Introduction: Following the increasing interest about the development of indicators of positive welfare and affective state in farm animals, the aim of this research is to present some preliminary results on the application of a prototype protocol based exclusively on positive welfare measures and to suggest potential benefits that can promote positive welfare. Methods: The protocol was applied in 20 loose housing dairy cattle farms (6 on deep litter with straw, 14 in cubicles) and included only indicators of positive welfare and emotional states: feeding and resting synchronization, rumination during resting, comfortable lying postures, no visible eye white, relaxed ear postures, percentage of cow contacts with humans in the Avoidance Distance test. Potential benefits in terms of housing, feeding and management were then related to these variables (Mann-Whitney U test). Qualitative Behavior Assessment (QBA) was also carried out and analyzed by Principal Component Analysis to explore the effect of factors that were not evenly distributed in our sample (number of feed distributions, access to pasture, presence of paddock or environmental enrichments, automatic milking systems). Results: When hay was included in the diet, higher feeding synchronization (93.7 ± 1.6 vs. 52.2 ± 4.7%; p < 0.01), percentage of cows with relaxed ear postures (35.8 ± 5.4 vs. 15.5 ± 2.1%; p < 0.01) and percentage of cows with no visible eye white (55.9 ± 17.0 vs. 36.6 ± 4.1%; n.s.) were recorded. A higher level of feeding synchronization was observed also when the feeding places/cow ratio was > 1 (72.1 ± 9.9 vs. 53.8 ± 5.8%), although differences were not significant (p = 0.14). Deep litter had a more positive effect than cubicles on comfort at resting, with a significantly higher percentage of ruminating cows (65.8 ± 10.2 vs. 34.2 ± 3.7%; p < 0.01), a higher percentage of cows with no visible eye white (55.6 ± 9.9 vs. 33.1 ± 3.7%; p < 0.05) and a higher percentage of cows in a more comfortable posture, with stretched legs (14.3 ± 5.1 vs. 5.6 ± 1.6%; p = 0.09). QBA highlighted the most positive emotional state in the only farm that allowed access to pasture. Conclusions: This study represents a first attempt to apply a protocol for on-farm welfare evaluation based exclusively on the use of positive welfare indicators and provides suggestions on possible benefits (e.g., deep litter, feeding places/cow ratio > 1, hay in the diet and access to pasture) to enhance dairy cattle welfare.

Exploring positive welfare measures: preliminary findings from a prototype protocol in loose housing dairy cattle farms / S. Mattiello, S. Celozzi, F.M. Soli, M. Battini. - In: FRONTIERS IN VETERINARY SCIENCE. - ISSN 2297-1769. - 11:(2024), pp. 1368363.1-1368363.12. [10.3389/fvets.2024.1368363]

Exploring positive welfare measures: preliminary findings from a prototype protocol in loose housing dairy cattle farms

S. Mattiello;S. Celozzi
;
M. Battini
2024

Abstract

Introduction: Following the increasing interest about the development of indicators of positive welfare and affective state in farm animals, the aim of this research is to present some preliminary results on the application of a prototype protocol based exclusively on positive welfare measures and to suggest potential benefits that can promote positive welfare. Methods: The protocol was applied in 20 loose housing dairy cattle farms (6 on deep litter with straw, 14 in cubicles) and included only indicators of positive welfare and emotional states: feeding and resting synchronization, rumination during resting, comfortable lying postures, no visible eye white, relaxed ear postures, percentage of cow contacts with humans in the Avoidance Distance test. Potential benefits in terms of housing, feeding and management were then related to these variables (Mann-Whitney U test). Qualitative Behavior Assessment (QBA) was also carried out and analyzed by Principal Component Analysis to explore the effect of factors that were not evenly distributed in our sample (number of feed distributions, access to pasture, presence of paddock or environmental enrichments, automatic milking systems). Results: When hay was included in the diet, higher feeding synchronization (93.7 ± 1.6 vs. 52.2 ± 4.7%; p < 0.01), percentage of cows with relaxed ear postures (35.8 ± 5.4 vs. 15.5 ± 2.1%; p < 0.01) and percentage of cows with no visible eye white (55.9 ± 17.0 vs. 36.6 ± 4.1%; n.s.) were recorded. A higher level of feeding synchronization was observed also when the feeding places/cow ratio was > 1 (72.1 ± 9.9 vs. 53.8 ± 5.8%), although differences were not significant (p = 0.14). Deep litter had a more positive effect than cubicles on comfort at resting, with a significantly higher percentage of ruminating cows (65.8 ± 10.2 vs. 34.2 ± 3.7%; p < 0.01), a higher percentage of cows with no visible eye white (55.6 ± 9.9 vs. 33.1 ± 3.7%; p < 0.05) and a higher percentage of cows in a more comfortable posture, with stretched legs (14.3 ± 5.1 vs. 5.6 ± 1.6%; p = 0.09). QBA highlighted the most positive emotional state in the only farm that allowed access to pasture. Conclusions: This study represents a first attempt to apply a protocol for on-farm welfare evaluation based exclusively on the use of positive welfare indicators and provides suggestions on possible benefits (e.g., deep litter, feeding places/cow ratio > 1, hay in the diet and access to pasture) to enhance dairy cattle welfare.
animal emotions; animal welfare; behavior; dairy cows; feeding; housing; positive affects; welfare protocol
Settore AGR/19 - Zootecnica Speciale
2024
27-giu-2024
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
fvets-11-1368363.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 1.74 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.74 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1078677
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact