract

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.

The Effect of the Housing System on the Welfare Quality of Dairy Cows

“…The higher dystocia rate in THS than in LHS is probably caused by the lack of exercise (Gustaffson, 1993;Mee, 2004). Mortality was significantly higher in THS than in LHS (P<0.05), similar to that recorded by Ostojic-Andric et al (2011) in a recent study in Serbia. Thomsen et al (2006) found that tie stalls tended to have higher mortality rates than free stalls with cubicles, although the difference was not statistically significant.…”

“…The farms with LHS were in the enhanced (21 farms) and "acceptable" (9 farms) categories, while those with THS were categorised as enhanced (5 farms), acceptable (19 farms) and not classified (6 farms) ( Figure 1). No farm had an excellent level, similar to the results obtained in other countries (De Vries et al, 2011;Keeling, 2009;Ostojic-Andric et al, 2011). Studies about cattle welfare assessment using the WQ protocol in different housing systems are not widely published, making it difficult to compare the final results.…”

“…In both systems the percentage of very thin cows was higher than that obtained by Regula et al (2004) in loose and tie-stall farms in Switzerland and by Ostojic-Andric et al (2011) in Serbia. Besides the fact that the cows loose weight because of the inadequate quality and quantity of the feed, in LHS often the feed-front is too short for the simultaneous feeding of all of the animals (Estevez et al, 2007).…”

“…Health problems have been associated with use of tie stalls in many studies (Gustaffson, 1993;Hultgren, 2002;Ostojic-Andric et al, 2011;Regula et al, 2004). Mastitis is a multifactorial disease, that is considered to be one of the most frequent and costly diseases in the dairy industry (Kossaibati and Esslemont, 1997).…”

Basic Unit Cost Simulation From Free-Stall Design to Dairy Cattle Confinement Using Different Construction Techniques

“…However, the zootechnical constructions most suitable to the production system demand increasingly different solutions and adaptations needs (LOPES et al, 2012). Productive efficiency in free-stall confinement is highly affected by poor design of the confinement projects, which usually limits interventions in the environment thermal control and disfavor the routine chores in the operation, maintenance, hygiene and animals handling (PERISSINOTTO et al, 2009;OSTOJIĆ-ANDRIĆ et al, 2011).…”