Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:45:26.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare of dairy cows in Kosovo and intervention thresholds for selected welfare indicators as suggested by farmers and veterinarians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

E Zhitia ,
C Leeb ,
S Muji  and
C Winckler
E Zhitia*
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Institute of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendel-Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary, University of Prishtina, Bulevardi ‘Bill Clinton,’ PN 10000, Prishtina, Kosovo
C Leeb
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Institute of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendel-Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
S Muji
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary, University of Prishtina, Bulevardi ‘Bill Clinton,’ PN 10000, Prishtina, Kosovo
C Winckler
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Institute of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendel-Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
*
* Contact for correspondence: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Despite increased concerns about dairy cattle welfare, there is a paucity of knowledge regarding their welfare and the attitudes of farmers and veterinarians in the Western Balkan region. This is the first on-farm study to address dairy cattle welfare and the attitudes of farmers and veterinarians towards animal welfare in Kosovo. Thirty tie-stall dairy farms across seven Kosovo regions were assessed twice with an interval of 10 to 12 months. During the first visit, the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol was applied, whilst the second visit focused on clinical animal-based indicators and interviews with the farmers regarding intervention thresholds for a number of welfare indicators. Additionally, such thresholds were obtained from 15 veterinarians via an online questionnaire. The main areas of concern that were highlighted relate to comfort around resting (soiling of animals, restriction of lying down movements) and injuries, including lameness. Farmers and veterinarians agreed on the intervention thresholds for the majority of the indicators (eg animals with dirty udders, animals with lesions/swellings) but differences were found for important health and welfare issues (eg farmers suggesting a higher threshold for lameness compared to veterinarians). Compared to the on-farm prevalences, both farmers and veterinarians suggested lower intervention levels for welfare issues indicating an awareness of problems. In conclusion, investments into close co-operation between farmers, veterinarians and other advisors regarding awareness-building and inducing changes in daily management routines are considered necessary to improve dairy cow welfare.

Keywords

animal-based measuresanimal welfaredairy cowsKosovoon-farm assessmenttie-stalls
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , November 2022 , pp. 483 - 493
Copyright
© 2022 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Footnotes

**

The online version of this article has been updated since original publication. A notice detailing the change has also been published

References

Alban, L, Agger, JF and Lawson, LG 1996 Lameness in tied Danish dairy cattle: the possible influence of housing systems, management, milk yield, and prior incidents of lameness. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 29: 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(96)01066-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amory, JR, Marker, ZE, Wright, JL, Mason, SA, Blowey, RW and Green, LE 2008 Associations between sole ulcer, white line disease and digital dermatitis and the milk yield of 1824 dairy cows on 30 dairy cow farms in England and Wales from February 2003-November 2004. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 83: 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.09.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersson, M, Schaar, J and Wiktorsson, H 1984 Effects of drinking water flow rates and social rank on performance and drinking behaviour of tied-up dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 11: 599–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(84)90074-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bajrami, E, Wailes, EJ, Dixon, BL, Musliu, A and Morat, D 2017 Factors affecting the technical efficiency of dairy farms in Kosovo. Journal of Central European Agriculture 18(4): 823–840. https://doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/18.4.1964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I and Perny, P 2009 Overall assessment of animal welfare: strategy adopted in Welfare Quality®. Animal Welfare 18: 363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, V and Vasseur, E 2021 Graduate student literature review: The effect of chain length and stall width on common outcome measures of dairy cow welfare in stall-based housing systems. Journal of Dairy Science 104: 3751–3760. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruijnis, M, Hogeveen, H, Garforth, C and Stassen, E 2013 Dairy farmers attitudes and intentions towards improving dairy cow foot health. Livestock Science 155(1): 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cozzi, G, Gottardo, F, Brscic, M, Contiero, B, Irrgang, N, Knierim, U and Dockès, AC 2015 Dehorning of cattle in the EU Member States: A quantitative survey of the current practices. Livestock Science 179: 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Backer, CJS and Hudders, L 2015 Meat morals: relationship between meat consumption consumer attitudes towards human and animal welfare and moral behavior. Meat Science 99: 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.08.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Espetvedt, M, Lind, AK, Wolff, C, Rintakoski, S, Virtala, AM and Lindberg, A 2013 Nordic dairy farmers threshold for contacting a veterinarian and consequences for disease recording: Mild clinical mastitis as an example. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 108(2-3): 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.07.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frewer, LJ, Kole, A, Van De Kroon, SMA and De Lauwere, C 2005 Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems.Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18(4): 345–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-1489-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, DB, De Passillé, AM and Rushen, J 2001 Assessing cow comfort: Effects of two floor types and two tie stall designs on the behaviour of lactating dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71(2): 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00175-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansson, H and Lagerkvist, CJ 2014 Defining and measuring farmers attitudes to farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 23: 47–56. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.1.047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heleski, CR, Mertig, A and Zanella, AJ 2004 Assessing attitudes toward farm animal welfare: A national survey of animal science faculty members. Journal of Animal Science 82: 2806–2814. https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.8292806xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heleski, CR and Zanella, AJ 2006 Animal science student attitudes to farm animal welfare, Anthrozoös 19: 3–16. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279306785593883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH 2003 Human-animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00280-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, JN 2013 Impact of lameness and claw lesions in cows on health and production. Livestock Science 156: 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauppinen, T, Vainio, A, Valros, A, Rita, H and Vesala, KM 2010 Improving animal welfare: qualitative and quantitative methodology in the study of farmers’ attitudes. Animal Welfare 19: 523–536. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303713X13697429463718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, LJ, Immink, V, Hubbard, C, Garrod, G, Edwards, SA and Ingenbleek, P 2012 Designing animal welfare policies and monitoring progress. Animal Welfare 21: 95–105. https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905673845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keil, NM, Wiederkehr, TU, Friedli, K and Wechsler, B 2006 Effects of frequency and duration of outdoor exercise on the prevalence of hock lesions in tied Swiss dairy cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 74: 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.11.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kester, E, Holzhauer, M and Frankena, K 2014 A descriptive review of the prevalence and risk factors of hock lesions in dairy cows. The Veterinary Journal 202: 222–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.07.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosovo Agency of Statistics 2014 Last census of livestock population in Kosovo, https://ask.rks-gov.netGoogle Scholar
Laister, S, Brorkens, N, Lolli, S, Zucca, D, Knierim, U, Minero, M, Canali, E and Winckler, C 2009 Reliability of measures of agonistic behaviour in dairy and beef cattle. Cardiff University, School of City and Regional Planning pp 95–112. Cardiff University: UKGoogle Scholar
Leach, KA, Whay, HR, Maggs, CM, Barker, ZE, Paul, ES, Bell, AK and Main, DCJ 2010 Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 1. Understanding barriers to lameness control on dairy farms. Research in Veterinary Science 89: 311–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2010.02.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lusk, JL and Norwood, FB 2010 Direct versus indirect questioning: An application to the well-being of farm animals. Social Indicators Research 96: 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9492-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiello, S, Arduino, D, Tosi, MV and Carenzi, C 2005 Survey on housing, management and welfare of dairy cattle in tie-stalls in western Italian Alps. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A-Animal Science 55:31–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064700510009270Google Scholar
McCambridge, J, Witton, J and Elbourne, DR 2014 Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to study research participation effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 67: 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulligan, FJ and Doherty, ML 2008 Production diseases of the transition cow. The Veterinary Journal 176: 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.12.018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norring, M, Haggman, J, Simojoki, H, Tamminen, P, Winckler, C and Pastell, M 2014 Lameness impairs feeding behavior of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 97: 4317–4321. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7512CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ostojić-Andrić, D, Hristov, S, Novakovic, Z, Pantelic, V, Petrovic, MM, Zlatanovic, Z and Niksic, D 2011 Dairy cows welfare quality in loose vs tie housing system. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 27: 975–998. https://doi.org/10.2298/BAH1103975OCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostovic, M, Mikus, T, Pavicic, Z, Matkovic, K and Mesic, Z 2017 Influence of socio-demographic and experiential factors on the attitudes of Croatian veterinary students towards farm animal welfare. Veterinární Medicína 62: 417–428. https://doi.org/10.17221/172/2016-VETMEDCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phythian, CJ, Mullan, S, Butterworth, A, Lambton, S, Ilić, J, Burazerović, J, Burazerović, E and Leach, K 2017 A pilot survey of farm animal welfare in Serbia, a country preparing for EU accession. Veterinary Medicine and Science 3: 208–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popescu, S, Borda, C, Diugan, EA, Niculae, M, Stefan, R and Sandru, CD 2014 The effect of the housing system on the welfare quality of dairy cows. Italian Journal of Animal Science 13: 2940. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2014.2940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popescu, S, Borda, C, Diugan, EA, Spinu, M, Groza, IS and Sandru, CD 2013 Dairy cows welfare quality in tie-stall housing system with or without access to exercise. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 55: 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-55-43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radeski, M, Janevski, A and Ilieski, V 2015 Screening of selected indicators of dairy cattle welfare in Macedonia. Macedonian Veterinary Review 38: 43–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.14432/j.macvetrev.2014.11.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regula, G, Danuser, J, Spycher, B and Wechsler, B 2004 Health and welfare of dairy cows in different husbandry systems in Switzerland. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 66: 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2004.09.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritter, C, Jansen, J, Roche, S, Kelton, DF, Adams, CL, Orsel, K, Erskine, RJ, Benedictus, G, Lam, TJ and Barkema, HW 2017 Invited review: determinants of farmers adoption of managementbased strategies for infectious disease prevention and control. Journal of Dairy Science 100: 3329–3347. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11977CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J, Haley, D and De Passillé, AM 2007 Effect of softer flooring in tie stalls on resting behavior and leg injuries of lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3647–3651. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-463CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sabuncuoglu, N and Coban, O 2008 Attitudes of Turkish veterinarians towards animal welfare. Animal Welfare 17: 27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spooner, JM, Schuppli, CA and Fraser, D 2014 Attitudes of Canadian citizens toward farm animal welfare: A qualitative study. Livestock Science 163: 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.02.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumner, CL, von Keyserlingk, MA and Weary, DM 2018 Perspectives of farmers and veterinarians concerning dairy cattle welfare. Animal Frontiers 8: 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfx006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vu cernilo, M, Matković, K, Štoković, I, Kovaćević, S and Benić, M 2012 Welfare assessment of dairy cows housed in a tie-stall system. Mljekarstvo: časopis za unaprjeđenje proizvodnje i prerade mlijeka 62: 62–67Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Boivin, X, Pedersen, V, Tosi, MV, Janczak, AM, Visser, EK and Jones, RB 2006 Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 185–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2002 Farmer perception of lameness prevalence. Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Lameness in Ruminants pp 355–358. 9–13 January 2002, USAGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Veterinary Record 153: 197–202. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.153.7.197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zurbrigg, K, Kelton, D, Anderson, N and Millman, S 2005 Stall dimensions and the prevalence of lameness, injury, and cleanliness on 317 tie-stall dairy farms in Ontario. The Canadian Veterinary Journal 46: 902Google ScholarPubMed