The Relation between Milk
Production and Cow Comfort
in Greece
Drs. M.E. van Gastel
Veterinairy Faculty
Utrecht University
February-July 2010
Index
Index
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Materials and Methods
4. Results
4.1 Milk Production
4.2 Milk Fat Percentage
4.3 Milk Protein Percentage
5. Discussion
5.1 Total Score Cow Comfort Scoring System
5.2 Fat Corrected Milk Production
5.3 Milk Fat Percentage
5.4 Milk Protein Percentage
6. Conclusion
7. References
8. Appendices
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
2
3
4
5
7
7
10
10
11
12
12
13
13
14
15
17
2
1 Abstract
Animal welfare is very important these days. Consumers are more aware of
what they eat and demand for transparency of production of animal
production. Farmers also want their animals to live a good life. It is well known
that poor health and poor housing cause stress to cows and stress will lower
the milk production. So the current idea is that good cow comfort will result in
better milk production.
In this study, the cow comfort of 36 farms was scored using the Cow Comfort
Scoring System and the total score and all chapters and items of this system
were compared with milk production parameters. The parameters used are the
Fat Corrected Milk production (FCM), milk fat percentage and milk protein
percentage.
The total score of the system did not correlate at the 0.05 level with the FCM
(P = 0.096 and R = 0.295). But since the data used for the biggest chapter of
the scoring system, animal health and feeding, was not very reliable, the score
for this chapter was excluded and the trend became more clear and the
correlation larger; the P of FCM goes to 0.073. The correlation between the
total scoring and the milk fat percentage also became larger this way; the P
went from 0.568 to 0.162.
Comparison of the FCM with the cow comfort chapter and items showed
several significances. FCM was significant with the chapter water (P = 0.012;
R = 0.431), the item number of water places (P = 0.015; R = 0.420) and the
item contamination of the feeding (P = 0.008; R = 0.456). There also was a
correlation between FCM and the item claws (P = 0.001; R = 0.536).
Furthermore, there was a negative correlation between FCM and the items
period of light (P = 0.026; R = -0.388) and period of darkness (P = 0.006; R
= -0.470). The milk fat percentage was negatively correlated to the chapter
light (P = 0.013; R = -0.427) and the item sufficient light (P = 0.045; R =
-0.346) and the milk protein percentage was negatively correlated to item
claws (P = 0.023; R = -0.454).
The hypothesis of this study was that the milk production parameters would be
correlated to the total score of the Cow Comfort Scoring System and possibly also
to the different chapters and items of the system. But only a few significant
correlations were observed and some of the correlations are not clear yet. This is
because during this study, only 36 farms could be scored. To draw proper
conclusions, a larger number of farms is necessary.
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
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. 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
her environment, this causes stress (27). The stress induces different behavioural
and physiological responses, which may influence the cow’s wellbeing negatively
(12). This can have a negative influence on the animal’s health and fertility and
can result in a decrease in milk production. It is, therefore, 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. 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 (12). Poor stall design also accounts for the incidence
of physical injuries such as leg and claw problems (11).
Decreased cow comfort causes stress. Stress will lower the milk production. 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 (22, 23). If cows are not lying down enough, milk
production and health performance are at risk. Furthermore, the mammary blood
flow is increased during lying with respectively 25%, according to Metcalf et al.
(13) or 50%, according to Rulquin et al. (21) which is correlated with milk yield
(14, 20).
A decreased cow comfort goes together with all kinds of health problems. One of
the major health problems in dairy farms nowadays is lameness. Lameness can
lower the milk production significantly. According to Warnick et al. (26), lame
cows produce 1,5 kg of milk per day less during at least 2 weeks than cows that
have no problems with their legs.
The purpose of this study is to investigate if there is a direct relation between
milk production and cow comfort. To understand how cow comfort inhibits milk
production, a cow-comfort score is designed, knowing ‘Score for cow comfort on
the dairy farm’ (5). This instrument consists of monitoring the body language and
behaviour of cows and a scoring of the environment in which the dairy cows are
housed. The study was applied before in The Netherlands en Mexico (8).
This study was performed in the northern part of Greece during February and
March 2010 by two investigators and was combined with another study. A
random sample of thirty-six farms were visited, the size of the farms differed
from 40 to 641 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 results of the scoring
system were compared to the milk production of all farms tested. The hypothesis
is that there is a correlation between cow comfort and milk production on Greek
farms as well.
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
4
3
Material and Methods
In the present study, the milk production parameters, knowing milk 305 days
production, milk fat percentage, milk protein percentage and average lactation,
were compared to the items of the cow comfort scoring system, with the
expectation to find correlations between the milk production parameters and cow
comfort.
The study was performed in the northern part of Greece during February and
March 2010 by two investigators. Thirty-six farms were visited in a period of 6
weeks. The size of the farms ranged from 40 to 641 dairy cows. For the scoring,
the system ‘Score for cow comfort on the dairy farm’ was used (5). This system
was applied before in investigations in The Netherlands en Mexico (8). Before
going to Greece, the investigators were trained to apply the system on farms.
Because the cow-comfort score is designed for Holstein Friesian cows and has to
be applied on barns with cubicles, only farms with this breed and this type off
barn were included in the study.
For scoring of the calving interval and parameters concerning milk production, a
Greek questionnaire was made (Appendix 1). The milk production was corrected
for the fat percentage, to 4.0%.
The farms were scored by the two investigators at the same time to minimize
subjective decisions. They had their own task, but were familiar with each others’
chapters and could score them also with the same accuracy.
Eleven chapters were scored, which were all subdivided in several items
(Appendix 2). Most points were scored directly by the investigators, but for some
parameters the Greek questionnaire was used (Appendix 1).
Scoring was done by observations of the investigators, if not, this will be
mentioned. The chapters scored are the following:
General
This chapter consists out of several items considering the environment at the
time of scoring and cow behaviour. Points 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.
Light
For this chapter three items were scored, sufficient light in the barn, period of
light and period of dark. The periods of light and darkness were questioned to the
farmer, the sufficiency of light was judged by an investigator.
Ventilation
The items scored for this chapter consider the ventilation and climate of the barn.
Because of the use of open barns in Greece, the use of a smoke generator to test
the ventilation was not necessary.
Cubicles / Free stalls
The cubicles of the stall were scored for eleven different items. Several items
considered the size of the cubicle, for this scoring a tapeline was used.
Next to the size of the cubicles, the bedding was also scored, using items like
material and cleanliness of the bedding. To test the softness and dryness of the
bedding a knee-test was performed if this could be done without causing injuries
to the investigators.
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
5
Floor
The floor was scored for its slipperiness and cleanliness, loose or unequal slats, if
it was covered with rubber and the walking of the cows. The scoring was done by
observations.
Feeding fence
The number of feeding places was counted when head gates are 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 65cm of space per cow. The height of the
feeding fence and the contamination of the feeding were also scored.
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 65cm per place.
Waterers were also scored for type, cleanliness and the temperature of the water.
Waiting room and milking parlor
The items scored for this chapter are behaviour during milking and milking time.
These scorings were made on the basis of the questionnaire.
Alleys and walkways
For this chapter three items considering 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 chapter consists of four items, knowing maternity pen, sick bay, access to
pasture/outside paddock and the presence of a (motorized) brush.
Animal (health and feeding)
Twelve items were scored, all considering the cow’s health and her body condition
score. Most items were scored on basis of the questionnaire, but some points, like
hair, body condition score and filling of the rumen were scored by observations.
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 through summarising 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 was used.
With correlation, the strength and the direction of the connection were
determined. This was reproduced by a non-parametric Spearman correlationtest, with values between -1 and +1. For each combination of two variables
the two-tailed significance with a reliability of 99% and 95% was determined
(18).
Milk production variables were compared to all items and all chapters of the cow
comfort score and with the total scores of the farms. The chapters and items of
the scoring system were also compared to each other.
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
6
4
Results
For all farms, an average of the scores of all items of the cow comfort scoring
system was calculated, as well as averages of the milk production parameters
and the calving interval (Table 1).
Chapter / Parameter
Number of Milking Cows
Mean
154.2
Standard Deviation
General
-5.1
11
Light
-14.4
3.9
Ventilation
42
6.6
Cubicles / Free stalls
42.6
11.6
Floor
26
5.5
Feeding Fence
8.1
3.6
Water
16.9
3.7
Waiting Room / Milking Parlor
2.6
1.3
Walkways and Alleys
2.7
1.9
Miscellaneous
10.3
9.6
Animal (Health and Feeding)
99.8
45.2
Total Score
215.9
97.3
Fat Corrected Milk Production (liters)
8911.2
1114.0
Milk Fat %
4.05
.194
Milk protein %
3.47
.222
117.8
Table 1: Mean values and standard deviations
4.1 Milk Production
There was no significant correlation between the total score of the Cow Comfort
Scoring System and the Fat Corrected Milk production (FCM), P = 0.096 and R =
0.295. The total score also did not correlate with the milk fat percentage (P =
0.568 ; R = 0.103 ) and milk protein percentage (P = 0.473; R = -0.150).
Since the data about the chapter animal (health and feeding) did not seem very
reliable, this chapter was excluded for the statistically analysis. Excluding this
chapter, there was still no correlation between FCM and the total score, but the
trend became more clear and the correlation larger (P = 0.073; R = 0.361, see
table 2).
Variable
FCM
FCM without health
Milk fat%
Milk fat% without health
Milk protein%
Milk
protein%
without
health
Significance P
0.096
0.073
0.568
0.162
0.473
0.921
Correlationcoefficient R
0.295
0.361
0.103
0.249
-0.150
-0.021
Table 2: Significance and Correlationcoeficcient of milk production parameters, with and
without chapter health
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
7
The fat corrected milk production (FCM) was higher when farms scored higher for
the chapter water and when cows had access to more water places. The
contamination of the feeding, which concerns the quality of the feeding and the
contamination of it with plastic, also influenced the FCM (Figure 1.1 and 1.2).
water + number of water
places
FCM vs water + number of water places
25
water
20
no. water plac es
15
Lineair (water)
10
Lineair (no. water
plac es)
5
0
0
5000
10000
15000
FCM
Figure 1.1 Fat Corrected Milk Production versus the scoring for the chapter water and the
item number of water places
Spearman, water: P = 0.012; R = 0.431, number of water places: P = 0.015; R = 0.420
FCM vs contamination feeding
contamination feeding
0,5
0
0
5000
10000
15000
-0,5
contamination
feeding
-1
Lineair
(contamination
feeding)
-1,5
-2
-2,5
FCM
Figure 1.2 Fat Corrected Milk production versus contamination of the feeding
Spearman: P = 0.008; R = 0.456
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
8
In addition, both the period of dark and the period of light in the barn influenced
the milk production. The optimal period of light according to the scoring system is
more then 15 hours. The shorter the period, the fewer the points scored.
For darkness, 8 hours of total darkness is the optimum, both a longer and a
shorter period scored fewer points.
FCM vs period light + period dark
period light + period dark
12
10
Period light
8
Period dark
6
Lineair (Period dark)
4
Lineair (Period light)
2
0
-2
0
5000
10000
15000
FCM
Figure 1.3 Fat Corrected Milk production versus the period of light and the period of dark
Spearman, period of light: P = 0.026; R = -0.388, period of dark: P = 0.006; R = -0.470
Furthermore, the condition of the claws also correlated with the FCM. The better
the claws, the higher the milk production was.
FCM vs claws
25
claws
20
15
Claws
Lineair (Claws)
10
5
0
0
5000
10000
15000
FCM
Figure 1.5 Fat Corrected Milk production versus the scoring for the condition of the claws
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
9
Spearman: P = 0.011; R = 0.439
4.2 Milk Fat Percentage
The milk fat percentage was negatively correlated to the chapter light and the
item sufficient light in the barn.
light total + sufficient light
milk fat% vs light total + sufficient light
30
25
total score light
20
sufficient light
15
Lineair (sufficient
light)
Lineair (total score
light)
10
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
milk fat%
Figure 2.1 Milk fat percentage versus light and sufficient light in the barn
Spearman, light: P = 0.013; R = -0.427, sufficient light in the barn: P = 0,045; R = -0.346
4.3 Milk Protein Percentage
There was a negative correlation between the milk protein percentage and the
claws of the cows. If the condition of the claws was better, the protein percentage
in the milk was lower.
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
10
milk protein% vs claws
25
claws
20
15
Claws
Lineair (Claws)
10
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
milk protein%
Figure 3.1 Milk protein percentage versus claws
Spearman: P = 0.023; R = -0.454
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
11
5
Discussion
To collect reliable data about the health status at the farm, farmers need an
organized administration. Only one third of the farmers used their administration
to fill in the Greek questionnaire (Appendix 1), at all the other farms no
administration was used, because it was not available. Furthermore, even if farms
used an administration, not all data were considered as reliable.
5.1 Total Score Cow Comfort Scoring System
Results of the current study indicate that there was no statistically significant
correlation between total score of the Cow Comfort Scoring System and the milk
production parameters, which are the fat corrected milk production (FCM), milk
fat percentage and milk protein percentage (see table 2). Only a trend could be
observed. A possible explanation for these results is the poor administration of
most Greek farmers. As mentioned earlier, most farmers did not use a proper
administration to fill in the Greek questionnaire. Most items of the chapter ‘animal
(health + feeding)’ were scored by using the questionnaire and on most farms,
the questions were not checked by any form of administration. This chapter is the
biggest of the scoring system, with a maximum score of 200 out of the 500
points. To check if this explanation is correct, a second analysis was made,
excluding the chapter ‘animal (health + feeding)’. After doing this, still no
statistically significant correlation at the 0.05 level between the cow comfort
scoring system and the FCM, milk fat percentage and milk protein percentage was
found (see table 2). However, the trend became more clear and the correlation
larger; the P of FCM goes from 0.096 to 0.073 and the P of milk fat percentage
from 0.568 to 0.162 after removing the chapter health of the scoring system.
During a comparable study in Mexico, investigators did find a correlation between
the milk production and the total score of the CCSS (8). In this study,
primiparous cows were analysed separately. This because older cows can be more
adapted to negative circumstances of a certain farm. If a primiparous cow can not
cope with a poor cow comfort and she will get health problems, she will be culled
more rapidly. Older cows thus survived better under the level of cow comfort on a
farm, which can bias the results of this study. Because of the poor administration
on the farms visited, a separation between primiparous and multiparous cows
was not possible to make. Therefore, if a comparable study will be done, it would
be better to only use farms with a proper administration, so the data of heifers
and multiparous cows can be separated. This, however, induces another possible
confounder, namely that fact that the farms studied then, will be the better farms
only. Only the good farms keep an administration.
If a comparable study will be done again in Greece, it would be better to make
sure that more farms can be scored. During this study, only 36 farms could be
scored because of lack of time and lack of stalls with cubicles. The cow comfort
scoring system is designed to use on farms with cubicles, but this type of stables
is not very common in Greece. Therefore, if the system is going to be used again
in Greece, it would be better to make some changes so it also can be used on
farms with other housing systems. Moreover, in Greece cubicles are used on new
and good farms. This gives relatively small differences in results between all
farms.
In addition, during a next study, it would be better to score the farms during
warmer months. This study was performed during February and March which are
two of the coldest months of the year. Normally, during seven to eight months of
the year it is warmer than during the study. For example during July, the average
temperature is more than 30 ˚C, while the optimal temperature range for a high
producing dairy cow is between -25 ˚C and +15 ˚C (6). Especially high producing
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
12
cows are sensitive to heat stress, because of their high feed intake and
metabolism (10). A couple of farms, scored during this study, used cooling
systems with sprinklers and mechanical ventilation. But those were not in use
during the study, because of the relatively low temperature. If the study was
performed during summer and the cooling systems were used, there would be
bigger variations between farms. Collier et al. (3) showed that the milk
production of dairy cows is improved through enhancing the cow comfort by the
use of cooling systems.
5.2 Fat Corrected Milk Production
As mentioned above, 36 farms were visited for this investigation, which is a
rather small number. To get proper results, it would be better to score more
farms, especially because there are many factors which influence the milk
production. For example, water and food supply is very important for a milk
producing cow. If the quality of the food is not good, a cow will eat less and it is
generally accepted that reduced nutrient intake is primarily responsible for the
drop in milk production (1, 7). A high producing cow drinks up to 150litres a day,
it is therefore necessary that she has access to enough clean and fresh water.
This study also shows the influence of water and food on milk production. The
score for the chapter water and the item number of water places both showed a
positive significant correlation (water: P = 0.012; R = 0.431, number of water
places: P = 0.015; R = 0.420) and FCM was also correlated to the item
contamination of the feeding (P = 0.008; R = 0.456).
The condition of the claws was also positively correlated to the FCM. This
corresponds with results of other investigations. Bicalho et al. (2) estimated the
losses of milk production associated with lameness on 314 till 424 kg/cow per
305-d lactation. Furthermore, Gröhn et al (9) reported that generally it was not a
short-term disorder and often chronic and recurring. Therefore, the effect of
lameness on milk production could be a long-term effect and could be even
greater then mentioned by Bicalho et al. Warnick et al. (26) also reported a drop
in milk production when cows were lame. They reported a drop of 1.5 kg/day for
at least 2 weeks in one herd and a drop of 0.8 kg a day in the first two weeks and
0.5 kg/day in week 3 and more in a second herd. The loss in milk production also
differed with the cause of lameness, sole ulcers or foot rot tended to give a larger
decrease in production then foot rot or foot warts.
This drop in milk production will cause a serious loss of income for the farmer. It
is therefore of great importance to trim claws frequently and to treat lame cows.
In this study, FCM was negatively correlated to the period of dark and the period
of light. As reviewed by Dahl et al. (4), the optimal period of light should be at
least fifteen hours and there should be eight hours of total darkness. The dark
period is necessary to rest and a long photoperiod will give an increase in milk
yield. The 16 hours light, 8 hours dark light regimen was already reported in 1978
(16) and confirmed by a large number of authors since then (4).
The results of this study showed the contrary; there was a negative correlation
between the FCM and both the period of light and the period of dark (period of
light: P = 0.026; R = -0.388, period of dark: P = 0026; R = -0.470). This
difference probably is a result of a lack of proper data. As mentioned before, the
administration of most farmers was poor. For most farmers, it was not clear how
many hours of darkness and how many hours of light there were in the barn, so
they estimated both parameters.
5.3 Milk Fat Percentage
Milk fat percentage was negatively correlated to both the chapter light (P =
0.013; R = -0.0427) and the item sufficient light (P = 0.045; R = -0.346).
According to Stanisiewski et al. (25), cows exposed to supplemental light had
0.16% less fat in their milk then herd mate controls and according to Philips et al.
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
13
(19), the drop was 0.18%. The period is included in the chapter light used in this
investigation, but was not correlated to the milk fat percentage.
During these studies, the influence of the intensity of the light on milk fat was not
investigated, but the lights used to increase the period of light were artificial and
had a larger intensity then natural light in the barn (25).
Other authors did not find a drop in milk fat percentage when the period of light
in the barn was longer (4, 16, 17).
More data should be available to draw proper conclusions about the correlation
between light and the milk fat percentage. To know if there is a correlation
between the intensity of light and milk fat percentage, a Lux-meter could be
used. During the present study, intensity was determined by judging the light in
the complete stable. The intensity of the light should be high enough to be able to
reed a newspaper in the stable. This way, a proper judgement could be made, but
measuring the intensity with a Lux-meter would be more accurate.
5.4 Milk Protein Percentage
The milk protein percentage was negatively correlated to the item claws (P =
0.023; R = -0.454), so the milk protein percentage was less when the condition
of the claws was better. No such results are known yet. Nishimori et al. (15)
found that trimming of the hooves once had no effect on the milk protein
percentage, although the composition of the proteins did change. And SicilianoJones et al (24) found that giving the cows trace minerals, which improve the
health of the claws, with the feed even caused an increase in milk protein
percentage, which is contrary to the results of this study. It was not known if this
increase was caused by the trace minerals directly or because of the better
condition of the claws. During the present study the milk protein percentage of
only 25 farms could be scored, which is enough to give a good indication of
influences. But to draw proper conclusions, more data are necessary. So when a
comparable study will be done again in Greece, it would be better to collect more
data about the milk protein percentage.
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
14
6
Conclusion
The results show multiple significant correlations, but only a trend for the
correlation between the total score for the Cow Comfort Scoring system and the
milk production was found. There was also no correlation at the 0,05 level
between the total score and the other milk production parameters, although, after
excluding the chapter ‘animal health and feeding’, the trend became clearer and
the correlation larger; the P of FCM went from 0.096 to 0.073 and the R from
0.295 to 0.361. The P of milk fat percentage went from 0.568 to 0.162 and the R
from 0.103 to 0.249.
Further research would be recommended using more farms. As for Greece, the
system to be used for the observations and measurements should be adopted to
the local conditions. Moreover, it would be better to do the scoring there during
warmer months, because in this study no difference could be made between stalls
with cooling systems for the cows and stalls without them, since they were not in
use during the time of scoring.
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
15
7
References
1. Beede D. K., Collier R. J., Potential nutritional strategies for intensively
managed cattle during thermal stress, Journal of Animal Science, 1986,
Vol. 62 (1986) 543–554.
2. Bicalho R.C., Warnick L.D., Guard C.L., Strategies to analyze milk losses
caused by disease with potential incidence throughout the lactation: a
lameness example, Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 91 (2008) 2653-2661
3. Collier R.J., Dahl G.E. and Vanbaale M.J., Major Advances Associated with
Environmental Effects on Dairy Cattle, Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 89
(2006) 1244-1253
4. Dahl G.E., Buchanan B.A., Photoperiodic effect on dairy cattle, a review,
Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 83 (2000) 885-893
5. Eerdenburg, van, FJCM, Cow Comfort Scoring System, november 2009
6. 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.
7. Fuquay J. W., Heat stress as it affects production, Journal of Animal
Science, Vol. 52 (1981) 167–174.
8. Geurtsen A.H.S.M., Wagenaar M., The Relation between Fertility and Cow
Comfort, in Mexican Dairy Cows, Utrecht University 2007.
9. Gröhn Y.T., Mc Dermott J.J., Schukken Y.H., Hertl J.A., Eicker S.W.,
Analysis of correlated continuous repeated observations: modelling the
effect of ketosis on dairy cattle, a review, Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 39
(1999) 137-153
10. Jones G.M., Stallings C.C., Reducing Heat Stress for Dairy Cattle,
Department of Dairy Science, Publication Number 404-200 (1999) Virginia
Tech.
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. Nielsen M.O., Jakobsen K. and Jorgensen J.N., Changes in mammary blood
flow during the lactation period in goats measured by the ultrasound
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
16
Doppler principle, Comparitive Biochemical Physiology A, Vol. 97 (1990)
519-524
15. Nishimori K., Okada K., The effect of one-time hoof trimming on blood
biochemical composition, milk yield, and milk composition in dairy cows,
Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, Vol. 68 (2006) 267-270
16. Peters R.R., Chapin L.T., Supplemental lighting stimulates growth and
lactation in cattle, Science, Vol. 199 (1978) 911-912
17. Peters R.R., Chapin L.T, Milk yield, feed intake, prolactin, growth hormone,
and glucocorticoid response of cows to supplemented light, Journal of
Dairy Science, Vol. 64 (1981) 1671-1678
18. Petrie A., Watson P., Statistics for Veterinary and Animal Science,
Blackwell, Oxford, 2nd ed, 2006
19. Philips C.J.C., The effect of supplementary light on production and
behaviour of dairy cows, Animal Production, Vol. 48 (1989) 293-303
20. 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
21. 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.
22. 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,
Vol. 701 (2001) 716-723
23. 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.
24. Siciliano-Jones J.L., Socha M.T., Effect of trace mineral source on lactation
performance, claw integrity and fertility of dairy cows, Journal of Dairy
Science, Vol. 91 (2008) 1985-1995
25. Stanisiewski E.P., Mellenberger R.W., Effect of Photoperiod on Milk Yield
and Milk Fat in Commercial Dairy Herds, Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 86,
1134-1140
26. Warnick L.D., Janssen D., Guard C.L., Gröhn Y.T., The effect of lameness
on milk production in dairy cows, Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 84 (2001)
1988-1997
27. Tucker C.B., Weary D.M., Fraser D., Free-stall dimensions: effects on
preference and stall usage, Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 87 (2004) 12081216
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
17
8 Appendices
8.1 Appendix 1
Greek Questionnaire
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 roteins (%)
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?
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
18
12. Πόσα ζώα ήταν άρρωστα την τελευταία χρονιά μετά τον τοκετό ;
How many cows got sick after birth last year?
13. Αφήνετε τα φώτα ανοιχτά στους στάβλους το βράδυ; ΝΑΙ
Do you keep lights on inside the stable at night?
ΟΧΙ
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
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
19
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
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
20
8.2 Appendix 2
Score for cow comfort on the dairy farm
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
of points 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, the difference between the score and the minimum needs to be
subtracted from the total score. (Example: If for the chapter General a total of 8
points is scored, 2 points need to be subtracted, because the minimum score is
10. The total score for General will then be 6.)
General
-
Minimum
10
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
-
5
-
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
25
10
5
10
30
It smells fresh (between the animals)
Cobwebs
Condense / mold
Barn temperature
Dead spaces
Draft
Cubicles / Free stalls
points
5
3
3
4
0 (-100)
5 (- 10)
0 (-5)
- Sufficient light in the barn
- Period of light > 15 hr
- Period of dark > 6 hr
Ventilation
Maximum
20
50
5
10
10
10
5
10
40
70
5
5
10 (-10)
10
5
5 (-5)
5
10
10
5
0 (-10)
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
21
Floor
-
Slipperiness
Loose / unequal slats
Rubber
Walking
Cleanliness
Feeding fence
-
6
15
2
3
-
Hair
Lameness
Hocks
Carpus
Claws
Mastitis
Abomasal dislocation
Filling of the rumen
Milking fever
Acetonaemia
BCS
5
2 (-2)
2
1
10
Maternity pen
Sick bay
Access to pasture / outside paddock
Is there a mechanical brush?
Animal (health + feeding)
5
3
2
Width of the alley behind the feeding fence
Width other walkways
Sufficient passages
Miscellaneous
25
10
5
5
5
Behaviour
Time
Walkways and alleys
15
5
3
7
(-3)
Number of places
Type of waterer
Cleanliness
Temperature
Waiting room and milking parlor
45
10
10
10
10
5
Headlocks
Height
Number of places
Contamination
Water
-
20
40
3
2
20
15
100
200
5
25 (-25)
20 (-60)
20 (-60)
20
15 (-15)
10 (-15)
5 (-10)
5 (-10)
5 (-15)
15
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
22
- Fat %
- Fertility
- Calving
15
25 (-10)
15
Explanation:
The scoring should be done at least one hour before or after milking, when the
cows are at rest. If the range is e.g. 0-15 points, all numbers of points in
between can be given as well.
General:
Fear behavior (5 points):
If the cows remain quiet when you enter the barn and make no sudden
movements when you get closer, if they don’t look scared: give 3 points. For
scared animals: 0 points. If the animals approach you (curiously): 5 points.
Stretching when rising from cubicle (3 points):
If a cow lies comfortably, she will stretch before she leaves the cubicle. If she
does so: 3 points; otherwise: 0 points.
Tail is hanging straight and relaxed (3 points):
Stressed cows don’t have a relaxed tail. Excited animals can keep their tail
straight up. The can be a lot of moving tails due to flies. This is impairing the
comfort of the cows. If >90% of the cows have a relaxed, straight tail: 3
points. When you see this in 80-90% of the animals: 2 points, otherwise: 0
points.
Bellowing (4 points):
Restless behaviour is marked by bellowing. Animals in oestrus or with COF
condition will bellow often. When there are no such cows present or < twice
per 30 min: 4 points; twice per 30 min: 2 points, if there is more bellowing
than two times per 30 min: 0 points.
Number of cows standing idle (-100 points):
Cows should only be standing when they eat and should be lying down after
eating. The number of cows standing in walkways or in their cubicles is
therefore a good ‘comfort-indicator’. Cows that are waiting in front of the
concentrate dispenser, however, are not standing idle, they wait. For each
percentage of cows that are standing idle during a quiet period of the day (i.e.
< 1 hr before milking): – 1 point
Cows sleeping in walk ways (-10 - 5points):
Cows should not sleep in the walkways. If they don’t: 5 points. If there is
around 1 % of the cows doing so: 0 points; 5% or 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.
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
23
Light:
Sufficient light in the barn (10 points):
One should be able to read a newspaper easily anywhere in the barn. When
the light intensity is measured it should be > 100 Lux. If so: 10 points. When
there is a moderate level of intensity, or not > 100 Lux in all places: 5 points.
When the level is low or there is bad sight in several places: 0 points.
Period of light > 15 hours (5 points):
When the photoperiod is long, cows feel better. Therefore, > 15 h: 5 points;
12-15 h: 3 points; < 12: 0 points. However, if the (bright) lights are on 24h a
day: 0 points.
Period of dark > 6 hours (10 points):
Rest is important for cattle. A period of darkness (lights out) needs to be
included in the daily routine. The minimum is 6hrs: 2 points; 7hrs: 5 points;
8hrs: 10 points; 9hrs: 7 points; 10hrs: 5 points; and >10hrs: 2 points.
Ventilation:
It smells fresh (5 points):
It should not smell like NH3, H2S, or other toxic gasses. If the smell is strong:
0 points; not so fresh: 2 points. When there is a fresh, pleasant air: 5 points.
This is a parameter for air quality around the animals.
Cobwebs (10 points):
Cobwebs are seen at places with low airflow. If you see many cobwebs: 0
points; a few: 5 points; rare or none: 10 points.
Condense / mould (10 points):
Water condensation along the ceiling or wall is an indication that the relative
humidity is too high. If this occurs 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.
Barn temperature (10 points):
The barn temperature is important for cows. However, it is a complicated
feature to score. The temperature varies during the day and season, and cows
adapt to high temperatures if they are in a hot environment for a prolonged
period of time (or their entire life). It is, therefore, impossible to give a fixed
number or ratio for the scoring system. The barn temperature also reflects the
result and quality of the ventilation. Guidelines for the scoring are presented
below.
For moderate and cool climate zones (e.g. the Netherlands or
Scandinavian countries):
During summer the barn should be cooler than outside:
Difference is
1- 5 ˚C: 5 points
> 5 ˚C: 10 points
If the temperature is 25 - 30 ˚C, subtract 1-5 points; > 30 ˚C, subtract 5-10
points
In winter there shouldn’t be a big difference between inside and outside:
Difference is
0 - 2 ˚C: 10 points
2 - 5 ˚C: 5 points
> 5 ˚C: 0 points
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
24
For hot climate zones (e.g. Mexico or Israel)
If cows have access to shade during the day: 5 points
If there is cooling equipment: 1-5 points more, depending on the number and
quality of the cooling system.
If cows are suffering from heat stress: - 5 points
Dead spaces (5 points):
There shouldn’t 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):
There shouldn’t be any draught or drop of cold air in the barn, as this will
stress the cows. If there is a lot of draught: 0 points; only in a corner or small
part of the barn: 5 points; nowhere: 10 points.
Free stalls/cubicles:
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, draining, non-absorbing,
material: 5 points, else 0. (Concrete is also inorganic but not draining so 0
points)
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 (i.e. hard concrete) do not perform a knee test!
-10 points.
Bedding is clean / dry (10 points):
Clean and dry cubicles: 10 points; some dirty cubicles: 5 points; many dirty
cubicles: 0 points.
Cubicle surface is under a slight angle (5 points):
The angle should be between 3 and 7˚. (Not relevant for thick layers of
sawdust or sand: give 5 points)
Bedding is flat (-5 - 5 points):
Nice and smooth surface: 5 points. If there is an object popping out through
the bedding (e.g. car tires) or when there are large holes and an irregular
surface: -5 points
Withers bar (5 points):
If the withers bar is not shiny in > 95% of the cubicles: 5 points. If it is shiny
in 5-20% of the cubicles: 3 points. When > 20% of the cubicles 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):
Cubicles need to be of the right size. This is dependent on the size of the cows
(see table and figure below). For the average Dutch HF cattle this means: for
wall-side rows: 270 x 120 cm; double (head to head) or inside (with an open
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
25
head side) rows: 245 x 120. If the size meets the need of the cow 10 points;
a bit too small: 5 points; too small: 0 points.
Dimension and location
1. Width center to center of partitions
2. Distance rear of curb to neck rail
3. Distance rear curb to open front
4. Distance rear curb to closed front
5. Clearance rear of curb to rear of
partition
6. Height stall bed to neck rail
7. Clearance beneath side rails for legs
and to block hips
8. Clearance between rails for head
(lunge) space
Animal dimension
Twice hip width
Body length (rear of pin bones to
brisket)
1 – 1¼ body length
1 – 11/3 body length
At paunch height, ½ hip width or less
¾ - 4/5 shoulder height
¾ hip width
Hip width
Free stall dimensions in relation to cow size. From: Irish, W.W. and Merrill,
W.G., Design parameters for freestalls., Dairy Freestall Housing Symposium,
Vol. 24, NRAES, 1986, pp. 45-52.
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):
If the number of cubicles is equal to, or more than, the number of cows: 0
points. With 10% more cows than cubicles: –5 points; If there is 20% or more
overcrowding: –10 points.
Floor:
Slipperiness (10 points):
The floor should provide sufficient grip: 10 points. If slippery: 0 points.
Loose / unequal slats or unequal floor (10 points):
If there are many loose slats and/or slats with rough edges: 0 points; for a
smooth floor: 10 points.
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
26
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; if they walk cautious or slow: 0
points.
Cleanliness (5 points):
Clean floor: 5 points; Dirty floor: 0 points.
Feeding fence:
Head gates (5 points):
With head gates 0 points. A wooden beam, 3 points. Only a metal rail or tube,
without head gates, 5 points
Height (3 point):
The height should be adequate for the cows present, if so: 3 points. If not
(trauma at the neck of several cows): 0 points. And inbetween 1 or 2 points.
Number of places (7 points):
The number of feeding places should at least be the same as the number of
cows
(7 points). When there is 10% overcrowding: 3 points. When
there is 20% overcrowding: 0 points. With automatic milking systems (milking
robot), the need for places at the feeding fence is lower. 20% less than the
number of cows is acceptable (3 points). (65 cm of space on a simple fence is
one place for a cow)
Contamination of food (-3 points):
If food contains any undesirable debris it may affect the cow’s health and
comfort (wires, plastic containers, etc.); food must be free of any inorganic
objects and look suitable for cows. If the food looks “good”: 0 points; if it
looks “bad”: -3 points.
Water:
Number of waterers (10 points):
There should be 1 drinking space available for every 10 cows. (65 cm of space
on a large waterer is 1 drinking place) There should be at least 2 different
drinking 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):
Lukewarm water (15-25 °C): 5 points; cold water: 0 points.
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
27
Waiting room and milking parlor:
Behavior (3 points):
Are the cows quiet? 0-3 points.
Time (2 points):
Are there any cows that have to wait > 1 hr before being milked? (Yes: 0
points; No: 2 points)
Alleys and walkways:
Width of the walkway behind the feeding fence (-2 - 2 points):
This walkway 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; 3,5-3,75m: 0 points; < 3,5 m: -2 points.
Width other walkways and alleys (2 points):
These paths need to be >3 m wide. If so: 2 points; 2,5-3m: 1 point; <2,5m,
0 points.
Sufficient passages (1 point):
Cows need to be able to cross cubicle rows easily. They must not have 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 given the full score of 1 point)
Miscellaneous:
Maternity pen (3 points):
Contact with other cows
Ample bedding (straw)
Clean
Enough space
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 (motorized) brush? (15 points):
If there is a brush: 5 points
If there is a motorized brush: 15 points
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
28
Animal (health & feeding):
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 clinically at that moment. The thickness is mostly 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 case 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 erosions are visible in > 50% of the hocks: - 10 points; in 25-50%: - 5
points;
in <25%: no extra withdrawal of points.
Thick carpi (-60 - 20 points):
The carpus can 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  10 points
<5% per year
 20 points
If erosions are visible in > 50% of the carpi: - 10 points, at 25-50%, - 5
points, at <25% no extra withdrawal of points.
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
29
Claws (20 points):
Look at form, angle and standing position of the claws (perfect claws: 20
points; poor ones: 0 points). When there are serious problems, the cows will
be lame. (So you have to score them for this 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 the number of cow-cases per year into account. If a cow is considered
healthy and reoccurs after 14 days as a clinical case, than 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% per 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? Sample 3 cows of each lactation
stage.
Bad:
-10 points
Sufficient: 0 points
Good:
5 points
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 these double.
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
Body Condition Score (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. When the BCS is determined and the average is equal to the
desired score: 15 points. For deviations of 0.5 points (up or down): 5 points
reduction. If the deviation is > 1 point: 0 points. When not determined
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
30
regularly, the BCS can be determined in a (random) sample of 5 (dry) cows.
The desired score may vary per country and breed.
Fat % in the milk (15 points)
Calculate the average fat percentage in the milk for the first 3 weeks of
lactation. Compare this with the average percentage for the breed and the
country (NL = 4.8%). If the percentage on the farm differs > 1%: 0 points;
0.5-1%: 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 of the veterinarian
>15% / year -> 0 points
10-15% per year -> 5 points
5-10% per year -> 10 points
0-5% per year -> 15 points
The Relation between Milk Production and Cow Comfort in Greece
31