Skip to main content
SLU publication database (SLUpub)

Research article2009Peer reviewed

Scientific opinion on welfare of dairy cows in relation to behaviour, fear and pain based on a risk assessment with special reference to the impact of housing, feeding, management and genetic selection

Algers, Bo; Blokhuis, Harry; Bötner, A; Broom, DM; Costa, P; Domingo, M; Greiner, M; Hartung, J; Koenen, F; Müller-Graf, C; Raj, M; Morton, DB; Osterhaus, A; Pfeiffer, DU; Roberts, R; Sanaa, M; Salman, M; Sharp, JM; Vannier, P; Wierup, Martin

Abstract

Following a request from the European Commission, the AHAW Panel was asked to deliver a Scientific Opinion on the welfare of dairy cows, considering whether current farming and husbandry systems comply with the requirements of and welfare of dairy cows from the pathological, zootechnical, physiological and behavioural points of view. Due to the great diversity of topics and the huge amount of scientific data, it was proposed that separate scientific opinions on different welfare subjects would be more adequate and effective. Therefore, it was agreed to subdivide the risk assessment process into four different subjects: i) metabolic and reproductive disorders, ii) udder disorders, iii) leg and locomotion problems and iiii) behaviour, fear and pain. A fifth scientific opinion integrates conclusions and recommendations from the scientific report with the outcomes from the four separate risk assessments. The scientific opinion on welfare of dairy cows in relation to behaviour, fear and pain, based on a risk assessment with special reference to the impact of housing, feeding, management and genetic selection, was adopted by the AHAW Panel on 05 June 2009. In the risk assessment four different farming scenarios were considered: 1) cubicle houses; 2) tie-stalls; 3) straw yards; 4) pasture. Identified hazards were classified under (a) housing, (b) nutrition and feeding, (c) management and (d) genetics. The risk assessment outcomes for each of these four classes of hazards were determined and the four different farming scenarios compared. When comparing the different farming systems it can be concluded that the risk of suffering behaviour problems, fear and pain can be dependent of the farming systems. In the risk assessment, the risk estimates for behavioural problems, fear and pain associated with housing were generally higher than the risk estimates observed for the other categories of hazards. The risk estimates for behavioural problems, fear and pain associated with housing were highest for tie-stalls and lowest for cows at pasture, and were lower in straw yards than in cubicle housing. According to the scoring system used in this analysis, among the highest ranked hazards in terms of risk estimate in relation to the housing were design of stalls and inadequate bedding in both tie-stalls and cubicle housing. In cubicle houses, inappropriate flooring where cows walk posed the largest risk estimate for behavioural problems whereas having fewer cubicles than cows was the hazard with the largest magnitude of the adverse effect, but the risk estimate was relatively low. Poor air quality was rated as a hazard with a large magnitude of the adverse effect in all types of indoor housing. However, the degree of exposure was low, resulting in low risks for behavioural problems. For cows at pasture, hazards associated with housing have much lower magnitude of the adverse effect than for cows housed indoors. For cows at pasture, the largest risk estimates for behavioural problems were associated with inappropriate temperature and humidity, lack of handling facilities and problems with the milking parlour and waiting areas. The highest ranked hazards associated with straw yards were inadequate bedding, lack of space, zero grazing and inadequate flooring where cows walk. Finally, zero-grazing was rated as a hazard with a large magnitude of the adverse effect on cow behaviour, fear and pain in tie-stalls, straw yards and cubicle housing, but the risk estimate was relatively low. In relation to the use of tie stalls, Panel members concluded that tie-stalls restrict the voluntary movement and social behaviour of dairy cows. When periods of exercise are possible some of the adverse effects are reduced. Therefore, systems of husbandry and management should involve a minimum time of restricted movement in order that all dairy cows are able to meet their need to show certain behaviours such as grooming, social interaction and exercise. While tie-stall use continues, cows should have daily exercise that involves walking freely inside or outside (except where there are adverse climatic conditions) and also the freedom to carry out other behaviours. A minority opinion on the use of tie-stalls was expressed by some Panel members. The risk assessment showed that nutrition and feeding hazards have a lower risk of causing behavioural problems compared with other factors. The risk estimates and magnitudes of the adverse effects of behavioural problems associated with nutrition and feeding were quite similar for cubicle housing, tie-stalls and straw yards; however there were fewer hazards identified for pasture. The highest risk estimate for behavioural problems due to nutrition and feeding was associated with improper ration composition and underfeeding in cubicle houses, tie-stalls and straw yards. However, the magnitudes of the adverse effects were highest for poor feed quality of the roughage, improper ration composition, underfeeding, and improper sensory quality of the water source. As regards the management aspects for dairy cows, the maintenance of stable groups ensures that long-lasting affiliative relationships can continue, reducing the overall stress level in cows. In the risk assessment, the hazard with the highest or second highest magnitude of the adverse effect in the three systems where animals are kept loose was mixing animals from different groups. Husbandry practices should avoid regrouping of dairy cows in order to facilitate continuation of long-lasting social bonds, avoid frequent disruption and provide social stability. If social mixing of dairy cows is unavoidable, stress should be reduced by providing larger space allowance during grouping in buildings or on pasture. Regrouping or mixing on pasture is ideal as it offers space and good flooring. Appropriate management, together with larger space allowance, can minimize social agonistic interactions in the herd in general. When cows have to calve in groups indoors, this may cause disturbance for the cow. An individual calving pen with some visual and auditory contact with other cows gives the cow the best possibility to show normal behaviour and calve without problems. Dairy cows allowed to stay with their calf after birth and separated within 24 h show a mild stress reaction after separation. After the mother-young bond has been established, i.e. 2 days or more, the cow shows a stronger reaction after separation, and this reaction becomes stronger the longer the time that they stay together. Some infectious diseases may be transmitted from the cow to the calf at birth, and then an important measure for reducing disease transmission is to separate the calf very shortly after birth. If the cow is placed out of hearing and sight of the calf, the stress reaction of the cow is lower. When cow and calf have been together for prolonged suckling, e.g. 6-12 weeks, weaning plates placed on the calves reduce the stress reaction in the cow after separation. In the risk assessment, genetic selection for high milk yield with insufficient emphasis on other traits relating to fitness showed a very low risk of causing behavioural problems compared with other factors and no differences were observed among the different housing systems analysed. The magnitude of the adverse effect and the risk estimate for behavioural problems was highest for cows with high genetic potential for production due to selection ignoring other traits when the housing, nutrition and management are not optimized

Keywords

animal welfare; dairy cows; behaviour; fear; pain; risk assessment; housing; nutrition and feeding; management; genetic selection; farming systems

Published in

EFSA Journal
2009, article number: 1139
Publisher: EFSA