Search

Laboratory mice are typically housed in "shoebox" cages with limited opportunities to engage in natural behaviour. Temporary access to environments with increased space and complexity (playpens) may improve mouse welfare. Previous work by our group has shown that mice are motivated to access and use these environments, but it is unknown how other aspects of welfare are impacted. Female C57BL/6J, BALB/cJ, and DBA/2J mice (n = 21; 7 mice per strain) were housed in mixed-strain trios and given temporary access to a large playpen with their cage mates three times per week. Control mice (n = 21; 7 mice per strain) remained in their home cages. Home cage behaviour (development of stereotypic behaviour over time, aggression following cage-changing) and anxiety tests were used to assess how playpen access impacted welfare. Contrary to our predictions, we found increased time spent performing stereotypies in playpen mice; this difference may be related to negative emotional states, increased motivation to escape the home cage, or active coping strategies. Playpen access resulted in strain-dependent improvements in aggression and some measures of anxiety. Aggression was lower for C57BL/6J mice in the playpen treatment following cage changing than it was for C57BL/6J control mice, while playpen mice, and particularly the C57BL/6J strain, spent more time in the center of the open field test and produced fewer fecal boli during anxiety testing, supporting other research showing that strain differences play an important role in behaviour and stress resiliency., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Early cow-calf separation followed by individual housing of calves is standard practice on dairy farms. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that as awareness grows the public will oppose these practices, which could compromise the dairy industry's social license. Despite disagreement among different stakeholders over weighting and evaluations of effects of early separation (e.g., distress response, disease risk), recent systematic reviews indicate that there is little scientific evidence supporting this practice. The acceptability of alternative cow-calf management systems is unknown. We used a mixed methods survey with a convenience sample of 307 Canadians plus a representative sample of 1,487 Americans to investigate perceptions of these systems, examining the effects of providing social or foster cow contact following early separation or not separating cow-calf pairs. Attitudes and perceptions of animal welfare were more positive (on a 7-point scale where 1 is most negative, 7 is most positive, and 4 is a neutral midpoint) toward the system where calves were not separated from the cow (mean ± SE; 5.8 ± 0.07; 5.7 ± 0.07), compared with systems in which the calf was separated and individually housed (3.6 ± 0.07; 3.4 ± 0.07), separated and group housed (3.7 ± 0.07; 3.4 ± 0.07), or separated and kept with a foster cow (3.8 ± 0.07; 3.6 ± 0.07). Participants were consistent in their attitudes toward and perceptions of animal welfare within the system, suggesting that participants took a holistic and value-oriented approach to cow-calf management regarding separation. These results, in combination with many participants' concern for the importance of the mother cow-calf relationship and perceptions that severing of this bond was a breach of standard of care, suggest that there may be low acceptance of any cow-calf management system involving early separation as such systems are unlikely to resonate with underlying values., (The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. and Fass Inc. on behalf of the American Dairy Science Association®. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).)

One response to calls for increased openness in animal research is to make protocols publicly accessible, but it is unclear what type of input the public would provide if given this opportunity. In this study we invited public responses to five different research projects, using non-technical summaries intended for lay audiences. Our aim was to assess the potential for this type of public consultation in protocol review, and a secondary aim was to better understand what types of animal research people are willing to accept and why. US participants (n = 1521) were asked (via an online survey) "Do you support the use of these (insert species) for this research", and responded using a seven-point scale (1 = "No", 4 = "Neutral", and 7 = "Yes"). Participants were asked to explain the reasons for their choice; open-ended text responses were subjected to thematic analysis. Most participants (89.7%) provided clear comments, showing the potential of an online forum to elicit feedback. Four themes were prevalent in participant reasoning regarding their support for the proposed research: 1) impact on animals, 2) impact on humans, 3) scientific merit, and 4) availability of alternatives. Participant support for the proposed research varied but on average was close to neutral (mean ± SD: 4.5 ± 2.19) suggesting some ambivalence to this animal use. The protocol describing Parkinson's research (on monkeys) was least supported (3.9 ± 2.17) and the transplant research (on pigs) was most supported (4.9 ± 2.02). These results indicate that public participants are sensitive to specifics of a protocol. We conclude that an online forum can provide meaningful public input on proposed animal research, offering research institutions the opportunity for improved transparency and the chance to reduce the risk that they engage in studies that are out of step with community values., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Most would agree that animals in research should be spared "unnecessary" harm, pain, or distress, and there is also growing interest in providing animals with some form of environmental enrichment. But is this the standard of care that we should aspire to? We argue that we need to work towards a higher standard-specifically, that providing research animals with a "good life" should be a prerequisite for their use. The aims of this paper are to illustrate our vision of a "good life" for laboratory rats and mice and to provide a roadmap for achieving this vision. We recognize that several research procedures are clearly incompatible with a good life but describe here what we consider to be the minimum day-to-day living conditions to be met when using rodents in research. A good life requires that animals can express a rich behavioral repertoire, use their abilities, and fulfill their potential through active engagement with their environment. In the first section, we describe how animals could be housed for these requirements to be fulfilled, from simple modifications to standard housing through to better cage designs and free-ranging options. In the second section, we review the types of interactions with laboratory rodents that are compatible with a good life. In the third section, we address the potential for the animals to have a life outside of research, including the use of pets in clinical trials (the animal-as-patient model) and the adoption of research animals to new homes when they are no longer needed in research. We conclude with a few suggestions for achieving our vision., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Concern over the welfare of captive animals is growing. Captivity is often associated with frequent exposure to stressors, which may be the source of persistent negative affective states. We argue that captivity may lead to depressive-like states and call for more research on this topic., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Rats (Rattus norvegicus) bred for research are typically confined with their litters until weaning, but will spend time away from pups when given the opportunity. We aimed to assess how dam welfare is affected by the ability to escape from their pups. Rat dams (n = 16) were housed in cages either with or without an elevated loft. We measured time dams spent in lofts, time spent nursing, and affective states using elevated plus maze and anticipatory behavior testing. We predicted that 1) dams housed with lofts would use them increasingly as pups aged, 2) dams without a loft would spend more time passively nursing (i.e. initiated by pups rather than the dam) and more total time nursing as pups aged, and 3) dams housed with lofts would show evidence of a more positive affective state. Dams housed with lofts spent more time in the loft with increasing pup age; dams spent on average (mean ± SE) 27 ± 5% of their time in the loft when pups were 1 wk old, increasing to 52 ± 5% of their time at 3 wks. When pups were 3 wks old, dams with lofts spent less time passively nursing (10 ± 2% of total time, compared to 27 ± 4% for dams without a loft) and less time nursing overall (36 ± 4% of time versus 59 ± 2% for dams without a loft). Rats without loft access showed increased anticipatory behavior potentially indicative of negative affective state (24.5±1.8 behaviors per minute in wk 3 compared to 18.8±1.0 in wk 1). These findings indicate that rat dams in laboratories choose to spend time away from their pups when provided the opportunity, particularly later in lactation; an inability to do so is associated with increased passive nursing and negative affect., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Little is known about the combination of factors that motivate changes in calf management on dairy farms. Providing information to farmers may help promote change, but it is unclear how this approach affects and is affected by the farmer's relationship with the advisors such as the herd veterinarian. The goal of this study was to understand how benchmarking measures related to calf immune development and growth affected farmer and veterinarian cooperation and influenced the farmer's view of the veterinarian as an advisor for calf management. Veterinarians provided their clients (n = 18 dairy farms in the lower Fraser Valley of British Columbia) with 2 benchmark reports providing information on transfer of passive immunity and calf growth. Farmers were interviewed before and after receiving these reports to understand how they perceived their veterinarian as a calf advisor. Qualitative analysis identified 2 major themes indicating that benchmarking (1) improved farmer perception of their veterinarian's capacities to advise on calves and (2) strengthened the social influence of the veterinarian. We conclude that benchmarking can help promote stronger relationships between farmers and veterinarians., (Copyright © 2020 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Little is known about factors affecting individual variability in weaning age, feeding behavior, and growth of dairy calves. The objectives of this study were to (1) describe early-life individual characteristics of dairy calves and how these relate to weaning age, feeding behavior, and performance during the first 15 wk of age, and (2) to identify which of these individual characteristics predict weaning age of calves automatically weaned based on solid feed intake. Early-life characteristics of calves (n = 43) included scores for vitality at birth, drinking ability, learning ability to use the automated milk feeder in a group pen from d 1 of age, and personality traits assessed using exposure to a novel environment, a human, and an object at d 21 of age. Calves received 12 L/d of milk until d 30 when milk was reduced by 25% relative to the individual's previous 3-d intake average. Calves were weaned based on intake of solid feed (milk reduced by 25% at each of 2 intermediate solid feed intake targets, 225 and 675 g/d), and were weaned when they consumed 1,300 g/d of solid feed, resulting in variable weaning ages. A principal component analysis identified 5 factors that we labeled as low vitality, fearful, strong drinker, slow learner, and exploratory-active. Calves that were slow learners weaned at a later age, whereas fearful calves weaned earlier. No other early-life individual characteristics were associated with weaning age. Other characteristics (low vitality, strong drinkers, and exploratory-active) were associated with some measures of feeding behavior, feed intake, and growth, especially during the preweaning period. Measures of early solid feed intake (age to start eating and total preweaning intake) were best able to predict weaning age of calves. Individual early-life characteristics and measures of early solid feed intake can identify calves likely to do well or struggle during weaning., (The Authors. Published by FASS Inc. and Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Dairy Science Association®. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Separation of calves from cows within hours or days of birth is common on dairy farms. Stakeholders have conflicting perspectives on whether this practice is harmful or beneficial for the animals' welfare and production. Our objective was to critically evaluate the scientific evidence for both acute and long-term effects of early separation versus an extended period of cow-calf contact. The outcomes investigated were the behavior, welfare (excluding physical health), and performance (milk yield and growth, respectively) of dairy cows and calves. Primary research papers were found through targeted Web of Science searches, the reference lists of recent reviews for each topic, and the reference lists of papers identified from these sources. Studies were included if they were published in English, the full text was accessible, and they compared treatments with and without contact between dairy cows and calves for a specified period. Early separation (within 24 h postpartum) was found to reduce acute distress responses of cows and calves. However, longer cow-calf contact typically had positive longer-term effects on calves, promoting more normal social behavior, reducing abnormal behavior, and sometimes reducing responses to stressors. In terms of productivity, allowing cows to nurse calves generally decreased the volume of milk available for sale during the nursing period, but we found no consistent evidence of reduced milk production over a longer period. Allowing a prolonged period of nursing increased calf weight gains during the milk-feeding period. In summary, extended cow-calf contact aggravates the acute distress responses and reduces the amount of saleable milk while the calves are suckling, but it can have positive effects on behaviors relevant to welfare in the longer term and benefit calf growth. The strength of these conclusions is limited, however, given that relatively few studies address most of these effects and that experimental design including timing of contact and observations are often inconsistent across studies. Few studies presented indicators of long-term welfare effects other than abnormal and social behavior of the calves., (The Authors. Published by FASS Inc. and Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Dairy Science Association®. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

A number of studies have shown widespread public concern over housing animals in ways that restrict their ability to move freely. Dairy cows housed in tie stall barns are tethered continuously or for part of the day, but no study has assessed public support for this type of housing system. We report two experiments assessing public perceptions of tie stall housing for dairy cattle using a hypothetical referenda format. In Experiment 1, 65% of participants (n = 430) said they would support a ban on tie stalls. The probability of supporting a ban increased as the duration of time that cows were tethered increased. In Experiment 2, information about possible economic consequences was included. Relatively fewer (55%) participants (n = 372) indicated they would support a ban. Supporters of a ban were willing to pay an average dairy product price premium of 68% to see the ban enacted. Indirect measures of support indicated socially desirable responding was greater in Experiment 2 where the economic impacts of voting behavior were made explicit. In both studies, women and liberals were more likely to support a ban. The majority of participants in Experiment 1 (51%) and Experiment 2 (57%) said they had never heard or read anything about tie stalls before participating in our survey. We conclude that current knowledge of the use of tie stalls is low, but if this situation were to change there may be considerable public concern about the use of this housing method., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Laboratory mice (Mus musculus) are typically housed in simple cages consisting of one open space. These standard cages may thwart mouse ability to segregate resting areas from areas where they eliminate, a behaviour that is prevalent across the animal kingdom. No scientific work has directly tested whether mice engage in such segregation behaviour, or whether the ability to do so may have welfare consequences. Here we show that mice, whether housed in standard cages or a complex housing system consisting of three interconnected standard cages, kept nesting and elimination sites highly segregated, with nest and urine co-occurring in the same location only 2% of the time. However, mice in the complex system established these clean and dirty sites in separate cages instead of separate locations within one cage, and carried bedding materials (cellulose pellets) from their nesting cages to their latrine cage. Moreover, mice in the complex system displayed more behaviours associated with positive welfare and were less disturbed by weekly husbandry procedures. We conclude that mice find waste products aversive, and that housing mice in a way that facilitates spatial segregation provides a simple way of allowing the expression of natural behaviours and improving welfare.

Individual animals behave differently from one another, especially when confronting challenges such as changes in diet (e.g. weaning), environment (e.g. moving from pasture to feedlot) and social grouping (e.g. movement to lactating group after parturition). Each of these challenges involves some element of novelty, impacting the welfare and productivity of the animal. Indeed, the large individual variability in the development and expression of feeding behaviour cannot be fully explained by differences in genetics, management practices, body size or growth rate. In this review we outline evidence that individual variability in feeding behaviour is associated with the personality of the individual. We focus on three key personality traits: exploration, fear or reactivity and sociability. Individuals differ in how much they explore their feeding environment, with more exploratory individuals being less reactive to novel situations. Feeding behaviour can be impaired in individuals that are especially reactive to a change in their environment, change in diet or handling or restraint by humans. The social environment is also a major factor affecting how individuals express their behaviour. Sociability of the individual, including dominant-subordinate and affiliative relationships, affects how individuals make foraging decisions, gain access to feed and adopt particular social strategies to maintain or adjust feeding patterns when the social environment changes. Personality traits such as exploration, boldness and sociability also affect the use of social information when learning where, how or what to eat. Our review highlights the implications of feeding behaviour variability for the welfare and productivity of the individual, and how an understanding of personality can help tailor management to the needs of the individual.

On many dairy farms cows are kept indoors. Providing outdoor access is often considered desirable, but housing can protect animals from aversive climatic conditions. For example, by providing shade and fans, indoor housing can protect cows from heat stress they might otherwise experience on open pasture. This study tested how public attitudes to cattle rearing varied when participants were experimentally assigned to different scenarios using a 2 x 2 factorial design varying pasture versus indoor housing with or without heat stress. Participants (n = 581) were randomly assigned to a single scenario, and attitudes in response to the scenario were measured using a Likert scale (1 = "strongly disagree" to 5 = "strongly agree"). We also asked open-ended questions allowing participants to explain their responses. Participants responded most positively to the scenario that provided both pasture access and protection from heat stress (Likert 4.1±0.08), and least positively to scenario with indoor housing and heat stress (Likert 2.2±0.08). However, when the different animal welfare attributes were in conflict (i.e. naturalness as provided by pasture, and biological functioning/affective state as associated with protection from heat stress), participants placed priority on the latter: they were more supportive of the scenario providing indoor housing that protected cows from heat stress (Likert 3.5±0.08), than they were of a pasture rearing system that exposed cows to heat stress (Likert 2.4±0.08). Open-ended responses indicated that participants viewed the lack of protection from heat stress as a failure in the farmer's duty of care towards the cow. We conclude that participants valued both access to pasture and protection from heat stress for dairy cows, but prioritized protecting animal from heat stress when these features were in conflict., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Dairy calves often receive inadequate colostrum for successful transfer of passive immunity and inadequate milk to achieve their potential for growth and avoid hunger, but little is known about what motivates farmers to improve calf management around these concerns. Our aim was to assess if and how access to benchmarking reports, providing data on calf performance and peer comparison, would change the ways in which farmers think about calves and their management. During our study, 18 dairy farmers in the lower Fraser Valley (British Columbia, Canada) each received 2 benchmark reports that conveyed information on transfer of immunity and calf growth for their own calves and for other farms in the region. Farmers were interviewed before and after receiving their benchmarking reports to gain an understanding of how they perceived access to information in the reports. We conducted qualitative analysis to identify major themes. Respondents generally saw having access to these data and peer comparisons favorably, in part because the reports provided evidence of how their calves were performing. Benchmarking encouraged farmers to make changes in their calf management by identifying areas needing attention and promoting discussion about best practices. We conclude that some management problems can be addressed by providing farmers better access to data that they can use to judge their success and inform changes., (Copyright © 2018 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This paper outlines the history and development of research in the area of animal welfare as reflected in the 100 yr that the Journal of Dairy Science has been published. The first paper using the term "animal welfare" was published in 1983; since then (to May 2017), 244 papers that reflect growing interest regarding how farm animals are cared for have been published. Much of the scientific work to date has focused on issues related to cow health, such as lameness, and methodologically many papers use behavioral measures. In addition to this science-based research, the journal has taken on the role of publishing work of social scientists that addresses the role of the human factors relating to animal welfare, including research on citizen, consumer, and farmer attitudes toward welfare issues. We call for further research focused on societal perspectives and for new biological research focused on developing issues, such as cow-calf separation and pasture access., (Copyright © 2017 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Citizens' concerns about farm animal welfare are often dismissed on the assumption that they are not well informed about farming practices. We conducted exploratory surveys of interested citizens (n = 50) before and after a self-guided tour of a 500-head dairy farm. 'Before' survey questions explored perceptions, concerns, and values about dairy cattle farming and welfare, in addition to a short knowledge-based quiz on dairy cattle husbandry. An 'after' survey explored the extent to which these constructs shifted after the tour. Before, most participants correctly answered quiz questions about general feeding and housing practices, but scores were low on questions about specific practices such as cow-calf separation. Participants considered several elements as necessary for a 'good' life for dairy cattle: fresh food and water, pasture access, gentle handling, space, shelter, hygiene, fresh air and sunshine, social companions, absence of stress, health, and safety from predators. These elements reflect a diverse conception of animal welfare that incorporates values for physical and mental well-being, natural living, and humane care. The visit had a mixed effect on perceptions of whether dairy cows had a 'good' life, improving perceptions for a quarter of participants, worsening perceptions in a third, with no shift in the remaining participants. The visit appeared to mitigate some concerns (e.g., provision of adequate food and water, gentle humane care) while reinforcing or eliciting others (e.g., lack of pasture access, early cow-calf separation). Moreover, animal welfare-relevant values held by participants (e.g., natural living, care) appeared to play an important role in influencing perceptions of farm practices. These results suggest that education and exposure to livestock farming may resolve certain concerns, but other concerns will likely persist, especially when practices conflict with deeply held values around animal care.

Practices in agriculture can have negative effects on the environment, rural communities, food safety, and animal welfare. Although disagreements are possible about specific issues and potential solutions, it is widely recognized that public input is needed in the development of socially sustainable agriculture systems. The aim of this study was to assess the views of people not affiliated with the dairy industry on what they perceived to be the ideal dairy farm and their associated reasons. Through an online survey, participants were invited to respond to the following open-ended question: "What do you consider to be an ideal dairy farm and why are these characteristics important to you?" Although participants referenced social, economic, and ecological aspects of dairy farming, animal welfare was the primary issue raised. Concern was expressed directly about the quality of life for the animals, and the indirect effect of animal welfare on milk quality. Thus participants appeared to hold an ethic for dairy farming that included concern for the animal, as well as economic, social, and environmental aspects of the dairy system., (Copyright © 2016 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The innovations developed by scientists working on animal welfare are often not adopted in practice. In this paper, we argue that one important reason for this failure is that the solutions proposed do not adequately address the societal concerns that motivated the original research. Some solutions also fail because they do not adequately address perceived constraints within the industry. Using examples from our own recent work, we show how research methods from the social sciences can address both of these limitations. For example, those who persist in tail-docking cattle (despite an abundance of evidence showing that the practice has no benefits) often justify their position by citing concern for cow cleanliness. This result informs the nature of new extension efforts directed at farmers that continue to tail dock, suggesting that these efforts will be more effective if they focus on providing producers with methods (of proven efficacy) for keeping cows clean. Work on pain mitigation for dehorning shows that some participants reluctant to provide pain relief believe that the pain from this procedure is short lasting and has little impact on the calf. This result informs the direction of new biological research efforts to understand both the magnitude and duration of any suffering that result from this type of procedure. These, and other examples, illustrate how social science methodologies can document the shared and divergent values of different stakeholders (to ensure that proposed solutions align with mainstream values), beliefs regarding the available evidence (to help target new scientific research that meets the perceived gaps), and barriers in implementing changes (to ease adoption of ideas by addressing these barriers).

The forced cessation of milk production, or dry-off, is a routine management practice in dairy cattle, sheep, and goats. This practice initiates a dry period, during which the animal is not milked. Milking begins again after parturition. Most of the literature on the dry period has focused on how various drying-off strategies affect milk production and disease; little work to date has addressed how dry-off affects the overall welfare of the dairy animal. The first aim of this review was to present an overview of the importance of dry-off and how it is commonly achieved. Our review shows that much scientific progress has been made in improving health status between lactations. The second aim was to identify important gaps in the literature, of which 2 key research disparities have been identified. We find that much of the work to date has focused on cattle and very little research has examined dry-off in dairy sheep and goats. We also find a lack of research addressing how common dry-off methodologies affect animal welfare on more than just a biological level, regardless of species., (Copyright © 2015 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The public has become increasingly interested in the welfare of food animals, but the food animal industries possess few mechanisms for public engagement. Here we present results from a web-based forum designed to allow stakeholders to share views on controversial issues in dairying. In response to the question "Should dairy calves be separated from the cow within the first few hours after birth?" participants were able to indicate "yes," "no," or "neutral" and either write a reason in support of their view or select reasons provided by other participants. Four independent groups of participants were recruited (a total of 163 people); 31% said they had no involvement in the dairy industry; the remaining 69% (with some involvement in the industry) were students or teachers (33%), animal advocates (13%), producers (11%), veterinarians (9%) and other dairy industry professionals (3%). Overall, little consensus existed among participants across groups; 44% chose "yes," 48% "no," and 9% "neutral." Responses varied with demographics, with opposition to early separation higher among females, animal advocates, and those with no involvement with the dairy industry. A fifth group was recruited at a dairy industry conference (an additional 28 participants); 46% chose "yes," 32% "no," and 21% "neutral." Across all 5 groups, opponents and supporters often referenced similar issues in the reasons they provided. Opponents of early separation contended that it is emotionally stressful for the calf and cow, it compromises calf and cow health, it is unnatural, and the industry can and should accommodate cow-calf pairs. In contrast, supporters of early separation reasoned that emotional distress is minimized by separating before bonds develop, that it promotes calf and cow health, and that the industry is limited in its ability to accommodate cow-calf pairs. These results illustrate the potential of web-based forums to identify areas of agreement and conflict among stakeholders, providing a basis for the development of practices that address shared concerns., (Copyright © 2013 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In this paper, we describe a novel approach to corporate involvement in on-farm assessment, driven by the desire to provide a service for dairy producers and to create a vehicle for engagement on issues of dairy cow welfare. This program provides producers with feedback on animal-based (including gait score, leg injuries, and lying time) and facility-based (including freestall design, bedding practices, feed bunk design and management, and stocking density) measures that can be used to better address their management goals. The aim of this paper is to describe variation in the prevalence of lameness and leg injuries, lying behavior, facility design, and management practices for high-producing cows on freestall dairy farms in 3 regions of North America: British Columbia (BC; n=42); California (CA; n=39); and the northeastern United States (NE-US; n=40). Prevalence of clinical lameness averaged (mean ± SD) 27.9±14.1% in BC, 30.8±15.5% in CA, and 54.8±16.7% in NE-US; prevalence of severe lameness averaged 7.1±5.4% in BC, 3.6±4.2% in CA, and 8.2±5.6% in NE-US. Overall prevalence of hock injuries was 42.3±26.2% in BC, 56.2±21.6% in CA, and 81.2±22.5% in NE-US; prevalence of severe injuries was 3.7±5.2% in BC, 1.8±3.1% in CA, 5.4±5.9% in NE-US. Prevalence of swollen knees was minimal in CA (0.3±0.6%) but high (23.1±16.3%) in NE-US (not scored in BC). Lying times were similar across regions (11.0±0.7h/d in BC, 10.4±0.8h/d in CA, 10.6±0.9h/d in NE-US), but individual lying times among cows assessed varied (4.2 to 19.5h/d, 3.7 to 17.5h/d, and 2.8 to 20.5h/d in BC, CA, and NE-US, respectively). These results showed considerable variation in lameness and leg injury prevalence as well as facility design and management among freestall farms in North America. Each of the 3 regions had farms with a very low prevalence of lameness and injuries, suggesting great opportunities for improvement on other farms within the region., (Copyright © 2012 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

The objective was to determine the effect of sawdust bedding dry matter on the lying behavior of Holstein cows. Dry matter (DM) was varied systematically over 5 treatment levels to test how cows respond to damp bedding. This experiment was repeated during summer and winter to test if the effects of damp bedding varied with season. The 5 bedding treatments averaged (+/-SD) 89.8+/-3.7, 74.2+/-6.4, 62.2+/-6.3, 43.9+/-4.0, and 34.7+/-3.8% DM. Over the course of the trial, minimum and maximum temperatures in the barn were 2.6+/-2.0 and 6.8+/-2.2 degrees C in the winter and 13.3+/-2.5 and 22.6+/-4.1 degrees C in the summer. In both seasons, 5 groups of 3 nonlactating cows were housed in free stalls bedded with sawdust. Following a 5-d acclimation period on dry bedding, groups were exposed to the 5 bedding treatments in a 5 x 5 Latin square. Each treatment lasted 4 d, followed by 1 d when the cows were provided with dry bedding. Stall usage was assessed by 24-h video scanned at 5-min intervals. Responses were analyzed within group (n=5) as the observational unit. Bedding DM affected lying time, averaging 10.4+/-0.4 h/d on the wettest treatment and increasing to 11.5+/-0.4 h/d on the driest bedding. Lying time varied with season, averaging 12.1+/-0.4 h/d across treatments during the winter and 9.9+/-0.6 h/d during the summer, but season and bedding DM did not interact. These results indicate that access to dry bedding is important for dairy cows., (Copyright (c) 2010 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Concerns about the welfare of animals typically include 3 questions: is the animal functioning well (e.g., good health, productivity, etc.), is the animal feeling well (e.g., absence of pain, etc.), and is the animal able to live according to its nature (e.g., perform natural behaviors that are thought to be important to it, such as grazing)? We review examples, primarily from our own research, showing how all 3 questions can be addressed using science. For example, we review work showing 1) how common diseases such as lameness can be better identified and prevented through improvements in the ways cows are housed and managed, 2) how pain caused by dehorning of dairy calves can be reduced, and 3) how environmental conditions affect cow preferences for indoor housing versus pasture. Disagreements about animal welfare can occur when different measures are used. For example, management systems that favor production may restrict natural behavior or can even lead to higher rates of disease. The best approaches are those that address all 3 types of concerns, for example, feeding systems for calves that allow expression of key behaviors (i.e., sucking on a teat), that avoid negative affect (i.e., hunger), and that allow for improved functioning (i.e., higher rates of body weight gain, and ultimately higher milk production).

Over half of US dairy operations use tie-stalls, but these farming systems have received relatively little research attention in terms of stall design and management. The current study tested the effects of the amount of 2 bedding materials, straw and shavings, on dairy cattle lying behavior. The effects of 4 levels of shavings, 3, 9, 15, and 24 kg/stall (experiment 1, n = 12), and high and low levels of straw in 2 separate experiments: 1, 3, 5, and 7 kg/stall (experiment 2, n = 12) and 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 kg/stall (experiment 3, n = 12) were assessed. Treatments were compared using a crossover design with lactating cows housed in tie-stalls fitted with mattresses. Treatments were applied for 1 wk. Total lying time, number of lying bouts, and the length of each lying bout was recorded with data loggers. In experiment 1, cows spent 3 min more lying down for each additional kilogram of shavings (11.0, 11.7, 11.6, and 12.1 +/- 0.24 h/d for 3, 9, 15, and 24 kg/stall shavings, respectively). In experiment 2, cows increased lying time by 12 min for every additional kilogram of straw (11.2, 12.0, 11.8, and 12.4 +/- 0.24 h/d for 1, 3, 5, and 7 kg/stall of straw, respectively). There were no differences in lying behavior among the lower levels of straw tested in experiment 3 (11.7 +/- 0.32 h/d). These results indicated that additional bedding above a scant amount improves cow comfort, as measured by lying time, likely because a well-bedded surface is more compressible.

Cows prefer to spend more time lying down in free stalls with more bedding, but no research to date has addressed the effects of bedding quality. Bedding in stalls often becomes wet either from exposure to the elements or from feces and urine. The aim of this study was to test the effect of wet bedding on stall preference and use. Four groups of 6 nonlactating Holstein cows were housed in free stalls bedded daily with approximately 0.1 m of fresh sawdust. Following a 5-d adaptation period, each group of cows was tested sequentially with access to stalls with either dry or wet sawdust bedding (86.4 +/- 2.1 vs. 26.5 +/- 2.1% dry matter), each for 2 d. These no-choice phases were followed by a 2-d free-choice phase during which cows had simultaneous access to stalls containing either wet or dry bedding. Stall usage was assessed by using 24-h video recordings scanned at 10-min intervals, and responses were analyzed by using a mixed model, with group (n = 4) as the observational unit. The minimum and maximum environmental temperatures during the experiment were 3.4 +/- 2.2 and 6.8 +/- 2.5 degrees C, respectively. When cows had access only to stalls with wet bedding, they spent 8.8 +/- 0.8 h/d lying down, which increased to 13.8 +/- 0.8 h/d when stalls with dry bedding were provided. Cows spent more time standing with their front 2 hooves in the stall when provided with wet vs. dry bedding (92 +/- 10 vs. 32 +/- 10 min/d). During the free-choice phase, all cows spent more time lying down in the dry stalls, spending 12.5 +/- 0.3 h/d in the dry stalls vs. 0.9 +/- 0.3 h/ d in stalls with wet bedding. In conclusion, dairy cows show a clear preference for a dry lying surface, and they spend much more time standing outside the stall when only wet bedding is available.

We examined how the presence of a brisket board influenced cow preference, stall use, and position within the stall. When given a choice between stalls with or without a brisket board, 15 nonlactating cows spent 68% of their time lying in the stalls without a brisket board, indicating that they preferred this option. When 13 cows had access to either stalls with a brisket board or ones without, they spent, on average, 1.2 h/d more time lying down in stalls without a brisket board. Resting cows positioned themselves relatively forward in the stalls in 98 +/- 5% (mean +/- SE) of lying bouts when the brisket board was absent, compared with 67 +/- 5% of bouts when the board was present. Longer cows were more likely than shorter cows to move forward in the stalls without a brisket board. Cows also had longer lying bouts in stalls without the brisket board (absent: 1.7 +/- 0.08; present: 1.5 +/- 0.08 h/bout). Although it seems likely that the brisket board helps keep stalls clean by positioning cows closer to the curb, our results indicate that brisket boards also make stalls less comfortable for cows. Stall features designed to reduce stall maintenance may compromise cow comfort. We suggest that new approaches to cow housing are now required.