Comparison of three assessment programmes in Sweden; The official animal welfare control, Ask the Cow and Welfare Quality

Transcription

1 Comparison of three assessment programmes in Sweden; The official animal welfare control, Ask the Cow and Welfare Quality Can animal-based welfare parameters improve the official animal welfare control of Swedish Dairy cows? Birgitta Staaf Larsson Uppsats för avläggande av masterexamen i naturvetenskap 3 hp Institutionen för biologi och miljövetenskap Göteborgs universitet September 214

2 Abstract Three available assessment systems for evaluating animal welfare in dairy herds in Sweden have been studied: 1) The official animal welfare control, 2) Växa Sweden's (former Swedish Dairy Association) program Ask the Cow, 3) The Welfare Quality assessment protocol for dairy cows. The official animal welfare control mainly use resource-based measures while Ask the Cow and Welfare Quality systems use animal-based measures. As reference data, welfare parameters from the Swedish Dairy Data Base have been used. The data have been collected from 41 herds in four Swedish counties, 22 herds with cows housed in tie stalls and 19 herds with cows in loose housing systems with a mean size of 65 cows (range ). Factor analysis to identify the parameters contributing most within the systems was performed in SAS (version 9.2) with Varimax rotation method. The study was a project between the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Växa Sweden and aimed to answer the following questions: Will the farms be ranked equally within each assessment system (The official animal welfare control, Ask the Cow, Welfare Quality ) Which parameters contribute most within and between systems to rank the herds according to animal welfare? Could animal-based parameters strengthen the Swedish official animal welfare control? The results showed that the systems ranked the herds in different order. Totally the official animal welfare control had 55 remarks. In Ask the Cow the parameters dirtiness, lameness, ecto-parasites, lesions, body score, asymmetric or long hooves, competition at the feeding table and caudal licking explained 6 % of the combined animal welfare scoring. In Welfare Quality the parameters behaviours, dirtiness, human-animal interaction, vulvar discharge, eye disease, coughing, social behaviour, lesions, and body score explained 62% of the combined animal welfare scoring. Welfare Quality -factor 1 (mainly positive behaviours) correlated to the numbers of cows, remarks in the official animal welfare control, Ask the Cow-factor 1 (dirty and lame cows) and Ask the Cow-factor 2 (lesions and lame cows). Both Welfare Quality and Ask the Cow had high scores for dirty cows at 5 % respectively 33 % of the investigated herds, but dirtiness were only observed twice using the official animal welfare control. In conclusion: The three systems rank the herds in different order relative to animal welfare, partly because they measure different parameters; one system mainly scores resource-based parameters while the other two mainly score animal-based. The results showed that a combination of animal-based and resource-based measures is probably the best solution for the Swedish official animal welfare control. Using animal-based measures is a better way of quantifying, for example, cleanliness, body score, lesions and important behaviours, than the today used resource-based measurements.

3 Svensk sammanfattning Tre system för att utvärdera bedömningen av djurskydd/djurvälfärd i mjölkkobesättningar i Sverige har studerats: 1) Den offentliga djurskyddskontrollen, 2) Växa Sveriges (tidigare Svensk Mjölks) program "Fråga Kon" och 3) Welfare Qualitys bedömningsprotokoll för mjölkkor. Den offentliga djurskyddskontrollen använder främst resursbaserade parametrar medan Fråga Kon och Welfare Quality använder djurbaserade parametrar. Välfärdsindikatorer från Svensk Mjölks databas har använts som referensdata. Uppgifterna har samlats in från 41 besättningar i fyra svenska län, 22 besättningar med uppbundna system och 19 besättningar med kor i lösdriftssystem med en medelstorlek på 65 kor (intervall ). Faktoranalysen utfördes i SAS (version 9.2) med rotationsmetod Varimax. Studien var ett projekt mellan Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet och Växa Sverige och syftade till att besvara följande frågor: Kommer gårdarna att rangordnas lika inom de olika bedömningssystemen (Den offentliga djurskyddskontrollen, Fråga Kon och Welfare Quality ) Vilka parametrar/indikatorer bidrar mest inom och mellan systemen för att rangordna besättningarna enligt djurvälfärden? Kan djurbaserade parametrar stärka den svenska offentliga djurskyddskontrollen? Resultaten visade att de olika bedömningssystemen rankar besättningarna olika. Den offentliga djurskyddskontrollen hade 55 anmärkningar sammanlagt i alla besättningar. I Fråga Kon förklarade parametrarna smuts, hälta, ektoparasiter, skador, hull, asymmetriska eller långa klövar, konkurrens vid foderbordet och egenputsning 6 % av den samlade djurvälfärdsrankningen. I Welfare Quality förklarade parametrarna beteende, renhet, människa-djurinteraktion, flytningar från vulva, rinnande ögon, hosta, socialt beteende, skador och hull 62 % av djurvälfärdsrankingen. Welfare Quality - faktor 1 (huvudsakligen positiva beteenden) korrelerade till antalet kor, anmärkningar i den offentliga djurskyddskontrollen, Fråga Kon - faktor 1 (smutsiga och halta kor) och Fråga Kon - faktor 2 (skador och halta kor). Både Welfare Quality och Fråga Kon hade höga poäng gällande smutsiga kor på 5 % respektive 33 % av de undersökta besättningarna, men kornas renhet hade endast två anmärkningar i den offentliga djurskyddskontrollen. Sammanfattningsvis: De tre systemen rankar besättningarna i olika ordning avseende djurvälfärden, delvis för att de mäter olika parametrar; ena systemet mäter främst resursbaserade parametrar, medan de andra två huvudsakligen mäter djurbaserade parametrar. Resultaten visar att en kombination av djurbaserade och resursbaserade parametrar förmodligen är den bästa lösningen för den offentliga djurskyddskontrollen. Djurbaserade parametrar är ett bättre sätt att kvantifiera till exempel renlighet, hull, skador och beteenden, än de idag använda resursbaserade parametrarna. 1

4 Contents Abstract... Svensk sammanfattning Introduction... 3 Definitions... 3 The aim... 3 European interest... 3 The Committee Directive review of animal welfare legislation, design and content (Dir. 29:57). 4 Scientific results for assessing animal welfare... 4 Hypothesis Material and Methods... 5 Animal based welfare parameters in the official control of Swedish dairy milk production: issues and hypotheses... 5 Official control (OC)... 6 Ask the Cow (AC)... 6 Welfare Quality (WQ ) assessment of dairy cattle... 7 The Swedish Dairy Data Base and the scoring system... 9 Practical implementation of the project (choice of County Administrative Boards, herds, and training of WQ assessors)... 9 Data processing Results Overall ranking of herds and herd description (data from the SDDB) Ranking of the herds within the various systems Factor analysis Assessment of body score, cleanliness and lesions in AC, WQ and OC The official control (OC) assessment The AC assessment regarding hooves and dirty young stock and calves... 2 The WQ assessment regarding the four principles... 2 Assessment of the cows lying behaviour in WQ and the rising behaviour in AC Ranked animal welfare at herds in each county Survey by the animal welfare officers who conducted the WQ project Discussion Will the herds be ranked equally within each assessment system (OC, AC and WQ )? Which parameters contribute most within and between systems to rank the herds according to animal welfare?

5 Factor analysis Can animal based parameters strengthen the Swedish official animal welfare control? What are welfare parameters and how can they be measured?... 3 Other research Conclusions Future studies needed to improve the official control Acknowledgement References Introduction A high level of protection of animals and a good animal welfare is of great interest, and consumers demand today quality food produced by healthy animals in a good environment (Berthe et al., 212; KilBride et al., 212). When animal welfare is assessed, different evaluation criteria are used divided into management-, resource- and animal-based factors. The first two criteria's refers to animal care and the animals environment (e.g. interior) affecting the animals. The latter point out how the animals have been affected by factors in its environment (as cleanliness). The Swedish official animal welfare control (OC) use primarily resource-based measures while scientists and their studies focuses more on animal-based measures to assess welfare (Keeling, 29). The EU Commissions authority for risk assessment, the European Food Safety Association (EFSA), Scientific Network for Risk Assessment in Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) have noticed that the methodology in animal welfare assessment has evolved from purely qualitative to more quantitative risk assessment (Berthe et al., 212). Definitions To explain the difference between the wording animal protection and animal welfare the following definitions are used: Animal protection is "what people do or should do to protect the animals", and covers legislation, counselling and education, while animal welfare is "animal perception of their own situation" (Keeling et al., 21). Young stock refers to animals the age of 6 month to calving for dairy cows. The aim The aim was to investigate if animal-based welfare parameters will contribute to a better animal welfare and a reliable animal welfare control in Sweden. Welfare Quality and Växa Sweden's AC have created an interest in a future use of animal-based welfare measures in the Swedish animal husbandry sector and for implementing them in the OC. European interest In the European Parliament resolution of 5 May 21 on evaluation and assessment of the Animal Welfare Action Plan (21) the European Parliament called for a review 3

6 of animal welfare standards in relation to consumer and producer interests. The Parliament requested assessment and further development of WQ, with respect to its practical application and the ability to improve the harmonisation of animal welfare in the EU. The proposal for a new EC regulation on official animal welfare control stated that the control could use animal-based parameters, based on research and technical evidence to check the compliance of the legislation. The interest in the EU Parliament and the Commission for animal-based welfare parameters will probably mean that Sweden has to change the control system, although Sweden's belonging to EU will demand a harmonised, coordinated and equivalent animal welfare control. The Committee Directive review of animal welfare legislation, design and content (Dir. 29:57) In 29 the Swedish Government sat up a committee with the task of analysing how animal welfare legislation could be modernized, simplified and changed to become more flexible. The new legislation should achieve the same level of animal welfare as before, based on the individual animal's needs, and it should continue to be proactive and based on science and proven experience. The Government believed that a more targeted legislation with more functional and less resource-based requirements would provide greater flexibility and involve the importance for management of animal welfare to become clearer. A goal-oriented regulation may also increase the demands on the OC and the animal welfare officer skills and thus pose a greater need for the officers training. Scientific results for assessing animal welfare Animal welfare assessment has been discussed and highlighted in research and published articles (Anneberg et al., 212; Blokhuis, 28; Duncan et al., 212; Keeling 29; Keeling et al., 21; KilBride et al., 212; Main et al., 23; Main & Mullan, 212; Sandgren et al., 29). Sandgren et al. (29) studied randomly selected calves, young stocks and cows by animalbased welfare parameters at herd level, on the behalf of Växa Sweden. Nine animal-based welfare parameters formed the classification base: e.g. calves, cows and young stock cleanliness and body condition combined with movement disorders, lesions/inflammations and additionally cows rising behaviour. These animal-based parameters were used to classify the herds on an animal welfare scale and where compared with parameters from the Swedish Dairy Data Base as a data-based classification. The outcome of the investigation was that two cow fertility measures and calf mortality in the data-base corresponded with 77 % of the herds animal welfare. Welfare Quality was an EU-funded research project aimed to increase animal welfare in the food producing chain, and the WQ project ran from 24 to 29. Forty-four (44) institutions and universities from 13 European countries were involved in the project and four Latin American countries. Welfare Quality project objectives included to take into account consumer concerns and the market demand for good animal welfare and food quality. 4

7 Welfare Quality has developed 12 criteria for animal welfare assessment divided into four principles; Good feeding, Good housing, Good health and Appropriate behaviour (Blokhuis, 28; Keeling & Veissier, 25 in Blokhuis, 28). One of the results from the WQ project points to a combination of resource-based and animal-based measures as the most valuable and necessary when controlling animal welfare (Blokhuis et al., 23; Blokhuis, 28). Hypothesis All three systems will be able to identify farms that are at a high risk level for poor animal welfare. The project aimed to answer the following questions: Will the farms be ranked equally within each assessment system (OC, AC and WQ )? Which parameters contribute most within and between systems to rank the herds according to animal welfare? Could animal-based parameters strengthen the Swedish official animal welfare control? 2. Material and Methods Animal based welfare parameters in the official control of Swedish dairy milk production: issues and hypotheses The project uses three different systems to assess animal welfare: The official animal welfare control (OC) Växa Sweden's Ask the Cow-system (AC) The Welfare Quality (WQ ) assessment protocol for dairy cows Basic reference data for comparison were collected from the Swedish Dairy Data Base (SDDB). The project aimed to compare the outcome of the animal welfare in dairy cows comparing the WQ, AC with the OC. The question was whether animal-based, compared to resourcebased measures or a combination of these gave a satisfying and legal secure animal welfare assessment? The official animal welfare control (OC) performed by the regional state authorities, the County Administrative Boards, use checklists from the central state authority, the Swedish Board of Agriculture. Växa Sweden (former Swedish Dairy Association), the dairy industry, has developed its own system for assessing animal welfare at herd level, Ask the Cow (AC). The assessment is performed by specially trained advisors that mainly use animal-based measures. Within EU, scientists have developed a methodology, Welfare Quality (WQ ), 5

8 to assess animal welfare with primarily animal-based measures, regarding husbandry animals ( Official control (OC) The regional authorities, the County Administrative Board, are responsible for the OC, checking the animal welfare at farms. The inspections are done as planned farm visits, and partly after the notification of grievances. During an inspection, parts of or the entire farm is checked. Each case and all controls are logged and recorded in a special computer program, developed for that purpose. Checklists are used for different types of production animals and enterprises. The OC is assessing whether the animal owner complies with the regulations and/or any parts that affect the individual animal, e.g. feed, husbandry, environment, animal status and management. The check is primarily done by resource-based measures noted in the checklist. The assessment is made primarily together with the farmer. A visit takes about 1-2 hours, depending on the herd size and deficiencies identified. After the inspection the farmer gets a written report with deficiencies and eventually requirements which are to be rectified. Within OC the officer only check if the body score for cattle is acceptable (2-4, 9 Animal Welfare Act (1988:534), AWA, Swedish regulation (SJVFS 21:15) for farm animals, L1 1 st Chapter 28 ). When the animal welfare officers are trained a 5-point scale assessment for the body score are used, from very thin (1) to obese (5). Within OC the assessment for satisfactory clean body is evaluated (2-4 AWA, 5 Chapter 7 L1). When the animal welfare officers are trained a 4-point scale are used: 1) clean animal, 2) moderately dirty animal, 3) heavily dirty animal, and 4) very heavily dirty animal. OC is also evaluating if sick or cattle with lesions are given the necessary veterinary care (single pen). In the project the OC checklist for cattle were used (Appendix 1). Ask the Cow (AC) Ask the Cow is one of Växa Sweden counselling services based on animal assessments for dairy cows, young stock and calves. Ask the Cow is a practical method with focus on animal welfare at farms. It aims to provide the dairy farmers a true picture of the management's strengths and weaknesses and provide a good base to improve both animal welfare and profitability. The assessments are carried out by specially trained and calibrated assessors. The parameters work just as well in old as in newer stalls and both for tie stalls and loose housing systems. A random sample of animals (35 cows, 35 young stock and 35 calves) are observed and assessed systematically, mainly without the farmer present. For cows, the records are taken at group level as counting; how many cows lie down or stand up in the stall, and the competition for feed and what the access is to water. The majority of the cows should be lying in the stall, ruminating. At individual cow level the rising behaviour, the body score, the cleanliness, the appearance of the hooves, lesions and lameness are recorded. For young stock/calves the body score, the cleanliness, the lesions and the health are recorded (Appendix 2). Each petal represents one parameter. The result accomplished is compared with other herds data and presented graphically with the image of two flowers, one for the cows and one for the young stock and calves. The results are shown as entire petal if the 6

9 results are good, but if the flowers have cut petals, improvements are needed. After the assessment, the AC assessor provides an action plan for the farmer with suggestions on how to improve the animal welfare, which is followed up by a second visit. Ask the Cow use mainly animal-based measures and a farm visit takes approximately 3-4 hours. For the body condition score assessment AC use a three-point scale, skinny, normal and fat. A cow is considered to be skinny if the following criteria are met: the top of the transverse processes of the vertebrae are distinguishable, there is a visible depression between the backbone and the hip bones (tuber coxae), tail head, hip bones (tuber coxae), spine and ribs are visible and it is a visible cavity around tail head. The criteria for a fat cow is flat back and hindquarter, hip and hip bones are embedded in fat, tail bottom is filled and the cow has a hint of fat folds around the tail. Ask the Cow assess cleanliness by using a 3-point scale; clean, dirty and very dirty. The cleanliness is checked from the carpus/tarsus and upwards. Clean animals are considered when the animal is completely clean or has only small areas with manure on the udder and hindquarter. Dirty cows have several areas (at least 3) with manure as for example dry manure > 1 cm diameter/area of the udder and hindquarter. Very dirty cows have manure areas of more than a third of the udder and hindquarter (altogether). Ask the Cow assess lesions within a 3-point scale (healed lesions are excluded). The first point is animals free from lesions, or have only minor lesions. Minor lesions are represented by areas of wounds, swelling and/or inflammation of an area less than a palm (about 1 x 1 cm). The second point is a coherent lesion, which is represented by a half to a whole palm or the areas spans over one or two palms surface of wounds, swellings and/or inflammations. The third point show lesions that covers more than a palm or the areas all together covers more than two palms surface of wounds, swellings and/or inflammations. Ask the Cow is also assessing the proportion of cows that have problems with the rising behaviour at a 4-point scale. Observing the way the cow gets up can indicate how fit they are. The assessor makes the cows to rise gradually with a pat on the hindquarter and observes for the first point a normal sequence with a short break at max 5 seconds for example in a kneeling position. For the second point the cow rise in a normal sequence but with a pause of more than 5 seconds in any part of the rising act, for the third point the cow rise in a normal sequence but with difficulties to complete the rising behaviour, and the fourth point reflects all forms of an abnormal sequence or faulty movement patterns. In the project educated assessors from Växa were doing the assessments. Welfare Quality (WQ ) assessment of dairy cattle Welfare Quality is based on four principles (Good feeding, Good housing, Good health and Appropriate behaviour) and 12 criteria assessed by a variety of parameters (Appendix 3). Each principle is assessed from 2-1 %, were 2-6 % means that the results are acceptable, 6-8 % is better than average and > 8 % is excellent. The results of the four principles together are weighed to assign the herd to a welfare category. 7

10 Figure 1. Four principles and 12 criteria of animal welfare. Keeling, 213. A WQ assessment starts by an "avoidance distance test" (ADT) where the assessor from a distance of 2 m approach the animals, in this case cows, when the cows are standing at the feeding table and then the assessor walks towards the animals until signs of the animals withdrawal or until the assessor can touch the muzzle of the cow. If the cow avoids the assessor, the observed distance between the assessor and the cow is estimated. Furthermore, the assessors studies social behaviour, lying behaviour, body score and lesions and a Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA). Testing the QBA the entire herd is studied for 2 minutes, and assessed for 2 different parameters on a scale (min-max) to get an overall view of the herd and its management. Parameters used to assess animals at a herd level are those that shows how active, relaxed, fearful, agitated, calm, frustrated, friendly, bored, playful, positively occupied, irritable, uneasy, sociable, apathetic or happy the animals are. The WQ includes also a "management questionnaire" which picks up details as grazing period, the cows outdoor access and complement data registered in the SDDB (e.g. mastitis, stillbirth). Welfare Quality is a system that mainly uses animal-based measures. The duration of the assessment varies between 5-8 hours depending on the size of the herd and the system assesses only dairy cows (adult animals). In herds with less than 3 cows WQ assess all, in herds with 3 to 5 animals 3 are assessed, and then an increasing number of animals to a maximum of 73 animals in herd size consisting 3 cows. Within WQ a three-scaled body score, normal, very thin and very fat is used (Welfare Quality assessment protocol for cattle, 29). Only one side of the cow is checked for cleanliness followed up by the whole hindquarter from behind. Three areas are scored separately; first the lower hind legs (including the hock), second the hind quarters - upper hind leg, flank and rear view including tail (excluding udder) and finally the udder. Each part 8

11 is assessed to be either clean or with minor splashing (manure or mud) or dirt, with plaques of dirt as big as a palm. If teats are dirty the whole udder is considered as dirty. In WQ, the proportion of hairless spots, lesions and swellings are evaluated. The herds are divided into 3 groups as the percentage of cows (%) without hairless spots, lesions and swellings, secondly the percentage of cows with minor lesions, at least a hairless spot but no severe lesions or swelling, thirdly the percentage of cows with lesions, i.e. one lesion or swelling. Within WQ the time is assessed from that a cow bends over and lowers its knee until the back end is resting on the ground and the front legs are stretched. The time is checked at least in six cows. In WQ, calves and young stock are not assessed. In the project animal welfare officers trained in WQ performed the assessments. The Swedish Dairy Data Base and the scoring system Swedish Dairy Data Base sample and record various herd data, and are managed by Växa Sweden that store the details in a database. Dairy farmers join the data base voluntary and in 211 approximately 8 % of Sweden's dairy enterprises were connected. All essential information from each herd is stored, which gives valuable and good access to historical data. No data in the SDDB are public; the owners decide themselves if and how data can be used. All participating farmers were willing to disclosure data from the SDDB for comparison. The SDDB includes information on the individual cow's milk production, fertility, health, and culling cause. Practical implementation of the project (choice of County Administrative Boards, herds, and training of WQ assessors) County Administrative Boards were asked to join the project and four were selected to participate. The County Administrative Boards that participated in the project were Västra Götaland, Södermanland, Jämtland and Dalarna. Within each county 1 dairy herds were selected for an OC, except for Södermanland where 11 dairy herds were picked out. The County Administrative Boards were asked to choose herds for the project and they picked out the herds according to the following criteria: An OC was scheduled Växa Sweden verified that the herd was connected to the SDDB but not earlier assessed according to the AC protocol The farmer was informed about the project and had agreed in a written statement that he/she was willing to get his/her herd assessed with the three different systems The herds were visited during springtime 211, and assessed before the cows were let out for pasture. All three types of assessments (OC, AC and WQ ) were performed in all chosen herds. 9

12 An instructive course in the WQ assessment was given in the springtime 211to the animal welfare officers to enable them to check dairy cows according to the WQ system. The course was led by Christoph Winckler and Lukas Tremetsberger (BOKU, Vienna, Austria). They were eight animal welfare officers from the aforementioned County Administrative Boards. The education covered practical training at the cow stable at Kungsängen, SLU, as well as exercises and assessment by checking videotaped animals. A total of 24 persons were involved in the animal welfare assessment of the herds. Six persons were doing the AC assessment, eight animal welfare officers the WQ assessment and 1 animal welfare officers carried out the OC as an ordinary control. To compare the outcome of animal welfare at each herd, one animal welfare officer carried out the OC, one animal welfare officer the WQ assessment and one adviser from Växa Sweden the AC at the same time and the same herd. Data processing Welfare Quality ranking was made out of a sum of the three principles (good feeding, good housing and good health). The combined categorizing for all systems was done by summing herd rank with AC assessment combined with the assessed herd rank in WQ and the remarks in the OC. Welfare Quality measured the parameters that affect feeding, health and housing, and animal behaviour. Each principle is assessed from 2-1 %, were 2-6 % is an acceptable animal welfare level, 6-8 % is better than an average level and > 8 % is an excellent animal welfare level. The results of the four principles are weighed and assign the herds welfare category. To determine which parameters within each system with the greatest impact on the animal welfare rank at herd level and between herds, a factor analysis of WQ and AC parameters were conducted respectively. In order to compare factors between the two assessment systems (WQ and AC) (Table 2), the correlations between these were calculated. The correlation between the sum of the remarks per herd according to OC, the various elements and the data from the SDDB (sickness, production and fertility) and the factors in WQ and AC were also calculated and compared (Table 2). The factor analysis was performed in SAS (version 9.2) with Varimax rotation method. The Eigenvalue in the factors was set to 1. The WQ calculations were done by Isabelle Veissier and Anne Lamadon (INRA, UR1213 herbivores, F63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France). Other calculations are done by Ulf Olsson and Mia Holmberg (SLU, SE 75 7 Uppsala, Sweden). Eight animal welfare officers who have undergone WQ training and perform the WQ assessment of the project have afterwards filled out a questionnaire where the animal welfare officers answered questions concerning the OC and WQ regarding assessing animal welfare and animal welfare at herd or individual level and the assessments that were most difficult to do in the two systems. The assessors were asked to evaluate how easy it was to make the final boundary and complete the checklist and if there are assessments in WQ that could strengthen OC. 1

13 Within the systems, the assessors in each county gave a subjective judgment ranking the herds according to animal welfare. Rank A 1 means that the herd is expected to have the best animal welfare and the maximum value means the worst animal welfare. 3. Results Participating forty-one herds had in average 65 cows (Table 1).Twenty-two herds had stables with the system of tie stalls and 19 had loose housing systems. Table 1. Number of herds and herd size Herd size, number of cows No. of herds >2 1 Overall ranking of herds and herd description (data from the SDDB) The comparable ranking show the summed animal welfare ranking from all three systems of the herds (number 1-41) and its ranking out of the combined calculation results from the three systems (Figure 2). The herds are outlined in all the report figures after this ranking Ranking Farm number Figure 2. Combined ranking of herds with AC, WQ and remarks from OC according to the scoring from the animal welfare assessment. 11

14 The herd size varied between herds, from 12 heads in herd 37 to 268 heads in herd 13. The largest herd had almost double as many animals as the second largest herd, which had 139 cows. The milk production per cow and year varied between 7676 kg Energy Corrected Milk (EMC) to11855 kg EMC. The cows that failed to become pregnant, 12 days from calving to last insemination, varied between herds from 2.2 % to 14 %. The incidence of mastitis varied from zero in three herds to 42 % in two herds (Figure 3 A-D). Numbers of cows kg EMC Farm number Farm number % > 12 days % mastitis Farm number Farm number Figure 3. Data from the 41 herds A) number of cows per herd, B) milk production in kg ECM, C) proportion of cows with more than 12 days from calving to last insemination, D) incidence of mastitis. Ranking of the herds within the various systems In the OC assessment the number of remarks varied from zero in 18 herds to five remarks in four herds. The most common remark (n = 11) in a mechanical ventilated stable was the lack of an emergency automatically ventilation. The second most common remark (in eight stables) was that the regulation was not fulfilled regarding calves kept in single compartment. That could either be that the walls between calf pens were not in compliance with the legislation, or that the calves were kept in a single pen after eight weeks of age. The 41 herds at a whole got 55 remarks in the OC assessment (Figure 4). 12

15 6 5 Number of remarks Farm number Figure 4. The remarks per herd in the OC assessments. Herds with tie stalls (red bars) and herds with the animals kept in loose housing systems (blue bars). The AC assessment graded the herds from zero to 41, and the result agreed slightly with the combined ranking, but differed mostly in the aspect that the tie stalls got a higher ranking (worse) in the combined ranking than in the AC ranking (Figure 5). Ranking Ask the Cow Farm number Figure 5. AC assessment system comparison between herds. Herds with tie stalls (red bars) and herds with the animals kept in loose housing systems (blue bars). Also the WQ assessment graded the herds from zero to 41 and the result agreed slightly with all the three assessment systems combined, ranking animal welfare at herds but differed mostly in the aspect that the tie stalls got a higher ranking (worse) in the WQ ranking than in the combined ranking (Figure 6). 13

16 Ranking Welfare Quality, three principles Farm number Figure 6. The WQ s three principles ranked the animal welfare on herds according to good feeding, good housing and good animal health. Herds with tie stalls (red bars) and herds with the animals kept in loose housing systems (blue bars). Table 1. Comparison what the three systems validate. Green means that the system validate the parameter, yellow that it measures it at some level, when red the system does not take account on the parameter at all. Young st. = Young stock OC AC WQ Body condition score At herd level 35 cows, 35 young st., 35 calves 3 73 cows Cleanliness At herd level 35 cows, 35 young st., 35 calves 3 73 cows Coat 35 cows, 35 young st., 35 calves 3 73 cows Hooves 35 cows, 35 young st., 35 calves Integument Hairless Lesion Swelling 35 cows, 35 young st., 35 calves 3 73 cows Lameness 35 cows, 35 young st., 35 calves 3 73 cows Standing/lying in the pen Rising behaviour Lying behaviour Behaviour Vermin, parasites Competition at the feeding table Calves, young stock Health Competent personnel Daily attention Water Avoidance distance Space requirements The interior and floor Air quality Day light Bedding material Daily/yearly cleaning 14

17 Factor analysis The result showed that the OC assessments are not quantifiable and the remarks in the control checklist are very few, with the consequence that the data from the OC assessments could not be calculated with a factor analysis. The analysis of WQ and AC parameters respectively resulted in six factors for WQ (Table 2) and four factors for AC (Table 2) that collectively explained 62 % respectively 6 % of the variation in animal welfare between herds. In WQ six factors concerning behaviour, dirtiness, human-animal interaction, vulvar discharge, eye disease, coughing, social behaviour, lesions, and body score explained 62% of the combined animal welfare scoring. In Ask the Cow four factors with the parameters dirtiness, lameness, ecto-parasites, lesions, body score, asymmetric or long hooves, competition at the feeding table and caudal licking explained 6 % of the combined animal welfare scoring. The various factors with the parameters are reported in Table 2. The same parameter can occur in several factors. Table 2. The factors 1-6 for WQ and 1-4 for AC were calculated with data from WQ respectively AC protocols. A minus sign in front of a parameter shows that the parameter decreases in value when other parameters in the same factor increases. Factor Parameters in WQ Parameters in AC 1 (-)lying behaviour, active, relaxed, satisfied, (-)indifferent, (-)frustrated, friendly, (-)bored, playful, (-)positively engaged, (-)uncomfortable, curious, social, (-)apathetic, happy 2 Dirty legs, (-)can be touched, you cannot get closer than 5 cm, cannot get close to, vulvar discharge, scared, excited, (-)calm, indifferent, bored, annoyed, (-)satisfied, distress 3 Butting, displaced by another cow, nasal discharge, eye disease, coughing 4 Dirty legs, dirty udders, dirty upper part of the body, hairless patches, (-)lesion, no lesion Dirty cows, very dirty cows, lame cows, ecto-parasites Lesions, severe lesions, lame cows Skinny cows, asymmetric hooves, ringworm Fat cows, asymmetrical hooves, long hooves, (-)competition at the feeding table, (-)caudal licking 5 Lean, lies partly outside the lying area, (-)active, (-)friendly, (-)social, (-)can be touched, you cannot get closer than 5 cm 6 Swellings, (-)diarrhoea, (-)not slippery, slippery, very slippery, distressed, (-)cannot come close The behaviours (mainly positive) in WQ -factor 1 correlated to the number of cows, remarks in the OC and to AC-factor 1 (dirty and lame cows) with a significant correlation 15

18 (negative) with each other (p <.5). The sum of remarks in the OC showed a significant correlation (negative) (p <.5) with animal behaviour (factor 1) in WQ and a significant correlation (positive) (p <.5) with lesions and lameness (factor 2) in AC (Table 3). The sum of remarks in the OC showed a significant correlation (p <.5) with both animal behaviour (factor 1) in WQ, lesions and lameness (factor 2) in AC. Assessment based only on the sum of negative remarks in OC could be compared with animal behaviour (factor 1) in WQ and lesions and lameness (factor 2) in AC (Table 3 ). Animal behaviour (factor 1) in WQ and lesions and lameness (factor 2) in AC were also correlated (p <.5) with the herd size. When comparing all WQ and AC factors with data from the SDDB it turned out that the following parameters correlated (p <.5) with feeding-related diseases (SDDB); dirty legs, touching animals (negatively correlated), you cannot get closer than 5 cm, or not get close at all, vulvar discharge, scared, excited, calm, indifferent, bored, annoyed, satisfied, or distressed animals (factor 2) according to the WQ assessment, and skinny cows, asymmetric hooves and ringworm (factor 3) in the AC assessment. Table 3. The correlation between the factors calculated in the factor analysis with data from WQ and AC protocols as well as the correlations between the factors and data from the SDDB and the number of remarks in the OC. Factor Significant correlation (p<.5) with 1 WQ Factor 1 and factor 2 from Ask the Cow data, herd size, number of remarks in the official control 2 WQ Housing system, herd size 3 WQ Factor 3 Ask the Cow, the proportion of heifers with more than 7 days between calving and first insemination, breed 4 WQ Factor 2 and factor 4 from Ask the Cow data 5 WQ Feeding related diseases 6 WQ 1 AC 2 AC Number of remarks in the official control 3 AC Difficult calving, the proportion of heifers with more than 7 days between calving and first insemination, breed 4 AC Feeding related diseases 16

19 Assessment of body score, cleanliness and lesions in AC, WQ and OC All the herds were found to have animals with acceptable body condition in OC. The total proportion of skinny cows in AC was 3.4 % and within WQ 6.6 % (Figure 8). The amounts of obese cows are 5.7 % for AC and 4.1 % for WQ assessments respectively (Figure 9) % Farm number Figure 8. The proportion of lean cows per herd in AC (blue bars) and WQ (red bars) % Farm number Figure 9. The proportion of obese cows per herd in AC (blue bars) and WQ (red bars). The AC assessment regarding cows dirtiness showed that in average 18 % of the animals were dirty, and that 31 herds of 41 had dirty cows and 7 of them had severely dirty cows. Ten herds did not have any dirty animals at all according to the AC assessment. In a couple of 17

20 herds (No. 5 and 13), almost all cows (97 %) were dirty (Figure 1). Two herds (No. 33 and 39) had remarks on the cows cleanliness in the OC. % Farm number Figure 1. The proportion of dirty cows (blue bars) and severe dirty cows (red bars) per herd in AC. In the WQ assessments all cows were dirty on the controlled herds, they had all dirty legs (mean 68 % of the animals) and flanks (mean 5 % of the animals), and on the average 43 % of the cows had also dirty udders. On one single herd (No. 34) none of the cows had dirty udders and they were in general clean both on legs and flanks % 6 dirty 5 cows Farm number Figure 11. The amount of dirty cows per herd in the WQ assessments. Cows with dirty legs (blue bars), cows with dirty hindquarters (red bars) and cows with dirty udders (green bars). Herd No. 33 and 39 had remarks on the cows cleanliness in the OC assessment. The consistency in the assessment of AC and WQ according lesions was in generally good (Figure 12). The OC had only remarks in this subject in two herds (No. 16 and 25). 18

21 8 7 6 % cows with lesions Farm number Figure 12. The proportion of cows with lesions in AC (blue bars) and WQ (red bars). The official control (OC) assessment The OC carried out a total of 1,763 checks that were listed, of these only 55 remarks were noted in the check list. The OC controls space requirements, the interior, and the risk for injuries, slippery and even floors, air quality, day light and the artificial light in the building. With the OC you also check that the stall is cleaned regularly as well as the quality and the quantity of the bedding material. Number of remarks Farm number Figure 13. Number of remarks per herd by OC. Herds with tie stalls (red bars) and herds with the animals kept in loose housing systems (blue bars). 19

22 The AC assessment regarding hooves and dirty young stock and calves Thirty-three (8 %) of the checked herds had cows with fairly long hooves and half of the herds had remarks regarding asymmetric hooves. In 29 (7 %) of the herds, cows stood up in the stable and in two of the herds almost all cows stood up. In average 21 % of the young stock and 19 % of the calves were dirty and in some herds all young stock or calves were dirty. % long hooves % ass. hooves Farm number Farm number % cows standing % dirty cattle Farm number Farm number Figure 14. Results of AC evaluation for A) Percentage of cows with long hooves. B) Percentage of cows with asymmetric hooves. C) Percentage of cows standing up in the stall. D) Percentage of dirty young stock (blue bars) and calves (red bars). The WQ assessment regarding the four principles The four principles together were weighed to assign the herd to a welfare category. All herds were assessed to be categorized as acceptable or better than average. The main complains focused on feeding and mainly affected herds with tie stalls where the cows only had access to one water source or where animals were too thin. Regarding behaviour, most remarks concerned herds with tethered animals with no access to daily exercise and where the grazing period was short (Figure 15). 2

23 % Good feeding Herd number % Good health Herd number 1 8 % Good housing 1 8 % Appr. behaviour Herd number Herd number Figure 15. Analyses of WQ assessments per herd for the four principles A) Good feeding, B) Good health, C) Good housing, D) Appropriate behaviour. Assessment of the cows lying behaviour in WQ and the rising behaviour in AC In the WQ and AC assessments cows lying behaviour respectively rising behaviour respectively are measured. Many herds with cows suffering from problem with rising behaviour shown in AC have a long lying process time according to WQ (Figure 16). 21

24 Sec. to lie down WQ Percentage of cows with rising problems AC Herd number Figure 16. Results from WQ (red bars) specify the number of seconds it takes for cows to lie down in average per herd. AC (blue marks) indicates the percentage of cows with problems to get up from lying down. Ranked animal welfare at herds in each county Animal welfare ranking at herds was reported by the total assessors for each county (county 1-4, herd A-J, K) (Table 4). The subjective ranking, done by the assessors schooled in the different system, showed a pretty good consensus concerning the best animal welfare results at herd level in all the investigated counties. The assessors opinion about the worst animal welfare seen at herds also matched in counties No. 1 and 4. In two counties, it was recognized that the largest herds with the biggest herd showed the best animal welfare. The rank of animal welfare varies between herds, depending on the utmost similarity between WQ and AC or between the OC and AC. Table 4, a-d. Ranking of animal welfare made by the assessors at herd level in each county and data (system, herd size and milk production) from the SDDB. LHS = loose housing system a) 22 Official control Herd System No. cows Milk yield WQ 1A Tie stall B LHS C Tie stall D LHS E LHS F LHS G LHS H LHS I LHS J Tie stall Ask the Cow

25 b) Official control Herd System No. cows Milk yield WQ 2A Tie stall B LHS C Tie stall D Tie stall E LHS F Tie stall G LHS H Tie stall I LHS J Tie stall c) Official control Herd System No. cows Milk yield WQ 3A Tie stall B LHS C Tie stall D LHS E Tie stall F Tie stall G Tie stall H LHS I Tie stall J Tie stall K LHS # = Several observers, ranking made in collaboration with assessors at Växa Sweden d) Herd System No. cows Milk yield Official control WQ 4A Tie stall B LHS C Tie stall D LHS E Tie stall F Tie stall G Tie stall H LHS I Tie stall J LHS Ask the Cow Ask the Cow# Ask the Cow 23

26 Survey by the animal welfare officers who conducted the WQ project The questionnaire that the eight animal welfare officers who have undergone WQ training and perform the WQ assessment of the project has filled out showed that the time factor is given as both a strength and weakness in WQ (Table 5). All assessors responded that WQ although is too time consuming to be implemented thoroughly within the OC. Table 5. Survey responses from the animal welfare officers who have comment on OC and WQ assessment of animal welfare respectively animal protection at herd and individual level. The officers declared that the assessment of the animals behaviour and lameness were the most difficult assessments in the WQ system. Concerning the animal management with having the adequate knowledge was the most difficult thing to evaluate in OC and to evaluate the body weight (Table 6). The officers opinions were also that the behavioural assessment can strengthen OC and the outcome of the management and further the environment (housing) condition of the stable. The officers thought that the quantification of the body score, the cleanliness and lesions were also a strong part of WQ. 24

27 Table 6. Survey responses regarding what is easiest respectively the most difficult to assess in WQ and OC (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the eight officers who entered the same responses). QBA = Qualitative Behaviour Assessment, ADT = avoidance distance test 4. Discussion Will the herds be ranked equally within each assessment system (OC, AC and WQ )? The ranking of the herds differs substantially between systems and this is an effect of the different parameters that are used in the various systems. In OC only 55 remarks were made even though high numbers of lean cows, cows with lesions and dirty cows were reported in AC and WQ. In Swedish legislation performance of natural behaviour is an important paragraph. Behaviour is only measured in WQ and these measurements were the most important according to the factor analysis to separate herds within this system. From this study it is without doubt that the result you get reflects the measurement you rate and therefore it is vital that the OC determent the relevant parameters that reflects the current regulations. In the subjective ranking within county the best farms were the same rather than the poorest. Participating forty-one herds had in average 65 cows which are in accordance with the average herd size in Sweden (Statistics Sweden, 212). In this study it varies from herd to herd if there is a greater correlation between WQ and AC than between OC and AC. In the first case, it could be due to more animal-based measures have been included in the assessment and in the latter case it is probably because also young stock and calves are assessed. The WQ system only assesses dairy cows (adult animals) in contrast to both AC 25