Search

Dairy cows are highly motivated to access pasture, especially at night in summer. When pasture is not available, dairy cows show a partial preference for alternative types of outdoor access, spending half the night outside in summer on an outdoor sand or wood chip pack. However, many dairy farms do not provide cows outside access. To better understand reasons why dairy farmers choose to provide or not provide outdoor access, we studied the perspectives of dairy farmers located in the 4 Western Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Data were collected via (1) 11 focus group discussions with a total of 50 Western Canadian dairy farmers, and (2) semi-structured individual interviews with 6 dairy farmers of Hutterite colonies. Transcripts were analyzed using template analysis. Reasons to not provide outdoor access fell into 5 main themes: (1) adverse climate conditions, (2) negative implications of outdoor access for cow welfare including concerns about udder health, (3) concerns regarding decreases in profitability, (4) farm infrastructure not set up for outdoor access, and (5) higher ability to manage animals kept indoors. Reasons to provide outdoor access fell into the 5 main themes: (1) local climate conditions conducive for outdoor access, (2) beneficial effects of outdoor access on cow welfare including lower lameness prevalence, (3) increased profitability due to a premium milk price provided to farmers that allow pasture access to their cows, (4) farm infrastructure that is set up for outdoor access, and (5) easier management of animals outdoors. We conclude that the decision to provide outdoor access depends on how farmers weigh these factors given the constraints on their farm, as well as their personal beliefs and values., (Copyright © 2021 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Standard operating procedures (SOP) are increasingly required on farms participating in animal welfare assurance programs, such as the Dairy Farmers of Canada's proAction initiative and the National Dairy FARM Program in the United States. However, little is known about the use of SOP on farms and who is involved in their development. Literature from other industries shows the importance of including advisors when developing SOP. Despite veterinarians being viewed by many farmers as trusted sources of information, little is known about their involvement in SOP development. The aim of this study was to better understand: (1) what advice from researchers and veterinarians is considered when developing an SOP and (2) what factors affect advice adherence. Participants in this study were farmers (n = 9) from 6 dairy farms in the Fraser Valley region of British Columbia, Canada and their herd veterinarians (n = 5). Structured and semi-structured interviews and participant observation were undertaken from April to December 2018, and the resulting data were analyzed using thematic analysis. In relation to the first aim, we identified 3 main themes: (1) the purpose of the SOP, (2) developing an SOP, and (3) accountability and tracking of procedures. For the second aim, 5 themes emerged: (1) feasibility of the advice, (2) resources required, (3) priority of the advice, (4) other actors involved, and (5) the importance of data. Collectively, these findings suggest that a farm-specific SOP that actively tracks procedures is most beneficial, and that advice adherence is context dependent., (© 2020, 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-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Many dairy cows become ill in the weeks after calving, a period when cows also experience numerous environmental and physiological changes. Most research on this transition period has focused on biological factors including nutrition, immunology, and physiology, but little work has examined sociological factors affecting how farmers care for their cows. The aim of the current study was to describe barriers preventing the adoption of more successful management practices. We used individual and group interviews, paired with photo elicitation, to understand the perspectives of farmers (n = 11) and veterinarians (n = 8) living and working in the lower Fraser Valley of British Columbia, Canada. Participants viewed transition period management as difficult. The lack of a single definition of the transition period emerged as one barrier to improvement; providing a clear and consistent definition for the transition period may be an important first step to improved practices on dairy farms. Participants also identified other barriers hindering improvement, including variation in both farmer attitude toward transition cow management and veterinarian involvement, stocking density of cows, and nutrition management. Barriers to improved practices varied by farm, suggesting that a tailored approach is required to make meaningful change., (Copyright © 2020 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The reliability of locomotion scoring is often low, making it unclear how a single gait score should be interpreted. In addition, differences in assessment frequency between longitudinal studies makes it hard to compare results. Our aims were to evaluate how lameness definition and assessment frequency affect measures of lameness incidence. Six dairy farms in British Columbia, Canada, were enrolled, and 262 cows that were sound at dry-off had their locomotion score (LS) assessed weekly from dry-off to calving, using a 1 to 5 scale. Cows were categorized as remaining sound or becoming lame using 3 different case definitions (LAME1: ≥LS3 at least once; LAME2: ≥2 consecutive scores of LS3, or ≥LS4 at least once; and LAME3: ≥3 consecutive scores of LS3, or ≥LS4 at least once). We analyzed the correspondence between the 3 definitions with percent agreement and weighted κ (linear and quadratic weighting). Comparing LAME1 to LAME3 resulted in lower percent agreement (53%) and κ values (linear κ w = 0.50; quadratic κ w = 0.64) than comparing LAME2 and LAME3 (85%; linear κ w = 0.83; quadratic κ w = 0.89), indicating that cows scored LS3 twice were likely to be scored LS3 a third time. We also compared the 3 case definitions against trim records from trimmings occurring 90 d or less before calving (n = 117), and used logistic regression models to determine sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value. Using the LAME1 criterion resulted in high sensitivity (horn lesions = 0.90; infectious lesions = 0.92) and low specificity (horn = 0.21; infectious = 0.24). We observed higher specificity for LAME2 (horn = 0.62; infectious = 0.66) and LAME3 (horn = 0.71; infectious = 0.77), but LAME2 had higher sensitivity than LAME3 (horn = 0.89 vs. 0.64; infectious = 0.69 vs. 0.64). When evaluating the effects of assessment frequency, we obtained 3 data sets by keeping every, every other, and every third locomotion assessment, and using LAME2 as a case definition. More cows were categorized as lame when assessment frequency increased. Of the cows that were classified as lame when assessed weekly, 72% of the mildly lame, and 33% of the severely lame were classified as sound when assessed every third week. Our results suggest that a single LS3 score should not be used as a criterion for lameness in longitudinal studies. To correctly identify new cases of lameness, dairy cows should be assessed at least every 2 wk., (Copyright © 2020 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In this longitudinal study, we tested the hypothesis that cows that are lame around dry-off are at increased risk of transition diseases (TD), including metritis, subclinical ketosis (SCK), retained fetal membranes, hypocalcemia, or displaced abomasum. We also hypothesized that the relationship between lameness and TD would be mediated through reduced feeding time. We enrolled 461 cows at 9 wk before their expected calving date on 6 commercial freestall farms in the lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia, Canada. Cows were gait-scored weekly using a scale of 1 to 5. Lameness status was classified based on consecutive gait scores as lame (2 consecutive gait scores = 3 or 1 score ≥4) or sound (2 consecutive gait scores ≤2). Lameness status was summarized as (1) lameness at dry-off (sound or lame); (2) lameness group (always sound = sound on all visits, chronically lame = lame on all visits, and other = changed from sound to lame or vice versa); and (3) proportion of weeks lame during the dry period. Body condition scores were recorded at dry-off and at calving and collectively used to calculate change in body condition for each cow. A subsample of cows (n = 159) was evaluated for feeding time once a week during the dry period. All cows were evaluated for SCK (positive = β-hydroxybutyrate ≥1.2 mmol/L) and metritis (positive = foul smell, red/brown watery vaginal discharge) every 3 to 4 d between d 3 and 17 after calving. We retrieved data on treatment of retained fetal membranes, hypocalcemia, and displaced abomasum during the first 17 d after calving, cow parity, and milk production in the previous lactation from farm records. We created a binary variable, TD (any of SCK, metritis, retained fetal membranes, hypocalcemia, or displaced abomasum), to differentiate between healthy cows and cows that developed TD. Lameness at dry-off was associated with the occurrence of metritis and TD, but not with SCK. Cows that were chronically lame and cows that had an increased proportion of weeks lame during the dry period had higher occurrence of metritis and TD. Lameness was also associated with reduced feeding time, which in turn was associated with increased likelihood of SCK and TD, but not with metritis. Lameness was not associated with change in body condition; however, cows that lost body condition score during the dry period had increased odds of developing SCK, metritis, and TD. Change in body condition was highly associated with body condition score at dry-off. These results suggest that association between lameness and TD is partially mediated through reduced feeding time., (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/).)

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.)

The aim of the current study was to assess if cows preferred pasture or indoor housing, and how diurnal and environmental factors affected this preference. Lactating dairy cows (n = 5 groups, each containing 5 cows) were sequentially housed either in a free-stall barn on pasture, or given the choice between the 2 environments. Each group was tested 3 times under each condition, for a total of 21 d, to assess the effects of varying climatic conditions (outdoor temperature ranged from 9.9 to 28.2 degrees C and daily rainfall from 0 to 65 mm/d over the course of the experiment). When provided the choice, cows spent on average (+/- SD) 13.0 +/- 0.6 h/d on pasture, mainly at night. The time cows spent on pasture during the day decreased with the temperature-humidity index (R(2) = 0.55); time on pasture at night decreased with rainfall (R(2) = 0.12). When provided a choice, cows spent more of their lying time on pasture (69.4 +/- 0.02% of the total lying time/d) than indoors in the free-stalls. Cows also spent more time in total lying down when provided a choice than when confined to pasture [0.6 h/d more lying time; standard error of the difference (SED) = 0.21 h/d] and spent even more time lying down when confined indoors (1.1 h/d more time; SED = 0.21 h/d). Cows used the indoor housing especially for feeding; feeder use peaked when cows returned from morning and afternoon milkings. However, cows with free access to pasture spent 1.0 h/d (SED = 0.09 h/d) less time eating the TMR available indoors, resulting in a decline in intake of 2.9 kg of dry matter/d (SED = 0.36 kg of dry matter/d). How cows used the indoor housing differed when cows were provided a choice; for example, cows spent a greater percentage of their time indoors at the feed alley both during the day (47% of the total time spent indoors, versus 41% for cows confined indoors, SED = 0.02%) and at night (22 vs. 5%, SED = 0.04%). In conclusion, under the housing and environmental conditions tested, cows showed a strong preference for access to pasture at night and for access to indoor housing during the day when temperature and humidity increased.