Avoidance Distance in Sheltered Cows and Its Association with Other Welfare Parameters

Sharma, Arvind; Phillips, Clive J. C.

doi:10.3390/ani9070396

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 94 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Animals’ reactions in the presence of humans have always been useful to understand how they perceive people. The assessment of avoidance distance through tests for livestock animals such as cattle, buffalo and sheep [ 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 ] has provided a functional index for evaluating and measuring the quality of human–animal interactions and the fear of animals in the presence of humans [ 28 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human–Animal Interactions in Dairy Goats

Carnovale

Marcone

Serrapica

et al. 2023

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely assumed that the quality of human–animal interactions may have a strong impact on animals’ living conditions and is fundamental to improving farm animal welfare. This work aims to evaluate the effectiveness of methods for assessing and monitoring the welfare of lactating goats. In particular, attention was paid to the methods regarding the assessment of the human–animal relationship. The experimental protocol included three tests and observations in the milking parlour, namely: avoidance distance in the pen, avoidance distance at the manger, approach test within 2 min and behavioural observations of stockmen and animals during milking. Fourteen dairy goat farms located in the province of Potenza (Southern Italy) with flocks ranging in size from 67 to 450 lactating goats were used. All farms raised the Rossa Mediterranean goat breed. The percentage of goats that permitted themselves to be touched at the manger (mean ± SD: 12.36 ± 9.50) was higher than that found in the pen (9.67 ± 11.86) and within 2 min inside the pen (8.19 ± 13.78). The avoidance distance at the manger (0.63 ± 0.28 m) was shorter than that recorded in the pen (1.19 ± 0.58 m). Avoidance distance at the manger was positively correlated with that in the pen (Spearman correlation test (rs) = 0.607; p < 0.01), as was the percentage of goats touched at the manger and in the pen (rs = 0.647; p < 0.01). Approximately 60% of the stockman interactions observed during milking were neutral, while positive and negative interactions had similar values to each other, approximately 20%. The number of neutral stockman interactions was positively correlated with the percentage of goats moving when approached at a distance >1 m (rs = 0.799; p < 0.001) and was negatively correlated with the animals touched at the manger (rs = −0.607; p < 0.05), in the pen (rs = −0.613; p < 0.05) and within 2 min (rs = −0.669; p < 0.01). As regards the degree of association between the behaviour of the milker and the animals during the milking routine, the percentage of neutral interactions tended to be positively correlated only with the number of kicks performed by the animals (rs = 0.476; p < 0.10). It is concluded that avoidance distance at the manger and in the pen, as for other farm animals, are valid tests to evaluate the human–animal relationship in goats. In addition, avoidance distance at the manger may reliably replace the test performed in the pen.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human–Animal Interactions in Dairy Goats

Carnovale

Marcone

Serrapica

et al. 2023

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Assessment of this relationship underlines the importance of stockpersonship in animal welfare. Negative behavior and handling of animals could induce stress and cause injury to animals [ 31 ]. Prophylactic measures such as routine diagnosis, reproductive control, and rigorous healthcare protections, including cleaning of facilities, avoiding contact with neighboring herds, acquiring animals with a negative diagnosis, and using an artificial insemination program, should be recommended and implemented in the properties, with the aim of reducing reproductive losses caused by these infections.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management Factors Influence Animal Welfare and the Correlation to Infectious Diseases in Dairy Cows

Licitra

Perillo

Antoci

et al. 2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study assessed dairy cow welfare through the application of the Italian National Animal Welfare Reference Center (CReNBA) checklist in 36 dairy farms located in Ragusa (Italy) subjected to two different management conditions, housing with free access to pasture (Group 1, farms n = 17) and indoor housing (Group 2, farms n = 19). Five areas of investigation were considered: Area A, “Farm management and personnel”; Area B, “Facilities and equipment”; Area C, “Animal-based measures”; Area D, “Inspection of microclimatic environmental conditions and alarm systems”; and Area E, “Biosecurity”. Blood samples were collected by coccygeal venipuncture from all animals (4081 cows). The specific antibodies against Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis, Chlamydiophila abortus, Neospora caninum, bovine viral diarrhea virus, and the bovine herpesvirus were assessed by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) serological test. Group 1 (access to pasture) showed a lower value of percentage score recorded in Area A (p = 0.02) and E (p = 0.01) than Group 2 (indoor housing). Herpesvirus (Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis - IBR - detection of gB antibodies/IBR-gB) blood concentrations were higher in the cows housed indoor versus those with access to pasture (p = 0.01). Farm management and personnel (score A) was correlated with the level of bovine viral diarrhea virus (τ = 0.3754) and bovine-herpesvirus-specific antibodies (IBR-gB) (τ = 0.4159). “Biosecurity” percentage score showed a significant correlation with Chlamydiophila abortus (τ = −0.4621) in the cows with access to pasture and IBR-gB (τ = 0.3435) in the cows housed fully indoors. Group 2 showed a significantly reduced level of antibodies against Neospora caninum. In conclusion, differences in the welfare assessment score were observed in the “Farm management and personnel” and “Biosecurity” between the two management conditions. It had an effect on the prevalence of herpesvirus, which occurred more in cattle with access to pasture. Therefore, an accurate application of the checklist could be an instrument to prevent and control the spread of infections in farms.

show abstract

“…Assessment of this relationship underlines the importance of stockpersonship in animal welfare. Negative behaviour and sometimes handling of animals could induce stress and cause injury to animals [30]. Prophylactic measures such as routine diagnosis, reproductive control and rigorous health care such as cleaning of facilities, avoiding contact with neighbouring herds, acquiring animals with a negative diagnosis and using an arti cial insemination program should be recommended and implemented in the properties with the aim of reducing reproductive losses caused by these infections.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Animal Welfare in Extensive and Intensive Dairy Farms and its Correlation to Infectious Diseases

Licitra

Perillo

Antoci

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The welfare of farm animals has become a growing concern in recent years. This is the first study that assesses dairy cow welfare by the application of an impartial, reproducible, functional check-list based on risk analysis which provides a numerical animal welfare index to each farm. We tested the effect of two different management conditions, housing with free access to pasture and indoor housing, on dairy cows kept in 36 farms and concurrently carried out the evaluation of different infectious diseases. Animal welfare assessment was performed in each farm through the CReNBA’s check-list. Moreover, the prevalence of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis, Chlamydiophila abortus, Neospora caninum, Bovine Herpesvirus specific antibodies IgB and IgE and of Bovine Viral Diarrhea virus was tested in each farm through ELISA serological test. Unpaired t-Test was applied to assess differences among the two experimental groups; while, Kendall’s Tau coefficient (T) was determined to investigate the relationship between studied variables. Results: The result of each area provided an indication of the burden and importance of each of these on the final calculation of the animal welfare value. ELISA was positive with different mean percentages. The application of Unpaired t-Test showed that the intensive housing system group had higher percentages of Bovine Herpesvirus specific antibodies IgB compared to the extensive housing system group. The application of Kendall’s Tau coefficient showed different correlations between studied areas and infectious diseases. Conclusion: The hazard analysis areas assessed farming and management conditions of the farms, but these may have different effects as they are regulated by the animals’ ability to adapt and are therefore less important when establishing the final welfare value. Those farms with the highest prevalence of infections could be associated with a poor level of business management. A proper evaluation of the problems encountered and a more accurate application of the check-list could prevent and control the spread of infections in farms. Our results want to be a contribution in breeding which provides farmers and veterinarians the instruments to improve animal welfare and farm business performance.

show abstract

Avoidance Distance in Sheltered Cows and Its Association with Other Welfare Parameters

Cited by 9 publications

References 94 publications

Human–Animal Interactions in Dairy Goats

Human–Animal Interactions in Dairy Goats

Management Factors Influence Animal Welfare and the Correlation to Infectious Diseases in Dairy Cows

Evaluation of Animal Welfare in Extensive and Intensive Dairy Farms and its Correlation to Infectious Diseases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About