SLOVENIAN VETERINARY RESEARCH

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The welfare assessment of tied dairy cows in 52 small farms in north-eastern Transylvania using animal-based measurements79Figure 2: The distribution of 3 and 4 hygiene scores in differentbody zones of the assessed dairy cowsFigure 3: Distribution of body condition scoring in 473 assesseddairy cowsDiscussionIn our study the greatest and the most frequentdeviation from normality was in BCS. This can bedue to the insufficient forage in that period of theyear or the inappropriate quality of the feed. Frequently,thin cows do not clinically show the oestrusor become temporally infertile until they begin togain or at least maintain their body weight. The nutritionof these animals should provide energy formaintenance of their productions and, in the sametime, to supply the gain in body weight (9, 10). Thebody-condition scoring is an assessment tool in theevaluation of the fattening or the body weight loss indairy cows according to a scale ranging from 1 to 5.In our study the system assigning BCS was the onemodified by Thomsen, because it was consideredthat only extreme deviations from the ideal bodycondition are relevant from the point of view of thedairy cows’ health and welfare and because the originalsystem doubles the time needed for assessment(11). The body condition influences productivity, reproduction,health and longevity of dairy cows. Thefat or thin state of cows can constitute an indicatorof nutritional, metabolic disorders, health problemsor can indicate poor management at farm level (7).The next indicator modified relative to normalitywas the fur condition. The aim of this parameter’sassessment was to appreciate if the cow is able ornot to maintain her skin clean (2, 11). The absenceof self-grooming can indicate illness, poor generalcondition, inability to perform certain movements.Our study’s result could be influenced by the lengthof the chains that tether the cows, limiting the movementpossibilities of the animals.In the majority of investigated farms the animal– human relationship could be considered as good,taking into account that only 69 of the assessed 473cows showed fear at the approach of the examiner.The measurement of the flight distance is a recognisedmethod in the evaluation of an animal’s reactionto humans (15,16). The test can be influenced bydifferent factors (lameness, the social environmentof the testing, the past experiences of the animal,the observer known/unknown for the animal etc). Itgenerally reflects the quality and quantity of the animals’manipulation by man and the human-animalrelationship (stockmanship). If the animal allowsthe participant to the test to come within a smalldistance, this means that the animal does not showfear. In this case, all daily inspections and manipulationprocedures will be less stressful for the animal.Thus, it is a good indicator of „positive health” (13). Itwas stated that the nature of the animal-stockmanrelationship influences the behavior, milk productionand welfare of dairy cows (17). Hemsworth etal. (15) established a correlation between the cattleperson’sattitude and the dairy cow’s fear and milkproduction, indicating a possible way to decreasethe fear and increase the productivity through revisionof the stockperson’s attitude and behavior.In extensive breeding systems for dairy cows stockmanshipis better, comparative to intensive breeding(8) because of the smaller number of animalsand due to their frequent contact with humans atfeeding, watering, milking, cleaning the shelter, allthis processes being done by manpower.The skin lesions had a low percentage in ourstudy, comparative to the results of other researches(18), probably due to the simple barns, with only afew equipments, and due to the straw bedding used.Skin lesions (hair loss, small wounds) were possible,especially in the neck region, caused by the chainused for the cows’ tethering. The cows (14 cows) presentinglesions (hair loss, swelling of the skin, smallwounds) on their legs had the locomotion score of3 (moderately lame). These lesions not only cause
80 S. Popescu, C. Borda, C. D. Sandru, R. Stefan, E. Lazarpain, but can also indicate problems of welfare andproduction. The skin lesions and swellings reflectthe impact of the nearest environment on the animals’bodies (13). Injuries can be caused through theanimals’ contact with hard floors, with the confinementsystem, with the watering and feeding eaves orby hiting other hard elements inside the shelter.Regarding lameness, it had a reduced proportion(Figure 1). This result is surprisingly low comparedwith the results of other studies. Thus, several authorsshowed that lack of exercise and pasture leadto increasing feet-problems (3, 19). However, recentfigures for the prevalence of lameness in Europeancountries range from 22% (7) to 45% (20) forloose-housing systems and from almost 1% to 21%for systems in which cows are tied for at least partof the time (21). Lameness evaluation in cattle andthe evaluation of gait abnormalities are subjective.The locomotion assessment system suggested bySprecher and others (1997) was used because itpresents clear and objective descriptions which differentiatebetween scores. Lameness represents amajor welfare problem in dairy cows, inducing painand long-term discomfort.The body hygiene was evaluated through the percentageof the cows with the 3 and 4 scores in threebody regions: lower and upper legs, flank and udder.A high percentage of 3 and 4 scores indicate a poor,unacceptable hygiene, with severe consequenceson the cows’ health, production and welfare. Theobtained results indicate lower percentages of the3 and 4 scores in the three body regions, comparativewith the results of other studies (12, 21, 22).Also, one should note the low percentage of the dirtylower legs in comparison with the area of upper legand flank, similar to the specifications in the scientificliterature. It is asserted that cows housed intie-stall shelters have more elevated hygiene scoresin the body region of the upper leg and flank thanin the area of lower leg, due to the decubital restingin the manure deposits in the stalls (12). This bodyregion can also become dirty in poorly maintainedstalls, with manure on the separating elements orthrough the movements of the dirty tail around thehind quarter of the body (21). The body hygiene assessmentcan provide more information about theanimal’s comfort and attitude of the stockpersonand his attention for the animal.The obtained results indicate that more than ahalf of the assessed cows were thin, which has negativeimpact on their health and welfare. The maincauses affecting the dairy cows’ welfare in smallfarms in the North-East of Transylvania are inappropriatefeeding and the tied housing system.References1. Broom DM. Welfare. In: Andrews AH, BloweyRW, Boyd H, Eddy RG, eds. Bovine medicine: diseasesand husbandry of cattle. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004:955-67.2. Bowell VA, Rennie LJ, Tierney G, Lawrence AB,Haskell MJ. Relationship between building design,management system and dairy cow welfare. AnimWelfare 2003; 12: 547-52.3. Regula G, Danuser J, Spycher B, Wechsler B.Health and welfare of dairy cows in different husbandrysystems in Switzerland. Prev Vet Med 2004;66: 247-64.4. Bartussek H. An historical account of the developmentof the Animal Needs Index ANI-35L aspart of the attempt to promote and regulate farmanimal welfare in Austria: an example of the interactionbetween animal welfare science and society.Acta Agric Scand A Anim Sci 2001; 30: 34-41.5. Capdeville J, Veissier I. A method of assessingwelfare in loose housed dairy cows at farm level, focusingon animal observations. Acta Agric Scand AAnim Sci 2001, 30: 62-8.6. Main DCJ, Whay HR, Green LE, Webster AJF.Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme on thewelfare of dairy cattle. Vet Rec 2003; 153: 227-31.7. Whay HR, Main DCJ, Green LE, Webster AJF.Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-basedmeasurements: direct observations andinvestigation of farm records. Vet Rec 2003; 153:197-202.8. Popescu S, Borda C, Lazar EA, Hegedüs IC. Assessmentof dairy cow welfare in farms from Transylvania.In: Proceedings of the 44 th Croatian & 4 thInternational Symposium on Agriculture. Opatija,Croatia, 2009: 752-6.9. Edmonson AJ, Lean IJ, Weaver LD, Farver T,Webster G. A body condition scoring chart for Holsteindairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1989; 72: 68-78.10. Ferguson JD, Galligan DT, Thomsen N. Principaldescriptors of body condition score in Holsteincows. J Dairy Sci 1994; 77: 2695-703.11. Thomsen PT, Baadsgaard NP. Intra- and interobserveragreement of a protocol for clinical examinationof dairy cows. Prev Vet Med 2006; 75: 133-9.12. Cook NB. The influence of barn design ondairy cow hygiene, lameness, and udder health. In:Proceedings of the 35th Ann Conv Amer Assoc Bov
Page 2 and 3: THE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL OF THE VETER
Page 4 and 5: SLOVENIAN VETERINARY RESEARCHSLOVEN
Page 7: 78 S. Popescu, C. Borda, C. D. Sand
Page 11 and 12: 82 S. Popescu, C. Borda, C. D. Sand
Page 13 and 14: 84 U. Krapež, J. Račnik, B. Slave
Page 21 and 22: 92 E. Marettová, J. Legáthformed
Page 23 and 24: 94 E. Marettová, J. Legáthspindle
Page 25 and 26: 96 E. Marettová, J. LegáthPRISOTN
Page 27 and 28: 98 T. Perme, M. Bizjak, K. Šinigoj
Page 29 and 30: 100 T. Perme, M. Bizjak, K. Šinigo
Page 37 and 38: 108 V. Kubalelium, typically tongue
Page 39 and 40: 110 V. KubaleThe life-span of TRC i
Page 41 and 42: 112 V. Kubaleare completely inhibit
Page 43 and 44: 114 V. KubaleBitter tasteBitter tas
Page 45 and 46: 116 V. Kubalefirst functional sweet
Page 47 and 48: 118 V. Kubaleother 7TM receptors: T
Page 49 and 50: 120 V. Kubaletivity to MSN varied.
Page 51 and 52: 122 V. Kubalefor LCFAs, which are a
Page 53 and 54: 124 V. Kubale34. Lyall V, Heck GL,
Page 55 and 56: 126 V. Kubale94. Nelson G, Chandras
Page 57 and 58: EN KLIC DO INFORMACIJSKOIN KOMUNIKA
Page 59:
Slov Vet Res 2010; 47 (3)Original S
show all

SLOVENIAN VETERINARY RESEARCH

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?