A comparison of two animal
welfare protocols for dairy
cattle
Drs. I.D. Baars
Veterinary Faculty
Utrecht University
February – July 2010
Table of contents .................................................................................................. 2
1
Abstract.......................................................................................................... 3
2
Introduction.................................................................................................... 4
3
Material and Methods .................................................................................... 6
Cow comfort score system ............................................................................................ 6
General ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Light .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Ventilation ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Cubicles / Free stalls ......................................................................................................................... 6
Floor.................................................................................................................................................. 7
Feeding fence ................................................................................................................................... 7
Water ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Waiting room and milking parlor...................................................................................................... 7
Alleys and walkways ......................................................................................................................... 7
Miscellaneous ................................................................................................................................... 7
Animal (health and feeding) ............................................................................................................. 7
Analysis and Statistics ....................................................................................................................... 7
Welfare Quality protocol .............................................................................................. 8
Good feeding .................................................................................................................................... 8
Good housing.................................................................................................................................... 8
Good health ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Good behaviour .............................................................................................................................. 10
Statistic analysis .............................................................................................................................. 11
4
Results ........................................................................................................... 12
5
Discussion ...................................................................................................... 17
Cow comfort score system .......................................................................................... 17
Welfare Quality® protocol ........................................................................................... 17
The practical execution of the cow comfort score system versus the Welfare Quality®
protocol ..................................................................................................................... 18
The total score of the cow comfort scoring system versus the total score of the Welfare
Quality® protocol. ....................................................................................................... 19
Climate....................................................................................................................... 21
6
Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 22
7
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................... 23
8
References ..................................................................................................... 24
9
Appendices .................................................................................................... 26
Appendix 1: The cow comfort score system-table ........................................................ 26
Appendix 2: explanation of cow comfort score system-table........................................ 28
Appendix 3: Questionnaire Cow comfort score system ................................................ 35
Appendix 4: Selecting dairy for assessment Welfare Quality protocol........................... 37
Appendix 5: Blank form Welfare Quality protocol ........................................................ 38
Appendix 6: Questionnaire Welfare Quality protocol ................................................... 39
A comparison of two animal welfare protocols for dairy cattle
2
1
Abstract
For the scoring of cow comfort more options are possible. In this study two
scoring systems are compared, being the cow comfort score system [20] and the
Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for dairy cattle [21]. These scoring
systems are developed to score the welfare of dairy cows. The study was
performed in the northern part of Greece during February and March 2010 by two
investigators combined with another study. A random sample of eight farms were
visited, the size of the farms differed from 32 to 175 dairy cows. Because the
cow-comfort score is designed for Holstein Friesian cows and has to be applied on
stalls with cubicles only farms with this breed and these type off barns were used.
The main difference lies in the practical execution. The cow comfort score system
is committed more to assess the environment of the cow. The Welfare Quality®
protocol gives much attention to individual cows, about their emotional and
physical state. The cow comfort score system is more easy and quick to use.
Examining cows individually takes longer and is more subjective. Examining the
environment of the cow is objective and can be done quickly. Despite the duration
difference in execution the results of both systems had a correlation of 0.843 (P=
0.009). Scores achieved by the individual farms using the cow comfort score
system varied from 55 until 330 points. The overall assessment of the farms with
the welfare quality protocol varied from not classified to enhanced. The results of
this study show that both systems can be used to assess the welfare status of the
cows on a dairy farm in Greece. Since the number of farms studied in the present
study is not large, more studies are needed to confirm the findings.
A comparison of two animal welfare protocols for dairy cattle
3
2
Introduction
Animal welfare is very important these days. This is partly because consumers
are more aware of what they consume. They want transparency of the production
of animal products. Animals are supposed to have a good life [22]. Fortunately,
cow comfort is also becoming more important for dairy farmers. Nowadays,
farmers are more open-minded for changes on behalf of cow comfort, which is a
welcome change in this sector. It is well known that if a cow doesn’t feel
comfortable with the environment, this can cause stress [5,20,21,22]. The stress
causes different behavioural and physiological responses, which may influence the
cow’s wellbeing negatively. This can have a negative influence on the animal’s
health and fertility and can result in a decrease in milk production [5,20,21].
Therefore, it is of great importance for the farmer to provide his cows good
housing- and milking conditions.
Major areas of the physical facilities to consider in relation to cow comfort are
building and stall design, climate conditions, bedding type, light regime, floor and
walk lanes, feeding fence and milking machine characteristics [20,21,22,23].
To know if cows are comfortable with their environment this has to be examined.
Cow comfort becomes primarily visible through the body and behavioural
language of cows. For example, a sign of reduced lying comfort is cows standing
idle or sleeping in walkways. Information about stall design can be collected by
close observation of cows standing up and lying down [10]. Poor stall design also
accounts for the incidence of physical injuries such as leg and claw problems [9].
Is the cow afraid of human contact? Is the animal tail hanging straight and
relaxed? Is the cow bellowing? And so on. In previous studies the above issues
are proven to be related to cow comfort [17,19]. Examining a cow gives direct
information about the emotional and physical state of the animal. Viewing the
environment indicates whether a cow can perform certain behavioural acts or not.
Is the animal able to drink, eat, walk, lie down? If a cubicle is not fulfilling the
needs, this affects the cow comfort [1]. For example, poor stall design will cause
less lying down of the cows. Cows that are standing when they would like to be
lying down will get stressed. Moreover, standing costs more energy [17,18]. If
cows are not lying down enough, milk production and health performance are at
risk. The mammary blood flow is increased during lying with respectively 25%,
according to Metcalf et al [12] or 50%, according to Rulquin et al [16], which is
positively correlated with milk yield [13,15]. Decreased cow comfort causes
stress. Stress will lower the milk production. The influence of the different items
on cow comfort, however, varies. Nevertheless, useful information can be
collected because many cows in the same circumstances are observed.
Certain factors need continuous attention, like temperature and humidity control,
stall hygiene, food and water supply [21]; others are continual factors in a stable
so they do not need frequent monitoring, like freestall design, facility design and
feeding fence [21].
Recently, protocols have been developed to assess the living conditions of the
cow [21,23]. These instruments consist of monitoring the body language and
behaviour of cows and a scoring of the environment in which the cows are
housed. Applying these scoring systems gives an overview of the cow comfort at
farm level. It shows what is good and where there is still room for improvement.
The objective of this study was to provide an overview of the similarities and
differences in content and scope of two protocols for the assessment of animal
comfort and well-being in dairy herds: (a) the Cow Comfort Protocol [21] and (b)
A comparison of two animal welfare protocols for dairy cattle
4
the Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for dairy cattle [23]. To ascertain the
practical application of these two protocols on commercial dairies, a survey was
designed to compare the rank order of compliance scores of each protocol on 8
commercial dairies using personal observations and interviews with dairy farmers.
A comparison of two animal welfare protocols for dairy cattle
5
3
Material and Methods
In this study, two different cow comfort scoring systems are applied and
compared on eight farms, being the cow comfort score system and the welfare
Quality assessment protocol for dairy cattle.
The study was performed in the northern part of Greece during February and
March 2010 by two investigators combined with another study. A random sample
of eight farms were visited, the size of the farms differed from 32 to 175 dairy
cows. Before going to Greece, the investigators were trained to apply the system
on farms. As the cow-comfort score is designed for Holstein Friesian cows and has
to be applied on stalls with cubicles, only farms with this breed and these type off
barns were used. The investigators visited and scored the farms at the same time
to minimize subjective decisions. For both systems the jobs were split, to work
more quick and accurate.
The cow comfort score system is developed by Dr. Frank J.C.M. van Eerdenburg,
Department of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Utrecht. Using
this system observations are made containing general behaviour of the cow, light,
ventilation, cubicles, floor, walkways, feeding fence, water, etc [21].
The second scoring system which was used is the Welfare Quality® assessment
protocol for dairy cows. This protocol is developed by ID-Lelystad and partners.
Using this system observations are made containing good feeding, good housing,
good health and appropriate behaviour [23].
Cow comfort score system
The first scoring system used is the cow comfort score system. In this system
chapters with various items of interest must be observed. For each item points
can be scored [Appendix 1 and 2]. Most points were scored directly by the
investigators observations at the animals, but for some points (animal
performances, etc) were scored by personal interviews with the farms managers
based in a questionnaire [Appendix 3].
The chapters are the following:
General
This chapter contains items considering the environment at the time of scoring
and the cow behaviour. Items scored include environmental noise, bellowing,
number of cows standing idle and fear behaviour. An investigator counted the
number of cows standing idle and listened for the environmental noise and
bellowing. For the other items the cows were closely observed.
Light
Items scored are sufficient light in the barn, period of light and period of dark.
The period of light and darkness were questioned to the farmer, while the
sufficiency of light was judged by an investigator.
Ventilation
Items scored for this chapter consider the ventilation and climate in the barn.
Because of the presence of open barns in Greece, the use of a smoke machine to
test the ventilation was not necessary.
Cubicles / Free stalls
Checking the cubicles consisted of size (for this a tapeline was used), lunge
space, neck rail, brisket board, number and bedding. Bedding is supposed to be
A comparison of two animal welfare protocols for dairy cattle
6
inorganic, draining, non-absorbing material, soft, clean and dry. The knee-test
was performed to check the last three items. The surface has to be under a slight
angle if not consisting of a thick layer of sawdust or sand.
Floor
The floor was scored for its slipperiness, cleanliness and, loose or unequal slats.
Also, the floor was observed for its coverage with rubber and for the ability of
walking. The scoring was done by observations.
Feeding fence
The number of feeding places was counted when head gates were used. In case
of a wooden beam or metal tube, the length was measured with a tapeline and
the number of places was calculated, using 65 cm of space per cow. The height of
the feeding fence and the contamination of food were judged on account of
observations.
Water
The number of drinking places was counted when small waterers like bowls were
used. If large waterers were present, the drinking space was measured with a
tapeline and the number of drinking places was calculated, using 65 cm per place
as the ideal number. Waterers were also scored for type, cleanliness and the
temperature of the water.
Waiting room and milking parlor
The items from this chapter are behaviour during milking and milking time. These
scorings were made on the basis of the questionnaire.
Alleys and walkways
The space of the alleys and passages in the barn were scored. A tapeline was
used for the measurements and the number of passages was counted.
Miscellaneous
This item consists of four scoring points based on the presence of a maternity
pen, sick bay, (motorized) brush and access to pasture/outside paddock.
Animal (health and feeding)
Twelve points are scored, all considering the cow’s health and body condition.
Most points were scored on the basis of the questionnaire, but some points, like
hair cover, body condition score and filling of the rumen, were scored by
observations of the cows.
Analysis and Statistics
After collecting the data of a farm, the data were processed in an Excell file. The
total score of the farm was calculated as a summary of the different scores. The
total score and the separate items of the cow-comfort scoring system were
statistically analysed using SPSS.
For determining a linear connection between variables, correlation and regression
were used. With correlation, the strength and the direction of the connection were
determined. This was reproduced by a non-parametric Spearman correlation-test,
with values between -1 and +1. For each combination of two variables the twotailed significance with a reliability of 99% and 95% was determined [14].
A comparison of two animal welfare protocols for dairy cattle
7
Welfare Quality protocol
The second scoring system used is the Welfare Quality assessment protocol for
dairy cows. This protocol analyze data about good feeding, good housing, good
health and appropriate behaviour.
During the scoring any disturbance of the animals was avoided as far as possible.
Also the animals observed were not touched. For some of the measures, random
sampling was required. The sample size for clinical scoring depended on the herd
size. For the sample size a table could be checked [Appendix 4]. The measures
apply to all dairy cows (lactating and dry) and to pregnant heifers if they are kept
together with dairy cows. For some measures the stable had to be divided in
segments of 25 animals maximum, which were watched for at least ten minutes
each. All the observations made were completed on a specially designed form
[Appendix 5]. Some questions had to be asked to the farmer for which a
management questionnaire was used [Appendix 6].
Good feeding
The welfare criteria for good feeding are absence of prolonged hunger and thirst.
For the first criteria the body condition score is measured. For the second criteria
water provision, cleanliness of water, water flow and functioning of water points is
measured.
Body condition score
The animal was observed from behind and from the side, but not touched. Four
criteria were taken into account: cavity (around the tail head, loin, vertebrae and
the tail head), hipbones, spine and ribs. On individual level cows were logged as
0 - regular, 1 – very lean or 2 – very fat.
Water provision
All water points within the area of the animal unit were assessed. The type and
number were checked. In case of open troughs the length was measured with a
tapeline. The cleanliness of the water was checked regard to the presence of old
or fresh dirt on the inner side as well as staining of the water. 0 – clean, 1 –
partly dirty, 2 – dirty. Water flow had to be checked in all cases except in case of
troughs with a large reservoir. To be sufficient the water flow had to be at least
10 L/min in case of a bowl and 20 L/min in case of a trough. This was checked by
filling it up to the brim and then collecting the overflow for 1 minute using a
bucket. All drinkers were checked if levers are movable and that water flows if
they were removed.
Good housing
The welfare criteria for good housing are comfort around resting, thermal comfort
and ease of movement. Comfort around resting consist off time needed to lie
down, animals colliding with housing equipment during lying down, animals lying
partly or completely outside the lying area, cleanliness of udders, flank, upper
and lower legs. For the thermal comfort no measure is developed yet. Ease of
movement contains presence of tethering, which is not in question in our
research, and access to outdoor loafing area or pasture.
Comfort around resting
Time needed to lie down was recorded with a camera. Time recording of a lying
down sequence started when one carpal joint of the animal was bent and lowered
(before touching the ground). The whole lying down movement ends when the
hind quarter of the animal had fallen down and the animal had pulled the front
A comparison of two animal welfare protocols for dairy cattle
8
leg out from underneath the body. Time was recorded in seconds, the herd level
was the mean time to lie down in a sample of 6 cows at least. The duration of a
lying down movement was only taken when undisturbed by other animals or
human interaction in the supposed lying area.
During lying down the cows weren’t supposed to collide with housing equipment.
The collision was obviously seen or heard, usually with hind quarter or side and
recorded continuously. 0 – No collision, 2 – Collision.
During observations of segments of the barn, the number of animals which were
lying were assessed. Of these lying cows the number of cows lying with their hind
quarter in the edge of the cubicle or lying with their hind quarter completely
outside the supposed lying area were assessed.
Cleanliness of the applicable body parts is defined as the degree of dirt on the
body parts considered, like splashing and plaques. Checked by watching the cow
closely, the scores for cleanliness was: 0 – no dirt or minor splashing, 2 –
separate or continuous plaques of dirt.
Ease of movement
All the stables visited were loose housing systems. With the management
questionnaire farmers were asked if the cows had access to an outdoor loafing
area or pasture.
Good health
Good health welfare criteria are absence of injuries (lameness or integument
alterations), diseases and of pain induced by management procedures. Injuries.
Diseases checked are coughing, nasal discharge, ocular discharge, hampered
respiration, diarrhoea, vulvar discharge and milk somatic cell count. Criticised
management procedures are disbudding/dehorning and tail docking. For the
clinical scoring, a table was made, which was used when the cows were watched
closely, to score the cows more quickly and accurate [Fig 1].
CLINICAL SCORING
Ear tag no.
Breed
Body condition score
0
Cleanliness
Legs
0
Flank
0
Udder
0
Integument
Hairless
Tarsus
Hindquarter
Neck/shoulder/back
Carpus
Flank/side/udder
Other
Clinical signs
Nasal discharge
0
Ocular discharge
0
Hampered respiration
0
Diarrhoea
0
Vulvar discharge
0
Lameness
0
dairy
1
dual purpose
2
2
2
2
Lesion
X
X
X
Swelling
2
2
2
2
2
1
X
X
X
X
X
2
Fig 1. Table used scoring the cows in the stable. [23]
Absence of injuries
Lameness describes an abnormality of movement, caused by reduced ability to
use one or more limbs in a normal manner. It can vary in severity from reduced
ability to inability to bear weight. 0 – Not lame (timing of steps and weightbearing equal on all four feet), 1 – Lame (imperfect temporal rhythm in stride
A comparison of two animal welfare protocols for dairy cattle
9
creating a limb), 2 – Severely lame (strong reluctance to bar weight on one limb,
or more than one limb affected).
Integument alterations are hairless patches, lesions and swellings. Only skin
alterations of a minimum diameter of 2 cm at the largest extent are counted.
Criteria of a hairless patch are area with hair loss, skin not damaged, extensive
thinning of the coat due to parasites or hyperkeratosis possible. Criteria for
lesions and swelling are that the skin is damaged, dermatitis due to parasites,
completely or partly missing teats or ear lesions due to torn off ear tags. Five
body regions on one side of the focal animal were examined with regard to this
criteria. In the clinical scoring table “yes or no” and any lesions are filled in.
Absence of disease
Coughing is defined as a sudden and noisy expulsion of air from the lungs. This
was noted when examining the segments.
Nasal discharge is defined as clearly visible flow/discharge from the nostrils;
transparent to yellow/green and often of thick consistency. Ocular discharge is
defined as clearly visible flow/discharge (wet or dry) from the eye, at least 3 cm
long. Hampered respiration rate is defined as deep and laboured or overtly
difficult breathing. Diarrhoea is defined as loose watery manure below the tail
head on both sides of the tail, area affected at least the size of a hand. Vulvular
discharge is defined as purulent effluent from the vulva or plaques of pus on the
bottom of the side tail. Viscous mucus in animals in late pregnancy was not
counted. For these last five disease scoring was as follows 0 – No evidence, 2 –
Evidence of the disease.
Using the management questionnaire farmers were asked about the somatic cell
count, mortality, dystocia and downers cows. 0 – Somatic cell count below
400.000 within 3 months, 2 – Somatic cell count of 400.000 or above within 3
months. Mortality is defined as the ‘uncontrolled death of animals as well as case
of euthanasia and emergency slaughter. Dystocia is defined as the number of
calvings where major assistance was required during the last 12 months.
Incidence of downer cows is defined as the number of cases of non-ambulatory
cows during the last months. For these three criteria percentage were taken into
account.
Absence of pain induced by management procedures
The farmers were asked about the procedure of disbudding/dehorning and tail
docking practices on the farm, like percentage of the calves/cows, age, method
and analgesics. This was filled in on the management questionnaire.
Good behaviour
The welfare criteria for appropriate behaviour are expression of social behaviours,
expression of other behaviours, good human-animal relationship and positive
emotional state. Measures are agonistic behaviours, access to pasture, avoidance
distance and qualitative behaviour assessment.
Expression of social behaviours
Social behaviour related to fighting is defined as agonistic behaviours and
includes aggressive as well as submissive behaviours. Observation took place in
segments of the barn. Agonistic behaviours recorded were head butts,
displacement, chasing, fighting and chasing-up.
Expression of other behaviours
The availability of access to a pasture or to an outdoor loafing area was checked.
Also the farmer was asked about the possibility and the amounts of time spend
there.
A comparison of two animal welfare protocols for dairy cattle
1
0
Good human-animal relationship
Avoidance distance was used to test the human-animal relationship.
This test was started when at least 75% of the cows were back in the stable after
milking. The investigator was standing on the feed bunk at a distance of 2 m in
front of the animal to be tested. If the distance to the feeding fence was less then
2 m an angle up to 45o with the feeding fence and a distance of 2,5 m was
chosen. The head of the animal had to be completely past the feeding rack. The
animal had to be attentive or took notice of the presence of the investigator. The
animals were approached at a speed of one step per second and a step length of
approximately 60 cm with the arm held overhand at an angle of approximately
45o from the body. When approaching the back of the hand was directed towards
the animal and the animal was not looked into the eyes. The definition of
withdrawal is when the animal moves back, turns the head to the side or pulls
back the head trying to get out of the feeding rack, head shaking could also be
found. The distance between the muzzle of the cow and the hand was estimated
in case of withdrawal. Ear tag number of the cow and the distance to the cow
were noted. The percentage of animals that could be touched approached closer
than 50 cm, approached 100 to 50 cm and cows that could not be approached as
closely as 100 cm were taken into account.
Positive emotional state
Qualitative behaviour assessment considers the expressive quality of how animals
behave and interact with each other and the environment, i.e. their ‘body
language’. Depending on the size and structure of the farm several observation
points were selected. The investigator waited a couple of minutes before starting
the measures, which allowed the animals to return to undisturbed behaviour. The
expressive quality of their activity was noted on a visual analogue scale [appendix
7]. ‘Minimum’ means entirely absent, ‘maximum’ means that this expressive
quality is dominant across all observed animals. The distance between the
minimum point to the point where the line crosses the scale was measured an
taken into account. Terms used for dairy cow qualitative behaviour assessment
are active, relaxed, fearful, agitated, calm, content, indifferent, frustrated,
friendly, bored, playful, positively occupied, lively, inquisitive, irritable, uneasy,
sociable, apathetic, happy and distressed.
Statistic analysis
After collecting the data of a farm, the data were processed in an Excell file. The
score of the farm was calculated with the aid of the welfare quality protocol and
the process program available on the following site:
http://www1.clermont.inra.fr/wq/index.php?id=simul&new=1&situation=DCF
Average scores were needed which were calculated before.
The final results were correlated using a scale from 1 to 4. To compare the two
systems, the results from both systems were converted to a scale from 1 to 4
[Table 1]. For the cow comfort scoring system these scores were based upon the
results of previous investigations and the present study. Correlations between
were statistically analysed using SPSS.
Overall welfare
Total score
1
Not classified
< 150
2
Acceptable
150 – 250
3
Enhanced
250-350
4
Excellent
> 350
Table 1: Total scores converted to a scale from 1 to 4.
A comparison of two animal welfare protocols for dairy cattle
1
1
4
Results
The execution of both systems differed substantial while the cow comfort score
system examined particularly the environment of the cow, the Welfare Quality®
protocol examined the condition of the individual cow. This meant that there was
a substantial difference in time needed to examine the farms. For instance, by the
cow comfort score system more cows are watched at the same time by which an
average score is logged, like cleanliness of the cows. With the Welfare Quality®
protocol a certain percentage of the cows is checked individually, the cleanliness
of the lower hind legs, hind quarters and udder is noted by which an average is
calculated. But as both systems were used more often, the execution went faster.
Nevertheless, time needed for examining differed enormously. On a farm with
100 cows, applying the cow comfort score system lasted an hour and a half,
applying the Welfare Quality® protocol took almost 7 hours. Despite the duration
difference in execution the results of both systems had a correlation of 0.843 (P=
0.009).
Scores achieved by the individual farms using the cow comfort score system
varied from 55 until 330 points. The overall assessment of the farms with the
welfare quality protocol varied from not classified to enhanced.
As expected the systems are correlated, P = 0.009; R = 0.843.
Total cow comfort scoring versus total Welfare Quality
Total Welfare Quality
3,5
3
2,5
2
Wqtotaal
1,5
Lineair (Wqtotaal)
1
0,5
0
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
Total cow comfort scoring
Fig 2: Total score of the cow comfort scoring system versus the total score of the
Welfare Quality® protocol. Spearman: 0.843 (P = 0.009).
Only one farm, farm 3, differed one point.
A comparison of two animal welfare protocols for dairy cattle
1
2
Other correlations between the systems are the following:
Walking with absence of diseases, P = 0.009; R = 0.842.
Walking versus absence of diseases
Absence of diseases
3,5
3
2,5
2
WQwcabsdiseases
1,5
Lineair (WQwcabsdiseases)
1
0,5
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Walking
Fig 3: Walking of the cows scored with the cow comfort scoring system versus
the Welfare Quality® criterion absence of diseases. Spearman: 0.842 (P = 0.009).
Emotional state with width of walkways and alleys, P = 0,025; R = 0,772.
Emotional state
Width alleys versus Emotional state
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
Wqwcemotionalstate
Lineair
(Wqwcemotionalstate)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
Width alleys
Fig 4: Width of walkways and alleys of the cow comfort scoring versus the
Welfare Quality® criterion positive emotional state. Spearman: 0.772 (P = 0.025).
A comparison of two animal welfare protocols for dairy cattle
1
3
Standing idle of cows in the cow comfort scoring system is correlated with the
total score of behaviour of the Welfare Quality® protocol, P = 0.030; R = 0.756.
Standing idle versus principle of behavior
2,5
Behavior
2
1,5
Wqprinbehaviour
Lineair (Wqprinbehaviour)
1
0,5
0
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
Standing idle
Fig 5: Standing idle of cows in the cow comfort scoring system versus the
Welfare Quality® principle of appropriate behaviour. Spearman: 0.756 (P =
0.030).
Standing idle is also correlated with the total score of the Welfare Quality
protocol, P = 0.005; R = 0.866.
Standing idle versus Welfare Quality total
3,5
Welfare Quality total
3
2,5
2
Wqtotaal
1,5
Lineair (Wqtotaal)
1
0,5
0
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
Standing idle
Fig 6: Standing idle of cows in the cow comfort scoring system versus the total
score of the Welfare Quality® protocol. Spearman: 0.866 (P = 0.005).
A comparison of two animal welfare protocols for dairy cattle
1
4
Number of waterplaces with Welfare Quality® principles good of health, P =
0.043; R = 0.722.
Number of water places versus principle of health
Principle of health
3,5
3
2,5
2
Wqprinhealth
1,5
Lineair (Wqprinhealth)
1
0,5
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Water places
Fig 7: The number of waterplaces in the cow comfort scoring system versus the
Welfare Quality® principle good health. Spearman: 0.722 (P = 0.043).
Total general is correlated with behaviour. P = 0.030; R = 0.756
Total generel cow comfort scoring versus principle of behavior
Principle of behavior
2,5
2
1,5
Wqprinbehaviour
Lineair (Wqprinbehaviour)
1
0,5
0
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Total general
Fig 8: The total score of the general items of the cow comfort scoring system
versus Welfare Quality® principle of appropriate behaviour. Spearman: 0.756 (P =
0.030).
A comparison of two animal welfare protocols for dairy cattle
1
5
Within the Welfare Quality® protocol there is a correlation for feeding: P = 0,006;
R = 0,861, for behaviour P = 0,017, R = 0,800.
Welfare Quality principles
Welfare Quality total versus principles
3,5
3
Wqprinfeeding
2,5
Wqprinhousing
2
Wqprinhealth
1,5
Wqprinbehaviour
Lineair (Wqprinbehaviour)
1
Lineair (Wqprinfeeding)
0,5
0
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
Welfare Quality total
Fig 9: The total score of the Welfare Quality® protocol versus the total score of
the Welfare Quality® principles.
Further correlation within the systems is not included in this study.
A comparison of two animal welfare protocols for dairy cattle
1
6
5
Discussion
Cow comfort score system
The cow comfort score system is designed for Dutch farms and based on Dutch
principles. Applying this system on Greek farms delivered occasional struggles,
because of the different type of barns concerning for instance ventilation and
cubicles. For an even better application of the system in Greece, it is
recommended to adapt the system to the Greek farms.
The cow comfort score system was easy and quick to use, because this system is
more committed to assess the environment of the cow. The investigators checked
particularly the standard elements in the stable. The more experience they had
the faster the scoring took place.
Stretching when raising from cubicles was sometimes hard to judge, not all the
cows could be watched while standing up. Some of the cows who stood up were
interrupted by the appearance of the investigators. Some of the cows got up and
did not stretch, some did stretch. The influence by the presence of the
investigators is difficult to determine. If possible it is an idea to put cameras in
the stable to film the cows when they are really not interrupted by humans.
However, with three points the influence on the total score is not very decisive.
Standing idle on the other hand, has a lot more influence on the total score. The
moment of a day at which a farm is visited, could have had influence on this item
because of the different time schedule of farmers running their farm. When
entering the barn standing idle was scored directly, to minimize the influence of
the investigators entering. But because more people were working on the farm a
visit of the farmer or his worker to the stable moments before the investigators
entered maybe influenced the behaviour of the cows.
The floor of the farms was cleaned using a scraper. These scrapers were
particularly activated during milking. So when visiting a farm a couple of hours
after the scraper did his last round, the floor was scored lower than just after the
scraper was in action. Not only the time of the day but also the circumstances
each day is important, because each day can be different concerning the weather.
It would be ideal to visit farms more than once at different moments of a day to
accurate scores gives to the farms.
Welfare Quality® protocol
Also for the Welfare Quality® protocol stables with cubicles were needed. So to
use the system in the future adaptation of the system to Greek farms is
recommended for a better application. Execution of the Welfare Quality® protocol
took many hours. The different subjects had to be examined during different
parts of the day. For example the human-animal relationship had to be checked
when all cows were eating. The positive animal state, coughing and expression of
social behaviours had to be examined when cows were in their normal behaviour
not interrupted by humans. The clinical scoring had to be done examining the
cows closely. At last the water points were checked.
Also some parts of the Welfare Quality® protocol can be taken into question. The
Welfare Quality® protocol gives much attention to individual cows, about their
emotional and physical state. This takes a lot of time to check the individual
cows. To begin the necessary time to examine the individual cows could be
shortened by using the minimum needed number of cows [Appendix 4]. The
bigger the farm, the more cows needed for the research. All this without an
impact on the result.
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
17
The human-animal relationship is checked individually by approaching cows
during eating. Because of the large number of animals that had to be checked
this took more time than told by the system. Cows next to a cow who was
checked were not useful for a while because they were influenced by the
investigator approaching the cow next to them. But do farmers ever approach
their cows this way? We noticed that cows were not used to humans walking
towards them during eating so most of the time more then only the neighbour
cows were affected by checking a cow. Maybe because this is a total different way
of approaching cows they are more afraid. Everything what is new is exciting, so
cows that are not afraid of humans can be scored negatively. Maybe this item can
be combined with the clinical scoring of the cows. Walking around a cow can also
give a good indication of a cow being afraid or curious.
Especially with behavioural measures the interpretation is more subjective.
In the Welfare Quality® protocol a chapter is dedicated to the feelings of cows,
called the positive emotional state. But how do we know if a cow is positively
occupied, content, friendly, lively, sociable and happy? Even with the best training
one can not know for sure how a cow feels deep inside just by looking at her. This
is perhaps a chapter which can be revised.
On behalf of the Welfare Quality® protocol the farmers need to give data of the
somatic cell count. But many Greek farmers are not yet using computer systems
for their administration. So they only know the total number of somatic cell count
of the tank which the milk company gives them. Also for other data the reliability
can be taken in question. A recommendation for next time is to select farmers
with a proper administration, instead of using data stated by the farmer.
The practical execution of the cow comfort score system versus
the Welfare Quality® protocol
As stated above, the practical execution of both systems differed substantially.
The cow comfort score system is easy and quick to use because this system is
more committed to assess the environment of the cow. With the Welfare
Quality® protocol cows are examined individually, to check their emotional and
physical state. For instance, time spend examining cow comfort. By the cow
comfort score system more cows are watched at the same time, with the Welfare
Quality® protocol a certain percentage of the cows is checked individually. Fear
behaviour is checked with the cow comfort score by asking ‘do the cows remain
quiet when entering the barn, are they scared or approach curiously?’ With the
Welfare Quality® protocol the human-animal relationship is checked individually
by approaching cows during eating. Examining cows individually takes longer and
is more subjective. Examining the environment of the cow is objective and can be
done quickly. Many agencies have contributed developing the Welfare Quality®
protocol so this can be seen as a gold standard when we are talking about
evaluating cow comfort. That does not mean that another system does not
properly value the cow comfort on a farm. Using one method does not make
another method unsuitable.
Cow comfort becomes primarily visible through the body and behavioural
language of cows. Building and stall design, climatic conditions, bedding type,
floor, traffic lane surfaces, feed bunk amongst other things are considered in
relation to cow comfort [17,19]. Certain factors do not require frequent
monitoring. These factors are standard in the stable. Body language is often
clearly expressed in the ways stalls are used. For instance crowding of cows in a
barn location, stall refusal, long standing and apprehensive behaviour before lying
are examples of mismatch with managerial practices and/or environmental
conditions. Checking of the environment is important to see if a cow can behave
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
18
the way it is suppose to behave. To check if a cow can drink and eat, walk and
sleep as much as she needs to be in a physical and psychological state of
harmony with herself and her environment. Examination of the environment of
the cow is objective.
Checking cows individually gives an indication of their emotional state. To have a
good indication many cows need to be checked, this takes longer. Furthermore, it
is also subjective, because one can never know exactly how a cow truly feels.
On a farm with 100 cows, applying the cow comfort score system lasted an hour
and a half, applying the Welfare Quality® protocol took almost 7 hours. The
Welfare Quality® protocol took so long that it was hard to keep concentrated and
moments of boredom were impossible to circumvent.
But because all the farms were only scored once, time and weather differences
lurk, although maybe not of influence, and moment of scoring is a snapshot. It
would be ideal to visit farms more than once at different moments of a day to
accurately give scores to the farms.
The total score of the cow comfort scoring system versus the total
score of the Welfare Quality® protocol.
5.1 Cow comfort scoring and welfare Quality® protocol
As expected the results of this study demonstrate a positive significant correlation
(P = 0.009; R = 0.843) between the cow comfort scoring system and the Welfare
Quality® protocol [table 2].
Farm
Cow comfort scoring
Welfare Quality®
Total
Total 1-4
Total
330
3
3
1
184
2
2
2
191
2
3
3
137
2
2
4
264
3
3
5
55
1
1
7
318
3
3
8
280
3
3
9
Table 2: Total scores compared from farm 1 to 9.
protocol
Overall welfare
Enhanced
Acceptable
Enhanced
Acceptable
Enhanced
Not classified
Enhanced
Enhanced
Only one farm, farm 3, differed one point. Farm 3 and 5 were scored with both
systems on the same day. Farm 9 had only one day in between. Farm 1, 2, 4, 7
and 8 had more then seven days in between. The farms were also visited on a
different time of the day. Next time, farms have to be visited more than once at
different moments of a day to give an accurate score to the farms.
5.2 Walking and absence of diseases
Walking scored with the cow comfort scoring system is correlated (P = 0.009; R
= 0.842) with the Welfare Quality® criterion absence of diseases. Cows that are
in good health walk more than cows that are ill [3]. So if the absence of diseases
is increasing the score of walking is so too. This is a very high correlation. The
total score of absence of diseases can be replaced by a locomotion score.
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
19
5.3 Width of walkways and alleys and positive emotional state
There is a correlation between width of walkways and alleys of the cow comfort
scoring versus the Welfare Quality® criterion positive emotional state (P = 0.025;
R = 0.772). If cows can not pass each other easy this has a negative influence on
their positive emotional state. Cows with more space in the feedalley reduce their
frequency of aggressive interactions [6]. The dominant cows chase not dominant
cows away therefore they can behave less in a natural way. They have to be
more alert all the time and have a higher level of stress.
5.4 Standing idle and appropriate behaviour / total Welfare Quality ®
protocol
Standing idle of cows in the cow comfort scoring system is correlated with the
Welfare Quality® principle of appropriate behaviour (P = 0.030; R = 0.756). The
principle of appropriate behaviour includes expression of social behaviours and
other behaviours, good human-animal relationship and the positive emotional
state. When fewer cows are standing idle, the score is increasing so there is a
positive correlation between standing idle and appropriate behaviour.
There is also a very high correlation between standing idle and the total score of
the Welfare Quality® protocol (P = 0.005; R = 0.866). Maybe it is even enough
to only check the cows that are standing idle. Further investigation has to prove
this outcome.
5.5 number of waterplaces and good health
The number of waterplaces in the cow comfort scoring system are correlated with
Welfare Quality® principle good health, P = 0.043; R = 0.722. Water is of course
very important for good health. Depending on the production cows need 75 up to
180 litre of water every day [11]. Restriction of water intake results in a reduction
in feed intake accompanied by a reduction in performance [2]. With all its
consequences. Cows drink more then one quarter of their total daily water intake
after milking. Water intake peaks corresponded to feeding and milking times.
75% percent of the cows visited waterers after the evening milking within 2 hours
[4]. So the number of waterplaces should be able to meet this demand. When
farms have a good water supply, normally several cases are well organized.
Water supply can be used as an indicator for good health.
There was no correlation with the Welfare Quality® protocol total score and
housing, because al the farms had the same score, but to our opinion there was a
great difference in housing between the farms. The Welfare Quality® protocol
only checks the comfort around resting and the ease of movement. So only the
cubicles and if the cows are tethered or walked freely, in or outside, was checked.
Some cubicles used sand, some a mattress and some dried manure. This can also
affect the cow and her welfare. Visiting the farms showed us a big difference in
housing between the farms, but no difference was made by the Welfare Quality®
protocol.
The results of examining cow comfort of both systems are correlated. But
although there is a very good correlation between the total score of both systems,
there are not many correlations between the different parts of the systems. One
possible reason for this phenomenon is the total different type of scoring the
data. Scoring individuals cows versus scorings their living conditions. Another
reason can be the calculations that have to be done with the data obtained with
the Welfare Quality® protocol. The calculation for the Welfare Quality® protocol
are very complicated. For all the collected data special formulas are designed. For
example, to score the absence of prolonged hunger the percentage of very lean
cows have to be calculated (I). I = 100 - % of very lean cows. When I ≤ 20 then
Score = (111 x I) – (1.39 x I2) + (0.00584 x I3). When I ≥ 20 then Score = 2960 + (0.222 x I) – (0.00277 x I2) + (5.93 x 10-5I3). On the internet there is a
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
20
possibility to fill in the data in a program which will calculate the results. This is
really an outcome, because working with the data is a whole day’s work for each
farm. But care most be given to avoid typing and calculation errors. A
disadvantage is that there is still much preparatory work to be done before the
data can be entered in the program. Also the results give no overview of the
different scored items, but only of the total welfare criteria and welfare principles.
Calculations for the cow comfort score system can be done using a specially
designed excel program. For each item the scores can be directly filled in. The
total score of the chapters have a minimum and a maximum score. When scores
are below the minimum extra points will be withdrawn. The system is very clear
and easy to work with. Obviously care must be given to avoid typing errors.
When a total score is generated it is directly clear what the good qualities of a
farm are and where there is still room for improvement.
Climate
The climate in Greece differs from the climate in the Netherlands. During the
presence of the investigators in Greece the weather was unusually rainy,
fortunately it quickly changed to more sunnier weather. An optimal temperature
range for high producing dairy cows is between -25 oC and +15 oC [7]. The
thermoneutral zone for dairy cows is between the lower critical temperature, -16
to -37 oC, and the upper critical temperature, 20 – 26 oC [19]. Because Greece
has the Mediterranean climate the temperature is most of the days above this
range. Heat stress is therefore a big problem in Greece. Most practical methods to
reduce heat stress are cooling, ventilation and group cows into shade [8,19]. All
the farmers had a ventilation system to relieve heat stress, some had even a
sprinkler system above the beds and in the waiting area. Most cows do not go
outside so are always in the shade. Because the location were this investigation
took place was close to the sea, it was generally very windy. But in summer this
wind is not sufficient to eliminate heat stress. Difference in climate will affect the
housing of animals, since there are other steps needed for an optimal housing for
the cow.
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
21
6
Conclusion
The results of this study show that both systems can be used to assess the
welfare status of the cows on a dairy farm in Greece. The practical execution of
the cow comfort scoring system is less time consuming and easier to perform
than the Welfare Quality system. Since the number of farms studied in the
present study is not large, more studies are needed to confirm the findings. It is
recommended to adapt both scoring systems to local conditions, because farms
depend on the country and the area where they are located.
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
22
7
Acknowledgments
We thank all the farmers who showed us their farms and were very willing to give
us all the information we needed. In particular, we thank Dr. E. Sossidou for her
guidance during the study and Dr. F.J.C.M. van Eerdenburg for his comments on
the manuscript. We also want to thank the director and the employees of the
National Agricultural Research Foundation for their hospitality and their support to
this study.
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
23
8
References
1. Anderson, N.G., Observations on dairy cow comfort: diagonal lunging,
resting, standing and perching in free stalls. In K. Janni (Ed.), Fifth
international Dairy Housing Conference, ASAE, Fort Worth, Texas, USA,
2003,168-182
2. Brouk, M.J., Harner, J.P. and Smith, J.F., Effect of location of water acces
on water consumption of lactating cows housed in 2- and 4-row freestall
buildings. In K. Janni (ed.), Fifth International Dairy Housing Conference,
ASAE, Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 2003,196-204
3. Capion, N., Thamsborg, S.M., Enevoldsen, C., Prevalence and severity of
foot lesions in Danish Holstein heifers. In Veteriniary Journal 2009 Oct;
182(1):50-8. Epub 2008 Aug 30.
4. Cardot, V., Le roux, Y., Jurjanz, S., Drinking behaviour of lactating dairy
cows and prediction of their water intake. Journal of Dairy Science, 2008
June;91(6):2257-64.
5. De passille, A.M.B. and Rushen, J., Are you a source of stress or comfort
for your cows? In E.J. Kennelly (Ed.), Advances in Dairy Technology.
Western Canadian Dairy Seminar, University of Alberta, Alberta, 1999, pp.
347-360
6. De Vries, T.J., von Keyserlingk, M.A., Weary, D.M., Effect of feeding space
on the inter-cow distance, aggression, and feeding behavior of free-stall
housed lactating dairy cows, Journal of Dairy Science, 2004, May;
87(5):1432-8. Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences,
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
7. Frazzi E., Calamati L. and Calegari F., Assessment of a thermal comfort
index to estimate the reduction of milk production caused by heat stress in
dairy cow herds. In J. K. (Ed.), Fifth International Dairy Housing
Conference, Vol. 701P0203 (2003) ASAE, Forth Worth, Texas, USA, 269276.
8. Jones G.M., Stallings C.C., Reducing Heat Stress for Dairy Cattle,
Department of Dairy Science, Publication Number 404-200 (1999) Virginia
Tech.
9. Leonard F.C., O`Connell J., O`Farrell K., Effect of different housing
conditions on behaviour and foot lesions in Friesian heifers, Veterinary
Record, Vol. 134 (1994) 490-494
10. Lidfors L., The use of getting up and lying down movements in the
evaluation of cattle environments, Veterinary Research communications,
Vol. 13 (1989) 307-324
11. Mc Farland, D.F., Feed area and water space desing., Dairy housing and
equipment systems, Vol. 129, NRAES, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 2000, pp.
297-314.
12. Metcalf J.A., Roberts S.J. and Sutton J.D., Variations in blood flow to and
from the bovine mammary gland measured using transit time ultrasound
and dye dilution, Research in Veterinary Science, Vol. 53 (1992) 59-63
13. Nielsen M.O., Jakobsen K. and Jorgensen J.N., Changes in mammary blood
flow during the lactation period in goats measured by the ultrasound
Doppler principle, Comparitive Biochemical Physiology A, Vol. 97 (1990)
519-524
14. Petrie A., Watson P., Statistics for Veterinary and Animal Science,
Blackwell, Oxford, 2nd ed, 2006
15. Prosser C.G., Davis S.R., Farr V.C., Lacasse P., Regulation of blood flow in
the mammary microvasculature, Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 79 (1996)
1184-1197
16. Rulquin H. and Caudal J.P., Effects of lying and standing on mammary
blood flow and heart rate in dairy cows, Animal Zootechnic, Vol. 41 (1992)
101.
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
24
17. Rushen, J., De Passille, A.M.B., Haley, D.B., Manninen, E. and Saloniemi,
H., Using behavioural indicators and injury scores to asses the effects of
the stall flooring on cow comfort, In R.R. Stowell, R.Bucklin and M.
Bottcher (Eds) 6th Int Symp Livestock Environment, ASAE, Louisville
Kentucky USA , 2001, Vol 701, 716-723
18. Schrama, J.W., Parmentier, H.K. and Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., Genotype x
environment interactions as related to animal health impairment (with
special emphasis on metabolic and immunological factors). In P.J. Heidt,
V. Rusch and D. van der Waaij (Eds.), Old Herborn university monograph,
New antimicrobial strategies Vol. 10 (1997) 69-89.
19. Sheldon, I.M., Dobson, H., Reproductive challenges facing the cattle
industry at the beginning of the 21st century, Journal of Dairy Science,
2003, Vol 61, 1-13
20. Sossidou, E., Szücs, E., Farm animal welfare, environment & food quality
interaction studies. National Agricultural Research Foundation, Greece.
ISBN 978-960-89849-0-5, pp 201–238.
21. Van Eerdenburg, F. J. C. M., Plekkenpol, S.J., Saltijeral-Oaxaca, J., and
Vázquez-Flores, S. 2009. Aumento de la produccion de leche mejorando el
bienestar de la vaca y reduciendo el estres calorico. XXXVII Jornadas
Uruguayas de Buiatría, Paysandú, Uruguay:34-43.
22. Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Rushen, J., de Passille, A.M., Weary, D.M.,
Invited review: The Welfare of dairy cattle-Key concepts and the role of
sience. J. Dairy Sci. 2009. 92:4101-4111.
23. Welfare Quality®, 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle,
Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad Netherlands, ISBN/EAN 978-9078240-04-4, pp. 75-111 and 161-173.
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
25
9
Appendices
Appendix 1: The cow comfort score system-table
The table summarizes the various items of interest for cow comfort on dairy
farms with the number of points that can be acquired. Indications for the points
can be found in the explanation. If the range is e.g. 0-15 points all numbers in
between can be given as well. The points can be summed per chapter and totaled
for the entire farm. If the minimum score for a chapter is not reached, this
minimum needs to be subtracted from the total score.
Minimum
Maximum
10
20
5
3
3
4
0 (-100)
5 (- 10)
0 (-5)
5
25
10
5
10
30
50
5
10
10
10
5
10
40
70
5
5
10 (-10)
10
5
5 (-5)
5
10
10
5
0 (-10)
45
points
General
- Fear behaviour
- Stretching when raising from cubicle
- Tail is hanging straight and relaxed
- Bellowing
- Number of cows standing idle
- Cows sleeping in walk ways
- Noise (environmental)
Light
- Sufficient light in the barn
- Period of light > 15 hr
- Period of dark > 6 hr
Ventilation
- It smells fresh (between the animals)
- Cobwebs
- Condense / mold
- Barn temperature
- Dead spaces
- Draft
Cubicles / Free stalls
- Cows are clean
- Bedding is made of inorganic material
- Bedding is soft
- Bedding is clean and dry
- Stall surface is under a slight angle
- Bedding is flat
- Neck rail
- Lunge space
- Length / width of the stall
- Brisket board
- Number
Floor
-
Slipperiness
Loose / unequal slats
Rubber
Walking
Cleanliness
20
10
10
10
10
5
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
26
Feeding fence
2
5
1
1
3
(-3)
15
25
10
5
5
5
2
5
3
2
3
5
2 (-2)
2
1
10
40
3
2
20
15
200
- Headlocks
- Height
- Number of places
- Contamination
Water
- Number of places
- Type of waterer
- Cleanliness
- Temperature
Waiting room and milking parlor
Behaviour
Time
Walkways and alleys
Width of the alley behind the feeding fence
Width other walkways
Sufficient passages
Miscellaneous
Maternity pen
Sick bay
Access to pasture / outside paddock
Is there a mechanical brush?
Animal (health + feeding)
-
Hair
Lameness
Hocks
Carpus
Claws
Mastitis
Abomasal dislocation
Filling of the rumen
Milking fever
Acetonaemia
BCS
Fat %
Fertility
Calving
100
5
25 (-25)
20 (-60)
20 (-60)
20
15 (-15)
10 (-15)
5 (-10)
5 (-10)
5 (-15)
15
15
25 (-10)
15
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
27
Appendix 2: explanation of cow comfort score system-table
GENERAL:
Fear behaviour (5 points):
When the cows remain quiet when you enter the barn, make no sudden
movements when you get closer, don’t look scared, give 3 points. For scared
animals 0 points. When the animals approach you (curiously) 5 points.
Stretching when raising from cubicle (3 points):
If a cow lies comfortably, she will stretch before she leaves the cubicle. If she
does 3 points, else 0.
Tail is hanging straight and relaxed (3 points):
Stressed cows don’t have a relaxed tail. With exited animals the tail can be
straight up. If >90% of the cows has a relaxed, straight, tail, 3 points. When
you see this with 80-90% of the animals 2 points, else 0 points.
Bellowing (4 points):
Restless behaviour is marked by bellowing. Animals in oestrus or with COF
condition will bellow often. When there is no such a cow present < twice per 30
min: 4 points; twice per 30 min: 2 points, when > twice per 30 min: 0 points.
Number of cows standing idle (-100 points):
Cows should be standing only toe at and should be lying after that. The number
of cows standing in walkways or in their free stalls is therefore a good ‘comfortindicator’. For each percentage of cows that is standing during a quiet period of
the day (i.e. < 1 hr before milking): – 1 point
Cows sleeping in walk ways (5points (or –10)) :
Cows should not sleep in walk ways. If there are none: 5 points. If there is
around 1 % of the cows: 0 points; when more: - 10 points.
Noise (-5 points)
Cows don’t like noise in their environment. If there is a lot of noise from tractors,
shouting, etc. give – 5 points. Some noise -3 points. Quiet situation 0 points.
LIGHT:
Sufficient light in the barn (10 points):
Everywhere in the barn one should be able to read a newspaper without
difficulties. When measured it should be > 100 Lux. Then give 10 points. When
there is a moderate level or not at all places > 100 Lux, 5 points. When the level
is low or bad sight at several places: 0 points.
Period of light > 15 hours (5 points):
When the photoperiod is long, cows feel better. Therefore, > 15 h: 5 points; 1215 h: 3 points; < 12: 0 points. However, if the lights are on 24h per day: 0
points.
Period of dark > 6 hours (10 points):
Rest is important for cattle. A period of darkness needs to included in the daily
routine. The minimum is 6h: 2 points; 7h: 5 points and 8h: 10 points. However,
if there are > 8h of darkness, the score drops again.
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
28
VENTILATION:
It smells fresh (5 points):
It should not smell after NH3, H2S, or other gasses. If the smell is bad: 0 points,
not so fresh: 2 points. When there is a fresh, pleasant air: 5 points. This is about
the air quality between the animals.
Cobwebs (10 points):
Cobwebs are seen at places with little airflow. If you see many cobwebs: 0
points; a few: 5 points; rare or none: 10 points.
Condense / mould (10 points):
Condensation of water along the ceiling or wall is an indication that the relative
humidity is too high. If this happens often fungi will start to grow on the ceiling
and walls. If you see heavy condensation or mould growth: 0 points; Dry clean
walls and ceilings: 10 points. (and anything in between 0-10 points)
Barn temperature (10 points):
During summer the barn should be cooler than outside:
Difference is
1- 5 ˚C: 5 points
> 5 ˚C: 10 points
In winter the difference should not be large:
Difference is
0 - 2 ˚C: 10 points
2 - 5 ˚C: 5 points
> 5 ˚C: 0 points
If the temperature is 25 - 30 ˚C, subtract 5 points; > 30 ˚C, subtract 10
points
Dead spaces (5 points):
There should not be places in the barn that are not or poorly ventilated. If there
are dead spaces: 0 points; else 5 points
Drop of cold air/draught (10 points):
Nowhere there should be draught or drop of cold air. This will stress the cows. If
there is much draught: 0 points; Only in a corner or small part of the barn: 5
points; Nowhere: 10 points.
FREE STALLS:
Cows are clean (5 points):
From clean to dirty: give 5 - 0 points.
Bedding is made of inorganic material (5 points):
If the bedding is made of sand or another inorganic, non absorbing, material: 5
points, else 0.
Bedding is soft (10 points (or -10):
Perform the knee test. Good result: 10 points; moderate 5 points; painful 0
points. If there is no bedding (hard concrete, do not perform a knee test!) – 10
points.
Bedding is clean / dry ( 10 points):
Clean and dry stalls: 10 points; some dirty stalls: 5 points; many stalls dirty: 0
points.
Stall surface is under a slight angle (5 points):
The angle should be between 3 and 7˚.
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
29
Bedding is flat (5 points (or -5)):
Nice and smooth surface: 5 points. If there are object popping through the
bedding (car tyres) or when there are large holes and an irregular surface: -5
points
Withers bar (5 points):
If the withers bar is not shiny > 95% of the free stalls: 5 points. If it is shiny in 520% of the stalls: 3 points. When > 20% of the stall has a shiny withers bar: 0
points.
Lunge space (10 points):
If there is ample lunge space: 10 points. Less, but still usable lunge space: 5
points. No lunge space: 0 points.
Length / width of the stall (10 points):
Stalls need to be of the right size. This is depending on the size of the cows. For
Dutch HF cattle this means for wall-side rows: 270 x 120 cm; double (head to
head) or inside (with an open head side) rows: 245 x 120. If the size meets the
need of the cows 10 points; a bit too small: 5 points; too small: 0 points.
Brisket board (5 points):
No brisket board: 5 points; Smooth, rounded rubber tube: 2 points; hard rough
wooden board: 0 points. If there is a tube hanging on two chains (‘variable
brisket board’): 5 points.
Number (–10 points):
More or equal to the number of cows, 0 points. With 10% more cows than stalls:
–5 points; If there is 20% or more overcrowding: –10 points.
FLOOR:
Slipperiness (10 points):
The floor should provide sufficient grip: 10 points. When slippery: 0 points.
Loose / unequal slats (10 points):
If there are many loose and/or slats with rough edges: 0 points; For a smooth
floor: 10 points.
Rubber (10 points):
If > 50% of the floor is covered with rubber: 10 points; 25 – 50 %: 7 points; 10
– 25 %: 5 points.
Walking (10 points):
If the cows walk with a firm stride: 10 points; cautious, slow, walking: 0 points.
Cleanliness (5 points):
Clean floor: 5 points; Dirty floor: 0 points.
FEEDING FENCE:
Head gates ( 1 points):
With head gates 0 points. Only a rail, without head gates, 1 point
Height (1 points):
The height should be sufficient for the cows present, than 1 point. If not, 0 points
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
30
Number of places (3 points):
The number of places should be at least the same as the number of cows (3
points). When there is 10% overcrowding, 1 point. When there is 20%
overcrowding, 0 point.
Contamination of food (-3 points):
If food contains any undesirable debris it may affect cow’s health and comfort
(wires, plastic containers, etc.); food must be free of any objects and look
suitable for cows. If food looks “good” give 0 points, if it looks “bad” 3 points.
WATER:
Number of waterers (10 points):
Per 10 cows there should be 1 drinking space. There should be at least 2 locations
in the barn because of dominant cows. If these conditions are met: 10 points.
Type (5 points):
A large waterer: 5 points, small waterers: 0 points.
Cleanliness (5 points):
If the water is clean: 5 points
Temperature (5 points):
Luke warm water (15-25 °C): 5 points, cold water: 0 points.
WAITING ROOM AND MILKING PARLOR:
Behaviour (3 points):
Are the cows quiet ? 0-3 points.
Time (2 points):
Are there cows that have to wait > 1 hr before milking? (Yes, 0 points; No, 2
points)
ALLEYS AND WALKWAYS:
Width of the walkway before the feeding fence (-2 - 2 points):
This should be wide enough to let two cows pass in opposite directions behind an
eating cow. This is, in general, 4 m. > 4 m: 2 points; 3,75-4 m: 1 point; 3,53,75m: 0 points; < 3,5 m: -2 points.
Width other walkways and alleys (2 points):
These paths need to be >3 m. If so: 2 points; 2,5-3m: 1 point; <2,5m, 0 points.
Sufficient passages (1 point):
Cows need to be able to cross rows of cubicle easily. They need not to walk for
more than 15 cubicles. One passage per 10-15 cubicles: 1 point; > 15: 0 points.
(NB In two row barns this item can be skipped)
MISCELLANEOUS:
Maternity pen (3 points):
Contact with other cows
Ample bedding (straw)
Clean
Enough space
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
31
Sick bay (2 points):
Contact with other cows
Ample bedding (straw)
Clean
Enough space
Access to pasture / outside paddock (20 points):
Do the cows have access to pasture?
At all times
During the summer, day and night
During the summer at night
Is it mandatory or voluntarily?
Do the cows have shade in the pasture during hot summer days?
Is there a (mechanical) brush ? (15 points):
If there is a brush: 5 points
If there is a mechanical brush: 15 points
ANIMAL (HEALTH):
Hair ( 5 points):
Shaved/not shaved; hair that is upright; shiny; lesions; etc.
Lameness (-25 - 25 points):
Here cow-cases per year are indicated. So do not count repeated cases twice
>80% per year -> -25 points
60-80% per year -> -20 points
40-60% per year -> -15 points
25-40% per year -> -10 points
15-25% per year -> 0 points
10-15% per year -> 10 points
< 10% per year -> 25 points
Thick hocks (-60 - 20 points):
A hock can be thicker through bone formation. In such cases the cow is not
harmed at that moment. The thickness is most probably caused by repeated
trauma and an indication for reduced lying comfort.
>80% per year -> -10 points
60-80% per year -> -8 points
40-60% per year -> -5 points
25-40% per year -> -2 points
15-25% per year -> 0 points
10-15% per year -> 5 points
< 10% per year -> 10 points
The hock can also be thicker with soft ‘tissue’. If the entire leg is inflamated,
count this cow as 5 cows.
>80% per year -> -50 points
60-80% per year -> -40 points
40-60% per year -> -30 points
25-40% per year -> -20 points
15-25% per year -> -10 points
10-15% per year -> 0 points
5-10% per year -> 5 points
<5% per year -> 10 points
If at > 50% of the hocks erosions are visible: - 10 points, at 25-50%, - 5 points,
at <25% no extra withdrawal of points.
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
32
Thick carpi (-60 - 20 points):
A carpus can be thicker through bone formation. In such cases the cow is not
harmed at that moment. The thickness is most probably caused by repeated
trauma and an indication for reduced lying comfort.
>80% per year -> -10 points
60-80% per year -> -8 points
40-60% per year -> -5 points
25-40% per year -> -2 points
15-25% per year -> 0 points
10-15% per year -> 5 points
< 10% per year -> 10 points
The carpus can also be thicker with soft ‘tissue’. If the entire leg is inflamated,
count this cow as 5 cows.
>80% per year -> -50 points
60-80% per year -> -40 points
40-60% per year -> -30 points
25-40% per year -> -20 points
15-25% per year -> -10 points
10-15% per year -> 0 points
5-10% per year -> 5 points
<5% per year -> 10 points
If at > 50% of the carpi erosions are visible: - 10 points, at 25-50%, - 5 points,
at <25% no extra withdrawal of points.
Claws (20 points):
Look at form, angle and standing. (Perfect claws get 20 points, poor ones: 0
points) When there are serious problems, the cows will walk lame. (So you will
score them there as well). In general, cows with painful claws will be treated and
therefore most cows will not have painful claws during the assessment.
Mastitis (-15 - 15 points):
Take into account the number of cow-cases per year. If a cow is considered
healthy and after 14 days has a clinical case again, consider this as a new case.
>80% per year -> -15 points
60-80% per year -> -10 points
40-60% per year -> -5 points
25-40% per year -> -3 points
15-25% per year -> 0 points
10-15% per year -> 5 points
5-10% per year -> 10 points
<5% per year -> 15 points
Abomasal dislocations (-15 - 10 points):
>15% / year -> -15 points
10-15% per year -> -10 points
5-10% per year -> -5 points
0-5% per year -> 0 points
0% per year -> 10 points
Filling of the rumen (-10 – 5 points):
What is the general impression of all cows? Take a sample of 3 cows in each
lactation stage.
Bad –10 points
sufficient 0 points
Good 5 points
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
33
Milk fever (-10 - 5 points):
>15% / year -> -10 points
10-15% per year -> -5 points
5-10% per year -> -2 points
0-5% per year -> 0 points
0% per year -> 5 points
Cases in cows < 4 years count twice.
Acetonemia (-15 - 5 points):
>15% / year -> -15 points
10-15% per year -> -10 points
5-10% per year -> -5 points
0-5% per year -> 0 points
0% per year -> 5 points
BCS (15 points):
Calculate the average BCS for the dry cows over a year. They represent the result
of the previous lactation and provide an indication of the level of NEB post
partum.
If the BCS is determined and the average is at the desired level, 15 points. For
deviations of 0.5 points (up or down) 5 points reduction. If the deviation is > 1
point: 0 points. BCS can be determined in a (random) sample of 5 (dry)cows,
when not determined regularly. The desired level may vary per country and
breed.
Fat % in the milk (15 points)
Calculate the average % of fat in the milk for the first 3 weeks of lactation.
Compare this with the average level for the breed and the country. If the level on
the farm differs > 1% give 0 points; 0.5-1% give 7 points; < 0.5% 15 points.
Fertility (-10 - 25 points):
What is the impression of the fertility after working out the various indices? Good
–> 25 points; reasonable –> 15 points; poor -> –5 points; bad -> –10 points.
Calving (15 points):
% of cases that needed assistance
>15% / year -> 0 points
10-15% per year -> 5 points
5-10% per year -> 10 points
0-5% per year -> 15 points
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
34
Appendix 3: Questionnaire Cow comfort score system
Ημερομηνία :
Date:
ID:…………
CONFIDENTIAL DATA
ΟΛΑ ΤΑ ΠΑΡΑΚΑΤΩ ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΑ ΘΑ ΔΙΑΤΗΡΗΘΟΥΝ ΑΥΣΤΗΡΩΣ ΕΜΠΙΣΤΕΥΤΙΚΑ
1. Πόσα ζώα έχει η μονάδα;
How many animals are in the herd?
2. Πόσα από τα ζώα είναι σε περίοδο γαλακτοπαραγωγής;
How many lactating cows are in the herd?
3. Πόσα από τα ζώα είναι στην ξηρή περίοδο;
How many non-lactating cows are in the herd?
4. Πόσα ζώα είχατε με προβλήματα στα πόδια την τελευταία χρονιά;
How many animals had problems with their legs last year?
5. Πόσα περιστατικά μαστίτιδας παρουσιάσθηκαν κατά την τελευταία χρονιά;
How many animals had mastitis problems last year?
6. Πόσα κιλά γάλα παράγει μια αγελάδα το χρόνο;
Kg milk per year per cow?
7. Πρωτείνες (%) παραγόμενου γάλακτος
Milk proteins (%)
8. Λιπαρά (%) του παραγόμενου γάλακτος;
Milk fat (%)
9. Πως συμπεριφέρονται τα ζώα στην αρμεγή;
How the cows behave at milking?
Α) Ήσυχα, εύκολοι οι χειρισμοί
They are calm, easy handling
Β) Ανήσυχα, δύσκολοι οι χειρισμοί
They are not calm, difficult handling
10. Πόσες ώρες κάνετε για να οδηγήσετε τα ζώα στο αμελκτήριο και για να τα
αρμέξετε;
How many hours does it take to drive the cows at the milking area and to finish
milking with all animals?
11. Πόσα ζώα γέννησαν με τη βοήθεια κτηνίατρου την τελευταία χρονιά;
How many cows gave births with the help of a veterinarian last year?
12. Πόσα ζώα ήταν άρρωστα την τελευταία χρονιά μετά τον τοκετό ;
How many cows got sick after birth last year?
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
35
13. Αφήνετε τα φώτα ανοιχτά στους στάβλους το βράδυ; ΝΑΙ
ΟΧΙ
Do you keep lights on inside the stable at night?
14. Πόσα ζώα παρουσίασαν συμπτώματα κέτωσης κατά την περασμένη χρονιά;
How many animals had ketosis symptoms last year?
15. Ηλικία αγελάδας στην πρώτη οχεία
Age at the first insemination (months)
μήνες
16. Ηλικία αγελάδας στον πρώτο τοκετό
Age at first birth (months)
μήνες
17. Χρονικό διάστημα μεταξύ τοκετού και πρώτου οίστρου
Time between birth and first oestrus (days)
ημέρες
18. Χρονικό διάστημα μεταξύ τοκετού και πρώτης οχείας
Time between birth and first insemination (days)
ημέρες
19. Χρονικό διάστημα μεταξύ τοκετού και νέας σύλληψης
Time between birth and new pregnancy (days)
ημέρες
20. Διάστημα μεταξύ δύο διαδοχικών τοκετών
Time between two births (months)
μήνες
21. Αριθμός σπερματεγχύσεων για μία σύλληψη
Number of inseminations for one pregnancy
22. Ποσοστό(%) σύλληψης μετά την πρώτη σπερματέγχυση
Percentage (%) of pregnancy after the first insemination
23. Ποσοστό (%) αποβολών
Percentage (%) of abortions
24. Ποσοστό (%) γέννησης θνησιγενών ή νεκρών μοσχαριών
Percentage (%) of still-born or dead calves
25. Σωματικό βάρος μόσχων στη γέννηση
Weight of calves at birth (kg)
κιλά
26. Μέση ημερήσια αύξηση μοσχαριών κατά την περίοδο της γαλουχίας τους
Daily growth rate of calves at suckling period
27. Σωματικό βάρος μοσχαριών κατά τον απογαλακτισμό
Weight of calves at weaning (kg)
κιλά
28. Παρακαλώ συμπληρώστε τον παρακάτω τύπο
Please fulfill the following :
Μέσος όρος ηλικίας αγελάδας (σε ημέρες)/ Αριθμός τοκετών
Average age (days)/number of births
29. Πόσο χρόνο αφήνετε τις αγελάδες στη βοσκή;
How much time do the animals forage in pasture area?
ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΟΥΜΕ ΘΕΡΜΑ ΓΙΑ ΤΗ ΣΥΝΕΡΓΑΣΙΑ ΣΑΣ!
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
36
Appendix 4: Selecting dairy for assessment Welfare Quality
protocol
For some of the measures, random sampling is required. This is indicated in the
description of the measures. Check the current number of animals and determine
the sample size according to the following table.
Herd Size
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
Number of animals
to score (Suggestion A)
30
30
33
37
41
44
47
49
52
54
55
57
59
60
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
70
71
72
72
73
If A is not feasible
30
30
30
32
35
37
39
40
42
43
45
46
47
48
48
49
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
54
55
55
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
37
Appendix 5: Blank form Welfare Quality protocol
CLINICAL SCORING
Eartag no.
Breed
Body condition score
dairy
dual purpose
2
0
1
Cleanliness
Legs
Flank
Udder
Integument
Tarsus
Hindquarter
Neck/shoulder/back
Carpus
Flank/side/udder
Other
Clinical signs
Nasal discharge
Ocular discharge
Hampered respiration
Diarrhoea
Vulvar discharge
Lameness
0
0
0
Hairless
2
2
2
Lesion
X
X
X
Swelling
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
1
X
X
X
X
X
2
1
dual purpose
2
Eartag no.
Breed
Body condition score
0
Cleanliness
Legs
0
Flank
0
Udder
0
Integument
Hairless
Tarsus
Hindquarter
Neck/shoulder/back
Carpus
Flank/side/udder
Other
Clinical signs
Nasal discharge
0
Ocular discharge
0
Hampered respiration
0
Diarrhoea
0
Vulvar discharge
0
Lameness
0
dairy
2
2
2
Lesion
X
X
X
Swelling
2
2
2
2
2
1
X
X
X
X
X
2
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
38
Appendix 6: Questionnaire Welfare Quality protocol
Ημερομηνία :
Date:
ID:…………
3. Αριθμός ζώων
Ποιος είναι κατά μέσο όρο ο αριθμός των αρμεγόμενων αγελάδων και των
μοσχίδων (βρίσκονται στον ίδιο στάβλο με τις αρμεγόμενες αγελάδες) που έχει
η εκτροφή;
………………. ζώα
1. Έξοδος στη βοσκή
Για πόσο χρόνο κατά μέσο όρο τα ζώα έχουν πρόσβαση στη βοσκή;
………………. ημέρες / έτος (0-365); ώρες/ημέρα
2. Πρόσβαση σε προαύλιο
Για πόσο χρόνο κατά μέσο όρο τα ζώα έχουν πρόσβαση σε προαύλιο χώρο;
………………. ημέρες / έτος (0-365); ώρες/ημέρα
3. Δυστοκίες (αν δεν είναι διαθέσιμα στοιχεία από βιβλία εκτροφής)
Πόσες κατά μέσο όρο αγελάδες και μοσχίδες που βρίσκονται στον ίδιο στάβλο
είχαν πρόβλημα δυστοκίας κατά τη διάρκεια του τελευταίου χρόνου;
………………. ζώα
4. Αδυναμία έγερσης (αν δεν είναι διαθέσιμα στοιχεία από βιβλία εκτροφής)
Πόσες κατά μέσο όρο αγελάδες και μοσχίδες που βρίσκονται στον ίδιο στάβλο
είχαν πρόβλημα να σηκωθούν από την καθιστή στάση κατά τη διάρκεια του
τελευταίου χρόνου;
………………. ζώα
5. Ποσοστά θνησιμότητας (αν δεν είναι διαθέσιμα στοιχεία από βιβλία
εκτροφής)
Πόσες αγελάδες και μοσχίδες που βρίσκονται στον ίδιο στάβλο ψόφησαν ή
αξιοποιήθηκαν λόγω ασθένειας ή ατυχημάτων κατά τη διάρκεια του τελευταίου
χρόνου;
………………. ζώα
6. Κοπή ‘κεράτων’ σε νεαρά ζώα/αποκεράτωση
Σε πόσα από τα ζώα έγινε κοπή κεράτων/αποκεράτωση;
Συνήθως γίνεται αποκεράτωση στα ζώα της εκτροφής;
Αν ναι:
κοπή ‘κεράτων’ στα νεαρά ζώα:
……..%
ναι
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
όχι
39
Ηλικία:…………………εβδομάδες
Μέθοδος:
καυτηριασμός
καυστική
‘πάστα’
Αν ναι:
Αναλγητικά
ναι
Αποκεράτωση:
Ηλικία:…………………εβδομάδες/μήνες
Αναλγητικά
όχι
ναι
όχι
Αν δεν γίνεται αποκεράτωση στα ζώα στην εκτροφή:
Γνωρίζεται πως γίνεται πως έχει γίνει αποκεράτωση στα ζώα;
ναι
Αν ναι:
όχι
κοπή κεράτων σε νεαρά ζώα:
Ηλικία:…………………εβδομάδες
Μέθοδος:
καυτηριασμός
καυστική
Αναλγητικά
ναι
όχι
‘πάστα’
Αν ναι:
Αποκεράτωση:
Ηλικία:…………………εβδομάδες/μήνες
Αναλγητικά
ναι
όχι
7. Κοπή της ουράς
Σε πόσα από τα ζώα έγινε κοπή της ουράς;
……..%
Η κοπή της ουράς γίνεται στην εκτροφή;
Αν ναι:
ναι
όχι
Ηλικία:…………………εβδομάδες/μήνες
Μέθοδος:
‘λάστιχάκι’
εγχείρηση
Αναλγητικά
yes
no
Αν δεν γίνεται κοπή της ουράς στα ζώα στην εκτροφή:
Γνωρίζεται πως γίνεται πως έχει γίνει η κοπή της ουράς στα ζώα;
ναι
Αν ναι:
όχι
Ηλικία:…………………εβδομάδες/μήνες
Μέθοδος:
Αναλγητικά
‘λάστιχάκι’
ναι
εγχείρηση
όχι
Can we score welfare of cows faster than with the welfare quality protocol?
40