Appropriate indoor housing facilities for dairy cattle promote improved animal welfare. Skin alterations are an indicator of dysfunctional housing. The purpose was to determine the relationship between different housing design and skin lesions, hence providing farmers more insight into how to reduce the occurrence of lesions. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 2,335 animals in 232 Norwegian freestall-housed dairy cattle from September 2006 to June 2007. A model was established to investigate risk factors related to the presence of lesions including hair loss, swelling, and wounds on the legs of dairy cattle. Separate models were developed to investigate risk factors related to the presence of knee and hock lesions. Previously described risk factors were included in the models, together with a questionnaire addressing the attitude of the farmer toward the animals. Mean (+/- SD) prevalence for hock lesions was 60.5 +/- 21.2% with a median value of 64%. The prevalence for knee lesions was 35.3 +/- 25.7% with a median of 30%. Cows in herds with a soft freestall base had an odds ratio (OR) for knee and hock lesions of 0.22 (0.06 to 0.73) and 0.62 (0.48 to 0.80), respectively, compared with those in herds with a harder freestall base, such as concrete and compact rubber mats. There was an increased risk of hock lesions when the length in the lying area in a double-row freestall was >250 cm (OR = 2.96; 1.02 to 8.60) compared with 260 cm (OR = 2.11; 1.53 to 2.90) compared with < or =260 cm. The risk for knee lesions increased if a row against a wall was >270 cm (OR = 1.72; 1.09 to 2.72) compared with < or =270 cm. Hock lesions were associated with lame cows (OR = 5.76; 1.14 to 29.18) versus nonlame cows, and with cows in their second or higher parity (OR = 1.27; 1.06 to 1.52) versus cows in their first parity. Knee lesions were associated with farmers' negative attitudes toward animals in pain (OR = 3.28; 1.79 to 6.03) versus those with positive attitudes; cows in the beginning of their lactation (OR = 1.84; 1.24 to 2.74) versus those at the end of their lactation; and tall animals (OR = 1.27; 1.00 to 1.61) versus shorter animals. These results show that freestall design is important with respect to skin lesions as are the characteristics of individual animals and the farmer.

No abstract

Attitudes and empathy of farmers influence human-animal interaction, thereby affecting their behavior toward animals. The goal was to investigate how measures of attitude and empathy toward animals were associated with animal welfare indicators such as milk yield, mastitis incidence, fertility index, and the prevalence of skin lesions on cows. To assess empathy toward animals, a photo-based pain assessment instrument was developed depicting various conditions that could be associated with some degree of pain in cattle and included questions aimed at assessing attitudes toward animals. Photos of painful conditions are useful in eliciting measurable empathic responses to pain in humans. A total of 221 farmers were sampled via e-mail and 154 responses were obtained. In the first analysis, farmers were categorized into 2 groups according to their agreement or disagreement with the attitude statement "animals experience physical pain as humans do." In the second analysis, farmers were assigned a median pain assessment score obtained from their estimates on the visual analog scale of 21 conditions assumed painful for cattle. In the third analysis, farmers were clustered in 3 groups according to their visual analog scale responses. Three conditions were ranked as the most painful: fracture of tuber coxae, dystocia, and serious mastitis. Farmers with positive attitudes toward animals scored 2 points higher on their empathy score compared with farmers with negative attitudes. Personal experience with each additional condition resulted in a 0.09 higher score. Cluster analysis revealed 3 groups. Farmers in group 3 had the highest median pain assessment score (6.7+/-0.2), indicating a high level of empathy and a positive attitude toward animals. They had the lowest prevalence of skin lesions over the carpus (24+/-6%) and the lowest milk production (6,705+/-202 kg). The complex associations between indicators of empathy and attitudes with relevant welfare outcomes suggest that competence building to safeguard animal welfare could benefit from including both attitudes and empathy in human-animal interactions studies.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

A survey to measure attitudes toward farm animal welfare was developed. We targeted animal science faculty because of their influence on animal production in the United States. We initially interviewed 34 faculty members from a large Midwestern public university to assist with questionnaire development. After our written survey was developed, we pilot-tested our questionnaire at this same university. Thereafter, we sent an e-mail advance notice, first survey, and follow-up survey/thank-you to the national population of animal science faculty members. With an n = 446 (response rate = 45%), we observed the following: 51% (for layer birds), 58% (for meat birds), 66% (for swine), 84% (for dairy), 86% (for sheep), and 87% (for beef) of our respondents agreed that the predominant methods used to produce various types of animal products provided appropriate levels of animal welfare. Our findings showed that greater than 90% of respondents support general principles of animal welfare, such as keeping animals free from unnecessary fear and distress. However, specific practices that have been shown to elicit distress (e.g., castration without anesthetic) were deemed a concern by only 32% of the respondents. Various industry practices/outcomes were assessed for level of concern and varied from a high of 83% of respondents agreeing that flooring effects on lameness in intensively farmed animals are a concern, to a low of 16% agreeing that early weaning in pigs is a concern. Summed attitude scores showed significant relationships with the demographic variables of gender (P < 0.01) and political ideology (P < 0.01), with women and those holding more liberal political views being more concerned about farm animal welfare issues. Gaining an awareness of various stakeholders' attitudes (e.g., animal scientists, veterinarians, producers, and consumers) toward farm animal welfare will assist animal welfare scientists in knowing which research topics to emphasize and, perhaps, where critical gaps in accessibility of knowledge exist.

No abstract