Search

Critics of agricultural intensification have argued that the transition from smaller to larger farms has compromised animal welfare. To critically examine evidence relevant to this claim, we reviewed more than 150 publications that examined the relationship between farm size and at least one animal welfare indicator. Although much of this literature focuses on dairy cattle, we also reference other farmed species where appropriate. We found little evidence of any simple relationship, negative or positive, between farm size and animal welfare. Instead, the evidence suggests that larger farms provide some opportunities to improve animal welfare but may also create welfare risks. For example, larger farms permit more specialized and professional management of animal health but can make it more difficult to accommodate outdoor access that some view as integral to animal welfare. Future research should attempt to specify the underlying casual mechanisms by which statistical associations between farm size and indicators of welfare are believed to occur. We also suggest that policy and advocacy efforts aimed at reversing increases in farm size would be better directed toward improving welfare on farms of all sizes.

Hot-iron branding is painful for cattle, but little is known about the duration of or effective methods to control this pain. This work quantified pain sensitivity and healing in branded and unbranded animals. In addition, the effects of a single injection of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) were also considered; this has been suggested as practical method of mitigating pain in the hours after the procedure. Calves (mean±SE, 126±2.2 d and 112±2.8 kg) were hot-iron branded and allocated to 1 of 4 treatments: branded with or without flunixin meglumine (intravenous; 1.1 mg/kg) and unbranded with or without this NSAID (n=12/treatment). Pain sensitivity was assessed by applying a known and increasing force with a von Frey anesthesiometer in the center of the brand (or equivalent area in nonbranded treatments) until animals showed a behavioral response. Healing was measured with a 6-point scale (1=fresh brand and 6=no scabbing and fully repigmented). These measures, along with weight gain and surface temperature, were recorded 1, 2, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 56, and 71 d after branding. Lying behavior was recorded with loggers from the day before to d 27 after branding. Brand wounds were more painful than nonbranded tissue (P<0.001). These differences were most pronounced in the days immediately after branding (e.g., d 7; 113±36 g of force for Brand vs. 449±23 g force for No brand, mean±SE) but persisted until d 71 (380±37 g force for Brand vs. 453±23 g of force for No brand, mean±SE); only 67% of brands were fully regimented or healed by this time. The first fully healed brand was identified 8 wk after the procedure. Giving a single injection of flunixin had no brand-specific effects on sensitivity, surface temperature, or healing but improved weight gain in the days after branding in all treated groups (flunixin×brand×day, P<0.001). Flunixin-treated animals also spent 0.7 h less time lying down on the day of branding but tended to spend more time lying on d 15 and 26 after the procedure. The magnitude of these differences is small, less than the day-to-day variation, and not brand specific. In summary, brand wounds take at least 8 wk to heal. These wounds remain painful for a least this long, and a single injection of NSAID has no measurable effect in mitigating pain associated with branding, even in days immediately after the procedure.

Previous studies have shown that surgical castration wounds take between 10 and 61 d to heal. The objectives of this work were to describe healing, inflammation, lying behavior, and serum concentration of substance P after surgical castration in beef calves and to evaluate the effect of a possible intervention, a single injection of flunixin meglumine (1.1 mg/kg IV, a NSAID), on the healing process. Calves (mean±SE: 25±2.0 d of age; 54±1.4 kg BW) were surgically castrated with or without an injection of flunixin immediately before the procedure (n=24/treatment). Healing was measured with a 5-point scale (1=fresh wound, 5=no visible incision or inflammation) as well as weight gain, scrotal size, and scrotal surface temperature, on d 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 49, and 63 after castration. Serum concentration of substance P was recorded on all d, including d 0, but not d 63. Lying behavior was recorded with loggers from 2 d before to 29 d after castration. Inflammation, as measured by scrotal size, peaked on d 2 and 3 after the procedure (e.g., 51±1.0 mm on d 2 versus 28±1.3 mm before castration) and then declined with time (P<0.001). The first wound to score as fully healed (i.e., 5/5) was seen on d 28; by d 63, 98% of wounds were fully healed. The greatest changes in healing score occurred between d 21 and 35; this was also the peak of wound surface temperature and may correspond with revascularization. Serum concentration of substance P was highest before castration (41±1.2 pg/mL), possibly because the sample was collected after the lidocaine ring block was administered, which was likely painful, and because of separation from the dam and restraint. Values began to drop by d 3 (34±1.2 pg/mL) and leveled out by d 21 (30±1.2 pg/mL; P<0.001). Calves given flunixin had more lying bouts than those that received saline (flunixin by time interaction; P=0.052), but this pattern emerged on and after d 8, well after the 3 to 8 h half-life of this NSAID. In conclusion, castration caused inflammation in the days that followed, and the wounds required a minimum of 4 wk to heal. Provision of an NSAID had no effect on these outcomes.

Hot-iron branding is painful for cattle, but little is known about how long this pain lasts or effective alleviation methods. Previous work with pigs indicated that cooling burns with a gel (active ingredient: tea tree oil) improved healing compared to untreated wounds. Steers (210±21 kg) were hot-iron branded and allocated to 1 of 3 treatments: control (n=24), 1 gel application immediately after branding (1X; n=12), or 2 gel applications, 1 immediately after branding and one 1 d later (2X; n=12). Pain sensitivity was assessed by applying a known and increasing force with a von Frey anesthesiometer in 5 locations (in the center, at the top of, and 5 and 10 cm above the brand and on the equivalent location on the nonbranded side of the body) until animals showed a behavioral response. Healing was measured with a 6-point scale (1=fresh brand and 6=no scabbing and fully repigmented). Both measures, along with weight gain and surface temperature of the wound, were recorded before and 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 56, and 70 d after branding. The gel cooled the brand, with the most obvious differences on the day it was applied (3.7 to 4.2°C cooler than control; day×gel interaction, P=0.004). All wounds were at least partially repigmented by 70 d, but only 46% of brands were fully healed at this time. The healing process was slowed when a gel was applied twice (e.g., at 21 d, healing score of 2.5±0.1 and 2.7±0.1 vs. 2.0±0.2 for control and 1X vs. 2X, respectively; P=0.001). Brands tended to remain painful throughout the 70 d (in the center of the brand; before vs. d 1-35, P≤0.001; d 56, P=0.058; and d 70, P=0.092). Overall, gel had little effect on pain sensitivity. Weight gain was reduced on d 1 after branding compared to all other time points (P<0.001) but was not affected by gel application (P=0.277). In conclusion, applying gel did not improve outcomes after branding. In addition, by 70 d after the procedure, hot-iron brands still tended to be more painful than nonbranded tissue and 54% were not fully healed. These results raise additional animal welfare concerns about hot-iron branding.

An online engagement exercise documented the views of Canadian and U.S. participants affiliated and unaffiliated with the dairy industry on the issue of pasture access for dairy cows. A total of 414 people participated in 10 independent web forums. Providing access to more natural living conditions, including pasture, was viewed as important for the large majority of participants, including those affiliated with the dairy industry. This finding is at odds with current practice on the majority of farms in North America that provide little or no access to pasture. Participant comments showed that the perceived value of pasture access for dairy cattle went beyond the benefits of eating grass; participants cited as benefits exposure to fresh air, ability to move freely, ability to live in social groups, improved health, and healthier milk products. To accommodate the challenges of allowing pasture access on farms, some participants argued in favor of hybrid systems that provide a mixture of indoor confinement housing and grazing. Understanding the beliefs and concerns of participants affiliated and unaffiliated with the dairy industry allows for the identification of contentious topics as well as areas of agreement; this is important in efforts to better harmonize industry practices with societal expectations.

The aim of this study was to determine if, and under what conditions, indoor-housed dairy cows would seek a shelter to calve. Seventy-two Holstein dairy cows were paired by expected calving date and moved into a maternity pen that contained an open area with no cover and a sheltered area that was covered on all sides except for the ceiling and an entrance where cows could freely enter or exit. Once the first cow of a pair calved ("pair-housed"), she was removed; the second cow remained in the pen until calving ("single-housed"). For both pair- and single-housed cows, location and time of calving was determined by video. For single-housed cows, use of each area in the 12 h before calving was measured, and for pair-housed cows, distance from partner during the 12 h before calving was measured. Single-housed cows were more likely to calve in the shelter but only when calving occurred during the day (P = 0.03). Pair-housed cows were more likely to calve in the open area, regardless of time of day (P = 0.02). Beginning about 8 h before calving, single-housed cows that calved in the shelter increased their use of the shelter, and pair-housed cows spent more time away from their partners (P < 0.001 and P = 0.01, respectively). These results suggest that indoor-housed dairy cows prefer a shelter during calving but only when they were housed individually and when calving during the daytime.

A common feeding practice during the dry period is to switch dairy cows to an energy-dense diet 3 wk prepartum, but this practice may lead to the overconsumption of energy and increase the risk of metabolic disease postpartum. The aim of this trial was to compare the metabolic status of transition Holstein dairy cows fed a 77% forage diet (77F; NEl = 1.46 Mcal/kg; NDF = 41%) vs. those fed an 87% forage diet (87F; NEl = 1.41 Mcal/kg; 48% NDF). Approximately 60 d before calving, cows were dried off, housed in a free stall barn, and fed the 87F diet. Three weeks before expected calving, cows were randomly assigned to either the 77F treatment and switched to this diet (n = 45) or assigned to the 87F treatment and stayed on the dry cow ration until parturition (n = 42). After parturition, all cows were fed a common lactation diet (NEl = 1.59 Mcal/kg; 36% NDF). Dry matter intake was measured daily from 2 wk before to 2 wk after calving. Blood was sampled daily for 10 d postpartum. Subclinical ketosis was diagnosed using a threshold of β-hydroxybutyrate (BHBA) ≥ 1.0 mmol/L after calving. The percentage of cows pregnant and odds of being pregnant for each treatment group were determined at 60, 90, and 120 d in milk through ultrasound by the herd veterinarian. Cows on the 87F diet consumed less DM prepartum than those on the 77F diet (12.7 ± 0.3 kg/d vs. 15.4 ± 0.3 kg/d, P < 0.001), but no difference in DMI was detected after calving (19.7 ± 5.5 kg/d; P = 0.87). Although the calculated prepartum required energy intake was the same for the 2 treatments (15.3 ± 1.2 Mcal/d; P = 0.16), cows on the 77F diet consumed 4.5 Mcal/d more than those on the 87F diet (22.5 ± 0.5 Mcal/d vs. 18.0 ± 0.5 Mcal/d; P < 0.001). Postpartum concentration of BHBA was less for cows fed the 87F diet prepartum (0.49 ± 0.02 mmol/L vs. 0.59 ± 0.02 mmol/L; P = 0.02), and fewer animals on this diet were diagnosed subclinical ketosis (SCK; 49% vs. 17%; P = 0.001). Milk production tended to be less for cows fed the 87F diet prepartum (47.3 ± 0.4 kg/d vs. 48.8 ± 0.4 kg/d; P = 0.10) for the first 22 wk of lactation, which was significant for d 7 to 28 of lactation (44.6 ± 1.1 kg/d vs. 47.6 ± 1.0 kg/d; P = 0.05). Although sample size was small to draw strong conclusions on reproductive performance, at 120 d in milk, cows on the 87F diet were 0.3 times more likely to be pregnant (P = 0.03). These results indicate that feeding an 87F diet before calving can reduce rates of SCK in transition dairy cows.

Tail docking remains a common practice on dairy farms in the United States. This paper describes the results of an online engagement designed to create discussion on tail docking, to document the reasons participants put forward for and against the practice, and to compare these reasons with the literature available on this topic. A total of 178 people responded; 30% were producers, 23% were veterinarians, 25% had no experience with the dairy industry, and 22% included a mixture of teachers, students, and industry professionals. Approximately 79% of participants were opposed to docking. Responses varied with participant demographics (e.g., females were more likely than males to oppose docking), but in every demographic subgroup (e.g., by sex, age, country of origin, and dairy production experience), the majority of respondents were opposed to tail docking. Common reasons for opposition to docking included the lack of scientific evidence that docking improves cleanliness or udder health, that docking is painful for cows, that docking is unnatural, and that tails are important for controlling flies. Some respondents in favor of docking cited cow cleanliness as an issue, despite the scientific evidence showing no positive effect of docking on cow cleanliness or udder health. Additional reasons included protecting producer safety. These results illustrate the range of reasons that are cited for supporting and opposing tail docking. This approach can be used to better target outreach efforts (e.g., improving farmer education on the lack of positive effects of docking on cleanliness and udder health while addressing concerns about producer safety). More generally, this type of online discussion provides a safe and productive format for discussions about contentious issues in the dairy industry and provides a mechanism for producers, industry professionals, and the public to share perspectives on these topics.

We review recent research in one of the oldest and most important applications of ethology: evaluating animal health. Traditionally, such evaluations have been based on subjective assessments of debilitative signs; animals are judged ill when they appear depressed or off feed. Such assessments are prone to error but can be dramatically improved with training using well-defined clinical criteria. The availability of new technology to automatically record behaviors allows for increased use of objective measures; automated measures of feeding behavior and intake are increasingly available in commercial agriculture, and recent work has shown these to be valuable indicators of illness. Research has also identified behaviors indicative of risk of disease or injury. For example, the time spent standing on wet, concrete surfaces can be used to predict susceptibility to hoof injuries in dairy cattle, and time spent nuzzling the udder of the sow can predict the risk of crushing in piglets. One conceptual advance has been to view decreased exploration, feeding, social, sexual, and other behaviors as a coordinated response that helps afflicted individuals recover from illness. We argue that the sickness behaviors most likely to decline are those that provide longer-term fitness benefits (such as play), as animals divert resources to those functions of critical short-term value such as maintaining body temperature. We urge future research assessing the strength of motivation to express sickness behaviors, allowing for quantitative estimates of how sick an animal feels. Finally, we call for new theoretical and empirical work on behaviors that may act to signal health status, including behaviors that have evolved as honest (i.e., reliable) signals of condition for offspring-parent, inter- and intra-sexual, and predator-prey communication.

The existing guidelines for maximum sulfate (SO4) in cattle drinking water are based on Na2SO4, although many water sources contain greater concentrations of MgSO4. Two experiments compared the effect of different SO4 salts on water consumption and fecal DM of cattle. In Exp. 1, 8 yearling heifers (initial BW = 345 +/- 8 kg; mean +/- SD) were watered twice daily with tapwater or water containing Na2SO4 or MgSO4 at target levels of 1,500, 3,000, or 4,500 mg of SO4/L for 2-d treatment periods separated by 2 d of access to tapwater. In Exp. 2, 16 yearling cattle (initial BW = 421 +/- 24 kg) were watered twice daily with tap-water (16 mg of SO4/L) or water containing Na2SO4 at target levels of 2,000 mg of SO4/L (low Na2SO4), MgSO4 at 2,000 mg of SO4/L (low MgSO4), or MgSO4 at 4,000 mg of SO4/L (high MgSO4) in 21-d treatment periods separated by 7-d periods on tapwater. The first 10 d of each period were allowed for adjustment to the treatment, and the final 11 d was considered the treatment period for analysis purposes. Treatments were applied in an incomplete Latin square, where each animal was exposed to 3 of the 4 treatments. In Exp. 1, the average daily water consumption decreased linearly as the SO4 concentration increased for MgSO4 (P = 0.0001) but not for Na2SO4 (P = 0.39). In Exp. 2, the average daily water consumption was less for cattle on the high-MgSO4 treatment than for cattle on the low-MgSO4 treatment (P = 0.0001), and cattle on the low-MgSO4 treatment tended (P = 0.09) to drink less than those on the tap-water treatment. Fecal DM was greater for cattle on the high-MgSO4 treatment than for those on the low-MgSO4 treatment (P < 0.01). These findings indicate that cattle reduce their consumption of water containing high (> or = 4,000 mg of SO4/L) concentrations of MgSO4, even after a given time to adjust to the treatment; such reductions may be accompanied by an increase in fecal DM.