Use of benchmarking to monitor and analyze effects of herd size and herd milk yield on cattle health and welfare in Austrian dairy farms

Abstract

The modernization and intensification of the dairy industry has led to larger herd sizes and higher milk production, both globally and in Austria. Benchmarking allows the monitoring of animal health and welfare as well as the identification of potential for improvement by comparing certain parameters with other farms with similar management environments. Using data from the Austrian routine recording system of various traits of milk production, fertility, and health, farmers and their veterinarians (with the consent of the farmer) can compare farm parameters with detailed data available from their district or state and ensure more efficient herd management. The aim of the present study was to provide an overview of dairy milk production in Austria based on the annual herd health reports and to examine the effects of herd size and milk production on fertility and health parameters. Annual herd health reports from all farms participating in the health monitoring system were considered, and analyses were conducted across breeds. A large variation between farms was observed. The results showed that, based on parameters of milk yield and herd size for the range of farms within this study, it cannot be concluded that these circumstances automatically lead to poor animal health. Farms with very small herd sizes differed significantly from those with larger herd sizes. Overall herd size effects were however small in Austria. Higher milk production based on a single farm does not necessarily cause more health and fertility problems; however, we detected a tendency for an increased risk of fertility, udder, and metabolic diagnoses. An active health management program might result in higher incidence rates for fertility or udder diagnoses, as a veterinary treatment might be economically superior if, for example, the calving interval can be shortened or the somatic cell count can be reduced. The results of the present study showed that it is advisable to use different benchmarks in combination for monitoring health, as well as for deciding on strategies to improve overall herd health management. Animal health reports on Austrian dairy cows are continuously being developed and new parameters integrated.

Benchmarking Based on Regularly Recorded Claw Health Data of Austrian Dairy Cattle for Implementation in the Cattle Data Network (RDV)

“…In anticipation, establishing KPI for claw health using a benchmarking system with the classification of dairy farms using percentiles [ 51 , 52 ] of incidence risks of lameness, claw lesions and annual culling risk due to claw and limb disorders would appear more meaningful and flexible in practice [ 6 , 8 , 26 ]. Such a benchmarking system can be updated annually using data sets provided by hoof trimmers and other data sources [ 8 , 62 ]. Such a flexible benchmarking system does not only allow an annual update of KPI but allows for their adaptation to different parameters.…”

“…These include different dairy breeds (Fleckvieh, Holstein, Braunvieh, Jersey, etc. ), different performance levels (high and low milk yields), different husbandry systems (loose housing, tie stall, pasture based) [ 8 , 62 ], and various welfare criteria as well as for other special operational considerations [ 6 , 9 , 11 ]; but always allows for a comparison with the ‘best-in-class’ farms.…”

“…Computation of KPI for claw health using a benchmarking system presents great opportunities to establish flexible reference values representing good claw health in ‘best-in-class’ farms and to compare this reference data with other classes of farms typifying moderate or poor claw health. Such benchmarking systems for claw health [ 21 , 26 , 29 ] and other herd health matters have also been described [ 4 , 6 , 8 ]. As Canadian researchers reported that benchmarking could motivate farmers and promoted cooperation between farmers and veterinarians to improve calf management and calf welfare [ 74 , 75 ], we expect a similar positive effect for Austrian farmers benchmarking claw health.…”

“…Subsequently, the KPIs were assigned to percentiles, notably the 10th, 25th, 50th (=median), 75th and 90th percentiles and the mean, as described by others [ 4 , 8 , 19 ]. This then allowed for comparison of individual farms with good (≤10th percentile), moderate (≥25th and <50th percentile) and poor (≥50th percentile) claw health.…”

“…For instance, key figures have been established for dairy cattle welfare [ 4 , 5 ], dairy herd management [ 6 ], for analysing the effects of welfare standards ( ; accessed on 14 March 2022) and biosecurity related to the administration of antimicrobials in beef fattening [ 7 ]. Further, benchmarks have been used to analyse the impacts of herd size and milk yield on cattle health [ 8 ], the effects of lameness, leg injuries, lying time, and facility design and management on cow comfort in dairy and beef cows across different countries [ 9 , 10 , 11 ].…”