Housing system and herd size interactions in Norwegian dairy herds; associations with performance and disease incidence

Simensen, E.; Østerås, Olav; Bøe, Knut Egil; Kielland, Camilla; Ruud, Lars Erik; Næss, Geir

doi:10.1186/1751-0147-52-14

Cited by 56 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The proportion of cows with at least one hairless patch and no lesion was significantly lower (P<0.001) in the loose system, which is in line with results of other studies (Busato et al, 2000;Regula et al, 2004;Simensen et al, 2010). The most affected areas were the hock and neck; which was caused by the short resting beds (<160 cm length), the absence or the reduced quantity of bedding (1.5 kg/head/day or less) and the short chains (mean ± sd, 69.6±17.53 cm) used for the cows' tethering.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

The Effect of the Housing System on the Welfare Quality of Dairy Cows

Popescu

Borda

Diugan

et al. 2014

Italian Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the housing systems (loose vs tiestall) on the welfare of dairy cows and to test the hypothesis that dairy cows in loose housing systems have a better welfare quality than those kept in tie-stalls. Sixty commercial dairy farms (30 with loose and 30 with tie-stall housing system) were selected for evaluation, using mainly animal-based measures, as the applied Welfare Quality ® protocol allows it. A total number of 2624 milking cows were assessed in the winter period. There were significant differences between the two housing systems for the majority of the parameters within the four welfare principles. Significant differences were also found in terms of the mean scores of the welfare criteria and principles, with the majority pointing out the loose system as better. Based on the scores of the four principles, most of the farms with loose housing were classified as enhanced, while the majority of the tie-stall farms were acceptable. The results show that the welfare quality of dairy cows is greatly influenced by the housing system, and that the loose system is more advantageous when it comes to the feeding, housing and behaviour of the dairy cow.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

The Effect of the Housing System on the Welfare Quality of Dairy Cows

Popescu

Borda

Diugan

et al. 2014

Italian Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Growing concern is expected to lead to a decline in this type of restrictive housing (Spooner et al 2014). Building new tie stall barns has been outlawed in Norway, with a complete ban scheduled for 2023 (Simensen et al 2010). The proportion of farms using tie stalls is likely to decline due to market factors driven by changes in farm size (Barkema et al 2015), but research efforts that help producers transition to less restrictive housing should become a priority.…”

Section: Animal-welfare Science: Approaches and Limitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public concerns about dairy-cow welfare: how should the industry respond?

Weary

Keyserlingk

2017

Anim. Prod. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Common practices on dairy farms have fallen out of step with public values, such that the dairy industry has now become a target for public criticism. In the present paper, we describe some of the forces that have led to the current situation, and various potential methods to rectify the situation. One approach is to shield industry practices from public scrutiny, for example, by using 'ag-gag' legislation to stem the flow of videos exposing contentious practices. Another is to educate members of the public so that they better understand the nature of these practices and the reasons that they are used on farms. The literature we reviewed indicated that neither of these approaches is likely to be successful. Instead, we suggest that the dairy industry needs to develop methods of meaningful two-way engagement with concerned citizens, including research using social-science methods to document the values of different stakeholders and examine approaches to resolving conflicts. We also reviewed how biological research can help resolve issues, for example, by developing rearing systems that address public concerns around freedom of movement and social contact without putting animals at an increased risk of disease. We end with a discussion of how policy efforts by the dairy industry can be used to ensure compliance with commonly accepted standards, and more ambitiously, develop a common vision of dairying that positions the industry as a leader in animal welfare.

show abstract

“…Although at the beginning cows in the tie-stalls produced approximately 10 % more milk than the cows in the two loose housing systems; later the cows in the deepbedded loose housing became the highest producers (Konggaard, 1977). Simensen et al (2010) found that average milk production per cow-year was 134 kg lower in free-stall herd than in tie-stall herds, but in the range 27-45 cows there was no significant difference in yields between the herd categories. In herds with less than 27 cows, there were increasingly lower yields in free-stalls, whereas the yields were increasingly higher in free-stalls with more than 45 cows.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=186545

Hristov

Zlatanovic²,

Stankovic

et al. 2014

Mljekarstvo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was conducted in five dairy farms with different capacity (farms A with 47, B 12, C 10, D 14 and E 24 Simmental cows, aged between 4 and 5 years and body weight about 600 kg) in order to determine a relationship between rearing system, Animal Needs Index (ANI) and milk traits. Loose system of cow rearing was used in open stalls in farms A and C, while in other farms cows were tied in closed stalls. In two farms, there were outdoor pens, permanently available to cows on farm A, and during daytime on farm D. Rations for dairy cows were equal in all five farms and suitable for daily milk production about 20 kg with 4.0 % milk fat and 3.5 % milk protein. It was established that total ANI scores for farms were A 35.5, B 9.5, C 24.5, D 26.5 and E 10.5. The welfare levels in farms B and E were not sufficient, in farms C and D were very good, while in farm A it was excellent. A very significant influence of rearing system on cow welfare was found (p<0.001). A significant influence of rearing system (p<0.01) on average daily milk yield, milk yield in standard lactation, milk fat (kg), yield of 4 % fat corrected milk and yield of proteins (kg) were noticed. The influence of the rearing system on milk fat content (%), dry matter (%), protein (%) and lactose (%) was not statistically significant. Differences between ANI score, daily and standard lactation milk yield were very significant (p<0.001), as well as differences between ANI and the amount of milk fat (kg), protein (kg) and amount of 4 % fat corrected milk.

show abstract

Housing system and herd size interactions in Norwegian dairy herds; associations with performance and disease incidence

Cited by 56 publications

References 19 publications

The Effect of the Housing System on the Welfare Quality of Dairy Cows

The Effect of the Housing System on the Welfare Quality of Dairy Cows

Public concerns about dairy-cow welfare: how should the industry respond?

http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=186545

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About