Search

Introduction: While early separation of dairy calves after birth has been debated from an ethical and animal welfare lens, the economic evidence surrounding alternative cow-calf contact (CCC) systems is scarce. Methods: To address this knowledge gap, we assessed the economic consequences of CCC systems using data from the Agriwise database as well as parameters from published literature in a stochastic partial budget model. The implementation of CCC is very diverse between farms, so in our study we therefore selected a limited number of CCC systems to assess. The examined CCC systems were: (i) dam rearing with limited contact at milking (15 minutes twice a day for 115 days) with no manual milk feeding; (ii) dam rearing with 21-day full contact, after which calves are manually fed 8 kg of whole milk for 94 days; and (iii) mixed calf rearing with using both dams and foster cows with full contact; calves are initially kept with their dams and then moved to foster cows at 9 days of age. Results: We found that adoption of CCC systems was associated with decreases in contribution margins in the range of 1 to 5.4%, as compared to a rearing system where the calves were separated from their dams after one day and were manually fed 8 kg of milk for 12 weeks. These results illustrated that the costs associated with CCC systems may be fairly high under certain circumstances and may prohibit farmers from adopting this practice. Sensitivity analysis suggested that differences in milk sales, assumptions on changes in labor requirements, and changes in daily calf weight gain depending on CCC system were the main variables that governed the net impact on the contribution margins. Discussion: We did not include building costs in the analyses assuming that barn structures may not change in the short-term. The study focused only on short-term pecuniary associations between changes in CCC systems and contribution margins. To strengthen the economic decision-making around CCC systems, fu

The Welfare Quality® consortium has developed and proposed standard protocols for monitoring farm animal welfare. The uptake of the dairy cattle protocol has been below expectation, however, and it has been criticized for the variable quality of the welfare measures and for a limited number of measures having a disproportionally large effect on the integrated welfare categorization. Aiming for a wide uptake by the milk industry, we revised and simplified the Welfare Quality® protocol into a user-friendly tool for cost- and time-efficient on-farm monitoring of dairy cattle welfare with a minimal number of key animal-based measures that are aggregated into a continuous (and thus discriminative) welfare index (WI). The inevitable subjective decisions were based upon expert opinion, as considerable expertise about cattle welfare issues and about the interpretation, importance, and validity of the welfare measures was deemed essential. The WI is calculated as the sum of the severity score (i.e., how severely a welfare problem affects cow welfare) multiplied with the herd prevalence for each measure. The selection of measures (lameness, leanness, mortality, hairless patches, lesions/swellings, somatic cell count) and their severity scores were based on expert surveys (14-17 trained users of the Welfare Quality® cattle protocol). The prevalence of these welfare measures was assessed in 491 European herds. Experts allocated a welfare score (from 0 to 100) to 12 focus herds for which the prevalence of each welfare measure was benchmarked against all 491 herds. Quadratic models indicated a high correspondence between these subjective scores and the WI (R 2 = 0.91). The WI allows both numerical (0-100) as a qualitative ("not classified" to "excellent") evaluation of welfare. Although it is sensitive to those welfare issues that most adversely affect cattle welfare (as identified by EFSA), the WI should be accompanied with a disclaimer that lists adverse or favorable effects

The Welfare Quality® consortium has developed and proposed standard protocols for monitoring farm animal welfare. The uptake of the dairy cattle protocol has been below expectation, however, and it has been criticized for the variable quality of the welfare measures and for a limited number of measures having a disproportionally large effect on the integrated welfare categorization. Aiming for a wide uptake by the milk industry, we revised and simplified the Welfare Quality® protocol into a user-friendly tool for cost- and time-efficient on-farm monitoring of dairy cattle welfare with a minimal number of key animal-based measures that are aggregated into a continuous (and thus discriminative) welfare index (WI). The inevitable subjective decisions were based upon expert opinion, as considerable expertise about cattle welfare issues and about the interpretation, importance, and validity of the welfare measures was deemed essential. The WI is calculated as the sum of the severity score (i.e., how severely a welfare problem affects cow welfare) multiplied with the herd prevalence for each measure. The selection of measures (lameness, leanness, mortality, hairless patches, lesions/swellings, somatic cell count) and their severity scores were based on expert surveys (14–17 trained users of the Welfare Quality® cattle protocol). The prevalence of these welfare measures was assessed in 491 European herds. Experts allocated a welfare score (from 0 to 100) to 12 focus herds for which the prevalence of each welfare measure was benchmarked against all 491 herds. Quadratic models indicated a high correspondence between these subjective scores and the WI (R2 = 0.91). The WI allows both numerical (0–100) as a qualitative (“not classified” to “excellent”) evaluation of welfare. Although it is sensitive to those welfare issues that most adversely affect cattle welfare (as identified by EFSA), the WI should be accompanied with a disclaimer that lists adverse or favorab