What impact can H&W planning have? Dr Nick Bell MA VetMB PhD PgCertVetEd FHEA MRCVS Senior lecturer in Veterinary Livestock Extension, RVC

Diversity, passion for cow care, responsive to challenges

Annual welfare outcome assessments – herds

Excellent welfare is critically important to…. Fit, Healthy, Feeling good Productivity Satisfaction – farmer and vet Public perception – belief and assurance

High performing farms conduct H&W planning but H&W planning does not make a high performing farm Bell et al 2006 Veterinary Record

Successful planning = farm specific goals, what to assess and targets?

Establishing WOA priorities 1.Industry priorities (FAWC) 2.Iceberg indicators – calf mortality, cow mortality, lameness, fertility 3.Protocols (Assurewell) 4.Farm specific

Role of welfare outcome assessment

Improving mobility Score 3 Score 2&3

Fork through compacted rubber chip then deep bed conversion 2014

Are there iceberg indicators (FAWC 2009)? Nyman et al 2011: cow mortality calf mortality fertility % correctly classified QBA calm REV SQRT51.2 QBA happy51.2 % lame cows53.7 % very lame cows log

Validity of snapshot measures – some more robust than others Recorded disease – eg lameness vs clinical mastitis Mobility score – 2 vs 3 Cow comfort indicators – eg hock injury BCS loss calving-peak/%fat cows at dry off Cleanliness –June vs Oct

Could benchmark resources and management FeedWaterRestAirSpaceLight Cow Signals

Welfare goals well matched to genetics and housing

Field school=powerful by being empowering

Summary of WOA Comprehensive - Welfare encompasses a massive range of behaviours, emotions, health states and comfort Target your priorities - Some may be more important than others – farm specific strengths and weaknesses Plan your resources and management measures - to meet outcome performance goals Facilitation with peer support has great potency of fleshing out (or rejecting) plans

Thank you for listening – I welcome your questions

Acknowledgements – thanks to: Part of the AHDB Dairy Research Partnership

Spare slides

Are welfare outcomes worth assessing (farmers) 90% agreed

Feasible for farmers?

Min 25 th percentile Median 75 th percentile Max No. missing Mean no. coughs/cow/15min† % cows with dirty udders† % cows with very dirty udders† % cows with dirty hind legs† % cows with very dirty hind legs† % cows with dirty hindquarters % cows with very dirty hindquarters† % cows BSC <2† % cows BSC ≥4† % cows ocular discharge† % cows nasal discharge % cows vulval discharge† % cows diarrhoea† % cows hampered respiration† % cows tail injury† % cows lame % cows severely lame†

Min 25 th percentile Median 75 th percentile Max No. missing Mean time taken to lie down (sec) % collisions during lying down† Mean % cows feeding Mean % cows ruminating Mean % cows lying Mean % cows lying incorrectly† Mean % cows idling % cows dull and depressed† Mean lying time/day (hours)† SD lying time/day (hours) Mean no. lying bouts/day SD no lying bouts/day Mean lying bout duration/day (min) SD lying bout duration/day (min)

Automated measures of lying time

Country Cow and farm no. Lying behaviour measure Mean across cows Range in cow means Mean across herds Range in herd means Wechsler et al. (2000)Switzerland 463 cows 18 farms Daily lying time (h) Mean lying bout duration (min) Lying bout frequency Endres and Barberg (2007) USA 147 cows 12 farms Daily lying time (h) – – 11.4 Mean lying bout duration (min) – – 59.8 Lying bout frequency – – 12.8 Ito et al. (2009)Canada 2033 cows 43 farms Daily lying time (h) – – 12.9 Mean lying bout duration (min) – – Lying bout frequency – – 10.0 Gomez and Cook (2010) USA 205 cows 16 farms Daily lying time (h) – Mean lying bout duration (min) – Lying bout frequency – von Keyserlingk et al. (2012) Canada 121 farms Daily lying time (h) -4.2 – California-3.7 – NE-USA-2.8 –

Lying times (hrs)  Median time spent lying down/day 10.4 hrs across the 23 lying study farms 7 hours/day 12 hours/day 3 hours/day! 17 hours/day! 3 – 14 hours/day! Pasture

Bed comfort (lying time hrs)

Lying times on different cubicles (hrs) P<0.05

Linear mixed effects multivariate analysis of cow-day level lying behaviour Total lying timeBout frequencyBout duration D1 vs D4↓ (p<0.05)↑ day 1 (Fri)↓ day 4 (Mon) DIM (MY)↑ (p<0.001)↓↑ Very lame↑ (p=0.01)↓↑ Deep vs not↑ (p=0.01)-↑ ↑ Cubicle length↑ (p=0.01)↑- ↑ Cubicle width--- Milking frequency--- Cubicles per cow--- SCC---

P<0.05