The accumulation of urine and feces can be responsible for many cow and environmental problems. Despite this, little is known about the factors affecting defecation and urination. In the first experiment, the occurrence of defecation and urination behaviors of 48 lactating Holstein cows was observed [days in milk (DIM) = 144.7 ± 38.0 d, body weight (BW) = 667.1 ± 72.0 kg, parity = 2.8 ± 2.3] in freestalls over 48 h. In the second experiment, defecation and urination by 29 lactating Holstein dairy cows were observed (DIM = 62 ± 22.1 d, BW = 590 ± 70.0 kg, parity = 2 ± 1.3) in another freestall barn over a period of 5 d and related to cow activity and feeding behavior. In both experiments, based on total occurrence of eliminative behaviors, cows mainly defecated (experiment 1: 33.4 ± 2.0%; experiment 2: 42.3 ± 3.1%) and urinated (experiment 1: 28.2 ± 2.5%; experiment 2: 42.7 ± 4.0%) in the feed alley and while occupying a stall (defecation: experiment 1: 28.5 ± 1.0%; experiment 2: 26.2 ± 3.0%; urination: experiment 1: 42.2 ± 1.5%; experiment 2: 39.9 ± 3.8%). Occupying a stall included lying, standing in the stall, or standing with 2 feet in the stall and 2 feet in the alley. In both experiments, differences were found between cows in frequency of defecation (experiment 1: 9.8 ± 4.2/d, range = 3 to 20; experiment 2: 15.4 ± 4.3/d, range = 6 to 36) and in frequency of urination (experiment 1: 7.0 ± 3.1/d, range = 2 to 18; experiment 2: 9.3 ± 2.8/d, range = 3 to 19). Large differences between cows were observed in the frequency of defecation and urination, but these were not correlated with parity, milk production, BW, DIM, or dry matter intake.

Motivating dairy producers to financially invest in the improvement of their animals' comfort and welfare can pose some challenges, especially when financial returns are uncertain. Economic advantages for dairy producers associated with increased animal welfare are likely to come from either a premium paid for the milk or increased productivity. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the associations between measures of herd productivity and farm profitability and animal-, management-, and resource-based indicators of cow welfare and comfort. The cow welfare measures were collected during a cow comfort assessment conducted on 130 Canadian freestall dairy farms, including 20 using an automatic milking system. Herd productivity and farm profitability measures were retrieved or calculated from data collected by the regional dairy herd improvement programs, and included milk production and quality, longevity, and economic margins over replacement costs. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to assess the associations between welfare indicators and productivity and profitability measures. Increased yearly corrected milk production was associated with reduced prevalence of cows with knee lesions [β = 7.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.6, 12.2], dirty flanks (β = 26.9; 95% CI: 7.4, 46.5), and lameness (β = 11.7; 95% CI: 3.3, 20.1). The farms' economic margin per cow, calculated over replacement costs, was associated with the within farm average lying time standard deviation (β = −7.2; 95% CI: −12.7, −1.7), percent of stalls with dry bedding (β = 6.4; 95% CI: 1.4, 11.4), and prevalence of cows with knee lesions (β = −5.1; 95% CI: −8.9, −1.3). Some of the relationships found were complex, including several interactions between the animal-, management-, and resource-based measures. Overall, the results suggest that improved cow comfort and welfare on freestall farms is associated with increased herd productivity and profitability, when the latest is calculated by the margins over the replacement costs.

A critical time for dairy cattle is the perinatal period. Good calving management is critical to reduce periparturient losses and ensure the health of the offspring. Generally, it has been recommended that cows be allowed to calve unassisted when possible, but very few studies have been published that support or refute this general guideline. To investigate the effect of early assistance, a clinical trial enrolled 257 Holstein cows that were observed through the second stage of calving and assigned randomly to 1 of 2 calving interventions: not assisted (NA) or early assistance (EA) during the second stage of parturition. Early assistance was given 15min after the first sight of both front hooves of the calf and done using only human force. After calving, the animals were classified into 4 actual calving intervention groups: too quick to be assisted (TQ), NA, EA, and late assistance (LA; for cows in the NA group that did not calve unassisted within the 1h maximum time frame allowed). Giving early assistance to cows during calving as a routine management practice (assigned intervention) did not negatively influence calves' stillbirth risk, vigor at birth, or transfer of passive immunity. Calves in the LA intervention group had significantly greater odds of stillbirth than calves in the NA and EA groups, respectively. Calves in the LA group also had significantly worse vigor at birth than calves in the TQ, NA, or EA groups. Early assistance given at calving to cows that did not present signs of calving difficulties did not adversely affect calves' likelihood of being stillborn, vigor at birth, or transfer of passive immunity.

Little information is available about current practices around calving in dairy cattle. The aim of this study was to describe calving management practices in the Canadian dairy industry related to housing, calving protocols, monitoring of parturition, and calving assistance. Information was gathered by in-person interviews from 236 dairy farms from 3 Canadian provinces (Alberta, Ontario, and Québec) with freestalls and an automatic milking system (n=24), freestalls with a parlor (n=112), and tiestalls (n=100). The most commonly used types of calving facilities were group calving pens (35%) followed by individual calving pens (30%). Tiestalls were used by 26% of all surveyed producers as their main type of calving area (49% of the tiestall, 7% of the freestall with parlor, and 13% of the automatic milking system farms). Written protocols related to calving were found on only 7% of the farms visited, and only 50% of those protocols were developed with a veterinarian. However, 90% of producers kept written records of calving difficulty. Monitoring of cows around calving occurred 5 times more often during the daytime (between morning and evening milking) compared with nighttime. Cameras were used to monitor cows around and during calvings on 18% of farms. Sixteen percent of producers vaginally palpated all animals during calving. Twenty-seven percent of producers interviewed assisted all calvings on their farms by pulling the calf, and 37% assisted all heifers at calving. According to the producers' reported perception, 93% of them had "a minor problem" or "no problem" with calving difficulties on their farms. This study provides basic data on current calving practices and identifies areas for improvement and potential targets for knowledge transfer efforts or research to clarify best management practices.

Continuous assessment of the herd status is important in order to monitor and adjust to changes in the welfare and health status but can be time consuming and expensive. In this study, herd status indicators from routinely collected dairy herd improvement (DHI) records were used to develop a remote herd assessment tool with the aim to help producers and advisors benchmark the herd status and identify herd management issues affecting welfare and health. Thirteen DHI indicators were selected from an initial set of 72 potential indicators collected on 4324 dairy herds in Eastern Canada. Data were normalized to percentile ranks and aggregated to a composite herd status index (HSI) with equal weights among indicators. Robustness analyses indicated little fluctuation for herds with a small HSI (low status) or large HSI (high status), suggesting that herds in need of support could be prioritized and effectively monitored over time, limiting the need for time-consuming farm visits. This tool allows evaluating herds relative to their peers through the composite index and highlighting specific areas with opportunities for improvements through the individual indicators. This procedure could be applied to similar multidimensional livestock farming issues, such as environmental and socio-economic studies.