Health and welfare of dairy cows in different husbandry systems in Switzerland

Regula, G.; Danuser, J.; Spycher, B.; Wechsler, Beat

doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2004.09.004

Cited by 141 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The proportion of cows with at least one hairless patch and no lesion was significantly lower (P<0.001) in the loose system, which is in line with results of other studies (Busato et al, 2000;Regula et al, 2004;Simensen et al, 2010). The most affected areas were the hock and neck; which was caused by the short resting beds (<160 cm length), the absence or the reduced quantity of bedding (1.5 kg/head/day or less) and the short chains (mean ± sd, 69.6±17.53 cm) used for the cows' tethering.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…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).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 52%

“…The advantages and disadvantages of both of these and their effects on the health and behaviour of the dairy cows have been extensively studied. Thus, compared to the more traditional tie-stall systems, loose housing comes with the advantage of better udder health (Hultgren, 2002;Regula et al, 2004), lower risk of ketosis and better fertility (Valde et al, 1997), generally being accepted by welfare scientists as having a superior potential for higher animal welfare (Rousing et al, 2000). Loose housing systems, nevertheless, have the disadvantage of a higher risk of lameness (Cook, 2003;Sogstad et al, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Loose housing systems, nevertheless, have the disadvantage of a higher risk of lameness (Cook, 2003;Sogstad et al, 2005). There is some evidence that loosehousing (Weary and Taszkun, 2000) and regular outdoor exercise (Gustafson, 1993;Regula et al, 2004) have positive effects on the health and welfare of dairy cows. Yet, fewer studies were conducted on the overall welfare of the dairy cows in different housing conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Popescu

Borda

Diugan

et al. 2014

Italian Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the housing systems (loose vs tiestall) on the welfare of dairy cows and to test the hypothesis that dairy cows in loose housing systems have a better welfare quality than those kept in tie-stalls. Sixty commercial dairy farms (30 with loose and 30 with tie-stall housing system) were selected for evaluation, using mainly animal-based measures, as the applied Welfare Quality ® protocol allows it. A total number of 2624 milking cows were assessed in the winter period. There were significant differences between the two housing systems for the majority of the parameters within the four welfare principles. Significant differences were also found in terms of the mean scores of the welfare criteria and principles, with the majority pointing out the loose system as better. Based on the scores of the four principles, most of the farms with loose housing were classified as enhanced, while the majority of the tie-stall farms were acceptable. The results show that the welfare quality of dairy cows is greatly influenced by the housing system, and that the loose system is more advantageous when it comes to the feeding, housing and behaviour of the dairy cow.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 52%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Popescu

Borda

Diugan

et al. 2014

Italian Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Skin lesions were scored on a 5-point scale (1 = no swelling, no lesions; 2 = hairless patches; 3 = swelling; 4 = damaged skin in form of a scab; 5 = damaged skin in form of a wound, adapted from Regula et al (2004)) and assessed at 6 places on the cow's body: carpal joint, tarsal joint (medial and lateral), knee, tuber ischium and tuber coxae. All locations were scored for the left and right side, and the highest score of both sides was registered as the final score.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility of Miscanthus as alternative bedding for dairy cows

Weyenberg¹,

Ulens²,

Reu³

et al. 2015

Vet. Med. - Czech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:Despite dairy farmers' awareness of the importance of correct bedding for the health and comfort of their cows, they are often frugal with respect to these bedding materials in order to reduce costs. In addition, farmers are currently dependent on the availability and price fluctuations of traditional bedding materials. For these reasons, the scientific literature as well as the trade press point to an intensifying search for affordable alternative bedding materials. The aim of this study was to investigate whether Miscanthus, a woody grass that requires low input but generates high yield, could replace straw in deep little dairy cow cubicles. The cows' cubicles were lined for two consecutive 14-day periods with straw/chalk/water bedding, followed by two consecutive 14-day periods with ground-Miscanthus/chalk bedding. No significant differences were found in the following parameters: loss/ waste of bedding material, bacterial growth in cubicles, cow skin lesions (except for carpus lesions), cow cleanliness or cow comfort. Dust concentrations measured as PM 10 were higher when cubicles were filled with strawbased bedding, but never exceeded workspace quality safety limits. Based on these results, one can conclude that Miscanthus has potential as a viable alternative to straw when used as a bedding material. On-farm cultivation of Miscanthus may increase dairy farmer self-sufficiency and could reduce bedding costs. Keywords: bedding material; cow comfort; bacterial loadList of abbreviations ADF = acid detergent fibre, ADL = acid detergent lignin, CCI = cow comfort index, DM = dry matter, NDF = neutral detergent fibre, PM = particulate matter, SUI = stall use index

show abstract

Diversity in agricultural technology adoption: How are automatic milking systems used and to what end?

Schewe

Stuart

2014

Agric Hum Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health and welfare of dairy cows in different husbandry systems in Switzerland

Cited by 141 publications

References 18 publications

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

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

Feasibility of Miscanthus as alternative bedding for dairy cows

Diversity in agricultural technology adoption: How are automatic milking systems used and to what end?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About