Dairy Cattle Welfare Symposium: Intersection of …...Dairy Cattle Welfare Symposium: Intersection of Best Practices and Sustainability May 20-21, 2016 The Ohio State University Ohio

Dairy Cattle Welfare Symposium: Intersection of Best Practices and Sustainability

May 20-21, 2016

The Ohio State University

Ohio Union: Great Hall Meeting Room 1739 N. High Street, Columbus OH 43210

Table of Contents Agenda………………………………………………………………………………………………….... 1 Emily Meredith – The history of dairy welfare assessment programs…………………………………... 3 Marcia Endres – The relationship between lameness and cow comfort………………………………...17 Dana Tomlinson – Leading risk factors for lameness: Individual and herd-level………………………24 Jan Shearer – Science-based consensus for animal welfare assessment programs’ recommended…….32 Dave Sjeklocha – Optimizing youngstock rearing: Going beyond performance………………………. 43 Emily Miller-Cushon – Consequences of feed and housing practices for animal welfare……………... 56 Elizabeth Cox – Veterinary Feed Directive: From an animal welfare perspective…………………….. 66 Jim Reynolds – Pain management: Science-based guidelines for welfare audits……………………… 77 Meagan King – Dairy cow behavior and welfare in herds with robotic milking systems……………... 84 Frank Dinis – On-farm needs for dairy personnel training…………………………………………….. 89 Luís Mendonça – Building an effective training program for dairy personnel………………………… 94 Gustavo Schuenemann – Monitoring personnel performance with emphasis on animal welfare…….. 104 Antone Mickelson – Mass communication: Putting the good word out there about common………... 115 Charlie Arnot – Food integrity and consumer perception…………………………………………….. 120 Juan Velez – Improving animal welfare through management……………………………………….. 143

Organized by the Dairy Cattle Welfare Council dcwcouncil.org

Dai

ry C

attle

Wel

fare

Sym

posi

um: I

nter

sect

ion

of B

est P

ract

ices

and

Sus

tain

abili

tyL

ocat

ion:

Ohi

o U

nion

at T

he O

hio

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

, Col

umbu

s, O

HD

ate:

May

20th

and

21st

FRID

AY

-D

AY

1

7:00

–Sp

onso

red

brea

kfas

t: D

airy

CA

RE3

65-

Rec

onne

ctin

g ve

terin

aria

ns to

the

dairy

com

mun

ity

(Mic

hael

Bol

ton,

Mer

ck A

nim

al H

ealth

)

8:00

–W

elco

me

(Ric

ardo

Che

bel,

Uni

vers

ity o

f Fl

orid

a)

DA

IRY

WE

LFA

RE

A

SSE

SSM

EN

T P

RO

GR

AM

S

8:10

–Th

e hi

stor

y of

dai

ry w

elfa

re a

sses

smen

t pr

ogra

ms(

Emily

Mer

edith

, NM

PF)

8:40

–Th

e fu

ture

of d

airy

wel

fare

ass

essm

ent

prog

ram

s (Je

nnife

rWal

ker,

Dea

n Fo

ods)

9:10

–Q

&A

(mod

erat

or: R

icar

do C

hebe

l, U

nive

rsity

of

Flo

rida

)

LA

ME

NE

SS

9:45

–Th

e re

latio

nshi

p be

twee

n la

men

ess a

nd c

ow

com

fort

(Mar

cia

Endr

es, U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

)

10:1

5–

Lead

ing

risk

fact

ors f

or la

men

ess:

Indi

vidu

al

and

herd

-leve

l(D

ana

Tom

linso

n,Zi

npro

Pe

rfor

man

ce M

iner

als)

10:4

5–

Bre

ak

11:1

5–

Scie

nce-

base

d co

nsen

sus f

or a

nim

al w

elfa

reas

sess

men

t pro

gram

s’ re

com

men

ded

prev

alen

ceof

la

men

ess i

n da

iry h

erds

(Jan

She

arer

, Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity)

11:4

5–

iClic

ker

and

Rou

ndta

ble

(atte

ndee

s, sp

eake

rs, m

oder

ator

: Glá

ucio

Lop

es J

r., S

CR

Dai

ry)

12:3

0to

13:

30–

Spon

sore

d L

unch

YO

UN

GST

OC

K C

AR

E

13:3

0–

Opt

imiz

ing

youn

gsto

ck re

arin

g: G

oing

be

yond

per

form

ance

(Dav

e Sj

eklo

cha,

Cat

tle E

mpi

re)

14:0

0–

Con

sequ

ence

s of f

eed

and

hous

ing

prac

tices

fo

r ani

mal

wel

fare

and

perf

orm

ance

(Em

ily M

iller

-C

usho

n, U

nive

rsity

of F

lori

da)

14:3

0–

Vet

erin

ary

Feed

Dire

ctiv

e: fr

om a

n an

imal

w

elfa

repe

rspe

ctiv

e (E

lizab

eth

Adam

s, M

erck

Ani

mal

H

ealth

)

15:0

0–

Bre

ak

15:3

0–

Pain

man

agem

ent:

Scie

nce-

base

d gu

idel

ines

fo

r Wel

fare

audi

ts (J

ames

P. R

eyno

lds,

Prae

dium

Ve

ntur

es L

LC)

16:0

0–

iClic

ker

and

Rou

ndta

ble

(atte

ndee

s, sp

eake

rs, m

oder

ator

: Kat

yPr

oudf

oot,

The

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity)

16:4

5–

Spon

sore

d St

uden

tPre

sent

atio

ns (E

lanc

o D

airy

Bus

ines

s)

Is B

igge

r Bet

ter?

Far

m S

ize

and

Ani

mal

Wel

fare

. J.A

. Rob

bins

et a

l.C

ompa

rison

of m

ilkin

g an

d ly

ing

beha

vior

bet

wee

n la

me

and

soun

d co

ws o

n da

iry fa

rms w

ith a

utom

ated

m

ilkin

g sy

stem

s. M

. T. M

. Kin

g et

al.

Effe

ct o

f pre

partu

m p

hysi

cal a

ctiv

ity o

n be

havi

or

and

imm

une

com

pete

nce

of d

airy

cow

s. R

. Bla

ck e

t al

.C

oolin

g da

iry c

ows e

ffic

ient

ly w

ith w

ater

: eff

ects

of

sprin

kler

flow

rate

on

beha

vior

and

bod

y te

mpe

ratu

re, J

. M. C

hen

et a

l.D

evel

opm

ent o

f a b

ehav

ior-

base

d sc

reen

ing

tool

for

dise

ase

dete

ctio

n in

pre

wea

ned

grou

p-ho

used

dai

ry

calv

es. M

. C. C

ram

er e

t al.

Milk

repl

acer

pla

ne o

f nut

ritio

n in

fluen

ces c

alf

nutri

tive

and

non-

nutri

tive

oral

beh

avio

rs. L

. E.

Hul

bert

et a

l.

17:4

5–

An

upda

te fr

om th

e D

airy

Cat

tle W

elfa

re

Cou

ncil

Pres

iden

t (Ja

n Sh

eare

r, Io

wa

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

)

18:0

0–

Adj

ourn

SAT

UR

DA

Y -

DA

Y2

7:00

–Sp

onso

red

brea

kfas

t: N

utrit

iona

l Int

erve

ntio

ns

for C

ontro

l of C

law

Dis

ease

(Dan

a To

mlin

son,

Zinp

ro P

erfo

rman

ce M

iner

als)

PRO

MO

TIN

G T

EA

MW

OR

K A

ND

PER

SON

NE

L P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E8:

00–

On-

Farm

Nee

ds fo

r Dai

ry P

erso

nnel

Tra

inin

g (F

rank

Din

is, H

ilmar

, CA)

8:30

–B

uild

ing

an E

ffec

tive

Trai

ning

Pro

gram

for

Dai

ry P

erso

nnel

(Luí

s Men

donç

a, K

ansa

s Sta

te

Uni

vers

ity)

9:00

–M

onito

ring

Pers

onne

l Per

form

ance

with

Em

phas

is o

n A

nim

al W

elfa

re(G

usta

vo

Schu

enem

ann,

The

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity)

9:30

–B

reak

10:0

0–

Man

agin

g da

irype

rson

nel a

nd w

orki

ng

envi

ronm

ent.

(Ern

esto

San

tilla

nez,

Afim

ilk)

10:3

0–

iClic

ker

and

Rou

ndta

ble

(atte

ndee

s, sp

eake

rs, m

oder

ator

:Gus

tavo

Sch

uene

man

n,Th

e O

hio

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

)

11:3

0-12

:30:

Spon

sore

d L

unch

MA

SS C

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

, MA

RK

ET

ING

, A

ND

EC

ON

OM

ICS

OF

AN

IMA

L W

EL

FAR

E12

:30

–M

ass c

omm

unic

atio

n: P

uttin

g th

e go

od w

ord

out t

here

abo

ut c

omm

on p

ract

ices

of t

he d

airy

in

dust

ry (A

nton

e M

icke

lson

,Dar

iGol

d)

13:0

0–

Food

inte

grity

and

con

sum

er p

erce

ptio

n (C

harl

ie A

rnot

,Cen

ter f

or F

ood

Inte

grity

)

14:0

0–

How

did

I ch

ange

/bui

ld m

y da

iry to

ada

pt to

ne

w a

nim

al w

elfa

rest

anda

rds (

Don

Ben

nink

, Nor

th

Flor

ida

Hol

stei

n, F

L;Te

un V

erho

even

, Tw

in O

ak

Dai

ry, O

H; J

uan

Vele

z, Au

rora

Dai

ry, C

O)

15:0

0–

iClic

ker

and

Rou

ndta

ble

(atte

ndee

s, sp

eake

rs, m

oder

ator

: Tra

vis T

haye

r, D

iam

ond

V)

16:0

0–

Adj

ourn

Page 1

Dai

ry C

attle

Wel

fare

Sym

posi

um: I

nter

sect

ion

of B

est P

ract

ices

and

Sus

tain

abili

tyL

ocat

ion:

Ohi

o U

nion

at T

he O

hio

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

, Col

umbu

s, O

HD

ate:

May

20th

and

21st

Dai

ry C

attle

Wel

fare

Sym

posi

um:

Inte

rsec

tion

of B

est P

ract

ices

and

Su

stai

nabi

lity

The

Dai

ry W

elfa

reSy

mpo

sium

will

brin

g to

geth

er in

dust

ry le

ader

s to

disc

uss b

est

reco

mm

ende

d pr

actic

es o

f ani

mal

car

e w

ith

emph

asis

on

anim

al w

elfa

rean

d he

alth

, ani

mal

-hu

man

inte

ract

ion,

and

susta

inab

ility

of t

he d

airy

in

dust

ry. T

he ro

ster

of s

peak

ers i

nclu

des s

ever

al

dairy

men

and

dai

ry m

anag

ers t

hat w

ill d

iscu

ss

rout

ine

wel

fare

chal

leng

es o

bser

ved

in d

airy

op

erat

ions

.

Miss

ion:

The

long

term

mis

sion

of t

he D

airy

W

elfa

reSy

mpo

sium

is to

exp

lore

the

crea

tion

of

a D

airy

Wel

fare

Con

sorti

um th

at w

ill b

ring

toge

ther

dai

rym

en, v

eter

inar

ians

, con

sulta

nts,

univ

ersi

ties,

and

indu

stry

to d

evel

op b

est

reco

mm

ende

d pr

actic

es.

SPO

NSO

RS

Plat

inum

($ 1

5,00

0+):

Gol

d ($

10,

000+

):

Silv

er($

5,0

00+)

:

Bro

nze

($ 1

,000

+):

RE

GIS

TR

AT

ION

Unt

il A

pri1

st:$

200.

00

Aft

er A

pril

1st:$

250.

00

Stud

ents

:$75

.00

(30

seat

s ava

ilabl

e)

Cap

acity

:265

atte

ndee

s

Reg

iste

r at

:ht

tps:

//ww

w.e

vent

brite

.com

/e/d

airy

-ca

ttle-

wel

fare

-sym

posi

um-ti

cket

s-18

7266

5593

2

Vis

it us

at:

dcw

coun

cil.o

rg

Page 2

1

The National Dairy FARM ProgramDEMONSTRATING FARMERS COMMITMENT TO ANIMAL CARE

EMILY MEREDITH

NMPF CHIEF OF STAFF

© 2016 National Dairy FARM Program

PROGRAM BACKGROUND


WHAT IS FARM?

• The dairy industry, through National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) with support from Dairy Management, Inc. initiated a voluntary program named FARM: Farmers Assuring Responsible Management in 2009

• Program Goal: • Provide reassurance to CONSUMERS & CUSTOMERS that dairy farmers

raise and care for their animals in a humane and ethical manner.

http://www.nationaldairyfarm.com/

Page 3

2


WHY DOES THE FARM PROGRAM MATTER? • We know that the dairy industry has a great story to tell when it

comes to animal care.

• The FARM Program helps provide the data and proof points to back up this positive story about animal care on America’s dairies.

• The FARM Program also helps provide one, consistent, unified program for the entire dairy industry to follow.



HOW DOES IT WORK?



NATIONAL DAIRY FARM BACKGROUND

• FARM offers a continuous improvement process to ensure a high level of on-farm animal care.

• FARM sets the highest standards that inspire dairy farmers to do things better.


Page 4

3


FARM PROGRAM BY THE NUMBERS

• 84 Participating Co-ops and/or Proprietary Processors

• Covers 94% of the domestic milk supply in 48 states

• > 38,000 2nd party evaluations completed to date

• > 370 trained FARM Evaluators http://www.nationaldairyfarm.com/


HOW FARM WORKS


PROMOTING: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES• Created by Technical Writing Group; updated

every 3 years

• Cover all aspects of cow’s life

• Suite of complimentary materials that cover topics within both beef and dairy


Page 5

4


WHO MAKES DECISIONS ABOUT FARM?

• The FARM Program is updated every 3 years by a group of:

• Academics• Veterinarians• Cooperative staff • Farmers

• These individuals comprise the FARM Technical Writing Group.




CONDUCTING: 2ND PARTY EVALUATIONS

• Conducted by trained evaluators;

• All evaluators trained by certified FARM Trainers

• Must recertify annually and pass exam with 80% score


Page 6

5


WHAT DOES THE EVALUATION ENTAIL?

1. Pre-Meeting 2. Interview Questions3. Animal/Facility

Observations 4. Closing Meeting &

Follow-up



ANIMAL OBSERVATIONS

• Locomotion: How the cow mooooves (get it?)

• Body Condition: How thin or plump the cow is.

• Hygiene: How clean the cow is. • Hock/Knee Lesions: Cow leg

review



CLOSING INTERVIEW

• What looked great?

• What could be improved?

• Action Plan or follow-up required?


Page 7

6


PRODUCERS CONTINUE TO IMPROVE THANKS TO FARM

• “Worked on a herd health plan.”• “Insured that all employees were

trained in animal care”• “Bedding frequency increase for

hygiene scores”• “Improved heifer living conditions”• “Added training”• “We made a carrier for baby

calves. We also have done a better job of putting SOPs into Spanish.”

We asked: What did you change on your dairy as a result of your evaluation?


FARMERS VALUE FARM!

Yes No Undecided

We asked: Does FARM add value to your operation?


CONFIRMING: 3RD PARTY VERIFICATION

• Statistically significant % of farms 3rd party verified annually

• Aggregate 2nd party data compared to 3rd party data to ensure program integrity

• Results published to ensure transparency


Page 8

7


Best Management

Practices

Third-Party Verification

Second-Party Evaluations

Pre-Interview

Interview Questions

Animal Observations

Closing Interview

Follow-up; Action Plans

LET’S REVIEW:



THE FUTURE OF FARM


FARM PROGRAM VERSION 3.0 TIMELINE• Completed:

• Animal Health & Well-being Committee (AHWC) Draft

• Public Comment Period • Nearly 400 comments • Internal FARM Program staff review

• Animal Health & Well-being Committee Final Approval

• NMPF BOD approval of AHWC recommendations

• To do: • Work with Co-ops and Processors to

help dairy farmers prepare for Version 3.0

Page 9

8


22

FOOD CHAIN INPUT INTO FARM


23

SUMMARY OF CHANGES • Chapters 1 & 2: Addition of several acronyms and definitions relating to animal care.

Also included the proposed Action Plan information as contained in the FARM Program recommendations document.

• Chapter 3: Updated information about the VCPR and training protocols; additional information about milking procedures/routine based on new research; addition of additional resources/references at end of chapter.

• Chapter 4: Movement of paragraphs to improve flow of document; additional information about esophageal feeding and weaning; updated charts and diagrams; additional references/resources at end of chapter.


24

SUMMARY OF CHANGES • Chapter 5: Additional information on availability of water and added information about FSMA and

Mycotoxins in feed section. Additional references/resources at end of chapter.

• Chapter 6: Additional information about herd health plan components; pain management best management practices; disbudding information based on the latest research; additional information on BCS scoring, lameness scoring, hock/knee and hygiene. Additional references added to end of chapter.

• Chapter 7: Additional information about heat/cold stress; minor additions to section on air quality; restructuring of section on “lying area” to improve flow of document; additional information/updated diagrams on housing space allowances; additional information on group housing based on latest research.

Page 10

9


25

SUMMARY OF CHANGES • Chapter 8: Minor wording edits throughout chapter; addition of sidebar content around hot

shots; additional references/resources at end of chapter.

• Chapter 9: Minor wording edits throughout chapter; greater focus on “non-ambulatory” vs. “special needs” animals; additional references/resources at end of chapter.

• Chapter 10: Incorporation of resources from Dairy Beef Quality Assurance (DBQA) on culling decisions, record-keeping; cattle transportation and movement; additional references/resources at end of chapter.

• Chapter 11: Minor language changes; additional question on whether farm has been selected for 3rd Party Verification.


Phase One Priority Areas Veterinary Client Patient Relationship

o Official form signed by Veterinarian of Record

Dairy Cattle Care Ethics & Training Form

o Signed by all employees with animal care responsibilities

o Signed annually o Indicates:

• Received training in stockmanship AND area of responsibility;

• Will not abuse animals/Will report any mistreatment that occurs

No Tail Docking

26

VERSION 3.0 PRIORITY AREAS Phase Two Priority Areas Herd Health Plan

o Protocols for newborn and milk-fed dairy calves.

o Protocols for pain management.o Protocols and training for non-

ambulatory animal management.o Protocols for euthanasia.

Animal Observationso Lameness o Body Conditiono Hock/Knee


FARM 3.0 ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

27

FARM 2nd

Party Evaluation

“No” answered

to any Priority 2

“No” answered

to any Priority 1

Mandatory Corrective

Action Plan

Suspension from FARM

Program

MCAP failure triggers 60 day

Probation

Follow-up Evaluation to review MCAP

- 14 Months -

Continuous Improvement

Plan

Page 11

10


VETERINARIAN CLIENT PATIENT RELATIONSHIP

• (VCPR) • Form, signed annually by farm owner or manager and Veterinarian of Record

• Sample forms will be available on FARM Website

• Having a established VCPR and a signed form helps us bolster our arguments against additional regulation of drug use on dairy farms

• Customers want to be ensured that there is veterinarian oversight/involvement on dairies • There is an expectation by consumers that veterinarians are playing a part in health-care

decisions on farms

• Veterinarians are trusted 3rd party experts who can come to the industry’s defense if relationships are established in advance


DAIRY CATTLE CARE ETHICS AND TRAINING AGREEMENT

• Signed annually by all employees with animal care responsibilities • Will not abuse animals • Will report any abuse if witnessed • Have received training in stockmanship AND their assigned area of responsibility

• Sample forms available

• Provides insurance for your dairy should there ever be an animal care allegation by demonstrating that employees understood your expectations and received training.

• No employees implicated in undercover videos have signed this document (or similar document).

• Customers expect that employees are trained in how to handle and care for animals.


NO TAIL DOCKING • No tail docking after January 1, 2017.

• Farms should not be sending calves off dairies after this date to be docked.• Focused on routine tail docking NOT emergent issues. • Switch trimming recommended alternative.

• Tail Docking Transition Document

• No science to support practice, thus no experts to come to our defense.

• Customers do not support practice and had begun to impose their own deadlines. • Not a change in FARM Program policy; change in phase-out deadline.

Page 12

11


259 3549 448576%

72%

74%

81

1364

1596

24%

28%

26%

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2013 2014 2015

Tail Docking Analysis(Do Farms dock animal tails?)

NO YES


• Heightened focus on pain mitigation

• Training & Documented Protocols • ALL employees • New standards of inquiry

• Dairy Beef • 4 new metrics

• 2 of which pertain directly to residue prevention/record keeping • FARM/BQA dual Programs

• Hygiene Taskforce

• Locomotion/Lameness Taskforce

32

MORE VERSION 3.0 CHANGES


NEW MATERIALS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE • Letter to Members & Sample Newsletter Article

• Sample VCPR

• Sample Dairy Cattle Care Ethics & Training Agreement

• Emergency Contacts Poster

• Comprehensive Herd Health Plan Protocols

• FARM Self Assessment Tool (“How to Prepare for a FARM Evaluation”)

• Animal Care Reference Manual

• Quick Reference User Guide

• Updated Culling Poster

• Why FARM Matters Brochure

Page 13

12


NEW FARM TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES • Stockmanship (May)

• Calf Care (June)

• Euthanasia (July)

• Non-Ambulatory Animals (August)

• Pain Management (August)

• Crisis Preparedness (September)

• Emerging Issues (October)

• Culling Decisions (November)

• Antibiotic Stewardship Webinars (dates TBD)


Version 1.0 (2009 – 2012)

Version 2.0 (2013 – 2016)

Version 3.0 (2017 – 2020)

Voluntary Participation

Probationary Status

Critical Control Points

Mandatory Corrective Action Plan

Tail Docking Phase-Out 2017

Emphasis on Training, VCPR, Cow Care Agreement

Greater accountability

Tail-Docking Phase-Out 2022

Voluntary Action Plans

Mandatory Participation

FARM PROGRAM = CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT


Educational Manuals, Resources & Self Assessment



Optional Packer/Processor

Audit

Optional Assessment for

Feedyards

Mandatory 2nd-Party Evaluations

on all dairies

Mandatory 3rd Party

Verifications

GOLD STANDARD COMPARED TO OTHER INDUSTRY PROGRAMS

Page 14

13


CONNECT TO THE FARM PROGRAM


WANT TO LEARN MORE? • Follow FARM on social media!

• National Dairy FARM Program

• @FARMProgram

• @FARMProgram

• Share your questions about dairy animal care using #FARMProud



READ OUR FARM PROUD BLOG!

Page 15

14


DAIRY FARMERS JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW.

Thank you! http://www.nationaldairyfarm.com/

Page 16

1

©2016 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.

Relationship between cow comfort

and lamenessMarcia Endres

Department of Animal ScienceUniversity of MinnesotaSt. Paul, MN 55108 USA

[email protected]

Dairy Cattle Welfare Symposium, May 2016

©2016 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.©2016 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.

Lameness: An Important Animal Welfare Issue


• Visual locomotion scoring• Routine hoof trimming• Activity monitors

– Limited research

• Lameness detection sensors or video– Limited research

Lameness detection

Page 17

2


Prevalence of LamenessFreestall barns

Farm average = 21 to 55% Range for individual farms

~3 to 80%


Dairy Producer’s Perception of Lameness

2.5 to 4 times lower lameness prevalence

than estimated by researchers


Where it happens• ~90% of lameness involves the foot• Most involves rear feet (86%)• Lateral (outside) claw most likely

affected (85%)– Most likely slip & grow faster on concrete –

bears more weight

Lameness

Page 18

3


• Infectious– Hairy heel warts

(Digital dermatitis)– Foot rot – Interdigital dermatitis– Heel horn erosion

• Non-Infectious– White line disease– Sole ulcer– Sole hemorrhage– Thin sole– Toe ulcer– Corkscrew claw– Axial fissure– Heel fracture

Types of hoof lesions


• Hygiene, hygiene, hygiene!• Reduce time cows spend standing in wet,

manure conditions• Provide footbaths 3-5 d/wk• Quarantine new animals• Regular, corrective hoof trimming –

sanitation

Infectious hoof lesions Recommendations


Environmental Risk Factors for Lameness

(Cook et al., 2004)

Page 19

4


Cow comfort and foot health• Heat abatement• Flooring/walking surfaces• Milking time/ time away from home pen• Cow handling• Stocking density• Stall surface and dimensions


Lameness Prevalence – 53 herds in MN

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53

Lam

enes

s Pr

eval

ence

%

Farm

Average = 24.6%

Mattress = 28% Deep Sand = 17%Espejo and Endres, 2006


Compost Bedded Pack and Deep Sand Freestall Barns

LSMeans SEHousing

CB pack 6.4 3.7CV freestall 14.2 2.2NV freestall 17.7 2.2

Lameness prevalence (LS ≥ 3; %)

CB=Compost bedded packCV=Cross-ventilated freestall barnNV=Naturally ventilated freestall barn

Lobeck et al., 2011Total number of cows scored in the study = 45,600

Page 20

5


Compost Bedded Pack and Deep Sand Freestall Barns

Item LSMeans SEHousing

CB pack 1.6 1.4CV freestall 2.2 1.0NV freestall 3.1 1.0

CB=Compost bedded packCV=Cross-ventilatedNV=Naturally ventilated

Severe lameness prevalence (LS ≥ 4; %)

Lobeck et al., 2011


FEET AND LEG HEALTHCOMPOST BEDDED PACKS


Lameness PrevalenceFree Stalls with Recycled Manure Solids

0

5

10

15

20

25

Deep Beds Mattress

Lame

Severe Lame

a

a

b

b

a,b Prevalence significantly different between stall surfaces (P <.0001)

Husfeldt and Endres, 2012Total number of cows scored in the study = 37,271

Page 21

6


• Time budget – reduce excessive standing• Improve stall design• Allow appropriate feed access • Appropriate heat abatement• Good flooring/walking surfaces

Preventing non-infectious lesions


Preventing non-infectious lesions• Nutrition – Avoid:

– Excess fermentable carbohydrates/Lack of fiber– Sorting– Trace mineral deficiencies

• Prevent transition cow disorders • Maintenance hoof trimming


Lameness Risk Factors Large herd study

Variable LSMeans (%) 95% CI P-Value

Hoof trimmer on farm 0.02

Yes 11.3 9.3 – 13.8

No 16.0 12.2 – 20.9

Evink and Endres, 2014

Total number of cows scored in the study = 22,913

Page 22

7


• Determine degree (prevalence) of lameness• Determine cause – infectious or non-

infectious– If infectious – examine hygiene, diet,

trimming schedule, foot bath routine, replacements

– If non-infectious – cow comfort, cow time budgets, heat abatement, diet

• Monitor impact of changes

Reducing lameness


• Lameness is a multifactorial health disorder that is still highly prevalent in the U.S. = animal welfare concern

• Prevention is best method – environment, cow comfort, diet

• Monitoring and rapid treatment is key • Reducing lameness will improve animal

welfare and increase profitability

Conclusions

©2016 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.©2016 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.

Research team: Luis Espejo, Abby Barberg, Karen Luchterhand, Adam Husfeldt, Tyler Evink

Thank you for your attention!


[email protected]

Page 23

5/15/16

1

D.J. Tomlinson, PhD, PAS, Dipl ACAS

Research Nutritionist

Effects Of Cow And Herd Level Factors On Metabolic And Infectious Disease –

Impact On Lameness And Animal Well-Being

Cattle Welfare – Why The Worry?

§  Lameness effects on survival and $$$

§  Cow level metabolic challenges

§  Herd level environmental effects

Types Of Stressful Events §  Psychological, physical and environmental

§  Consider events such as;

•  Handling or stockmanship (moving with Dogs, motor bikes, aggressive workers), grouping strategies, offspring removal and over-crowding are psychological challenges

•  Physical stressors; parturition (this is a big one), dehorning, weaning, feed or water restriction, tail docking, mastitis, metritis, lameness, transportation, restraint (headlocks, foot trimming) and any invasive or other treatment causing pain or suffering

•  Environmental stressors could be heat or cold, insects, air quality or uncomfortable walking or lying surfaces

Lameness Stress and the Ability to Copea

- failing to cope? - not in control?

Challenge with loud noises ~50 days apart……

Cort

isol

Time

Non lame 1st

2nd Cort

isol

Time

Severely lame

1st

2nd

a Smith, R. 2011. Univ. of Liverpool, personal communication

Why Is Claw Health Important?

§  Non economic reasons

•  Employee morale

•  Employee recruitment

§  Economics

•  Lower performance

•  Medication costs

•  Additional labor required to care for lame animals

•  Cost per case of lameness $300 to $350/case

–  1000 cow herd, 300 cases/yr - $97,500 DC - 47

IMPORTANCE OF CLAW HEALTH Lesion in Second Lactation by Lesion in First Lactation

Hazard Ratio 2.38 (1.80 to 3.14)

Data from 1300 complete lifetimes collected over 4 years from a 1400 cow dairy

Lifetime effect

Page 24

5/15/16

2

Lameness Effects on Longevity and Performance

a Assumes milk price is $0.12/lb or $0.26/L Guard, 2008. Proc. 80th Western Veterinary Conference

Estimated Loss Estimated Cost Per 100 Cows Cost

2% of cases die 0.6 deaths @ $2,000 (replacement cost) $1,200

12% of cases culled 3.6 culls @ $1,500 (replacement cost - salvage cost) $5,400

358 kg of lost milk production per case 358 kg lost milk X 30 casesa $2,844

20 extra days open ($3 per day) $60 for days open X 30 cases $1,800

Treatment costs, 0.5 h labor + trimmer fee + supplies $27 per case X 30 cases $810

Total cost for 30 lame cows $12,054

Cost per cow $402

DG - 518

It is estimated in the U.S. that 30% of all cows suffer from lameness

Metabolic Disorders • Milk Fever • Ketosis

Heat Stress

Sub-acute Rumen Acidosis

Lowered pH Gut Leakage

of Bacteria

Molds/Mycotoxins

mDC - 12

Reproductive Failure: Causes And Sequence Of Events

Nutrition • Excessive Grain • Finely Chopped Forage • Improper Feeding Management • Slug Feeding • Limited Feed Access Time •  Inconsistent feeding schedule • Lush Pastures – High Sugars

Environment/Management

• Social Stress • Trauma

Endotoxin Release

Pro-inflammatory Mediators IL1, IL6, TNFα, COX

Dyskeratotic Horn Production

http://www.cattletoday.com/forum

Lameness control is fundamentally important in modern herd management. It affects EVERYTHING a cow does!

Altered Behavior…the Lame Cow

…hasreducedmovement

…makesfewerlying/standingtransi8ons

…loseshersocialrankingintheherd

…makesfewervisitstoarobo8cmilkingsta8on

…hasreducedappe8te

Slide courtesy of CHK Mülling, Univ. of Leipzig, Germany

Establishing A Systematic Evaluation Process

Trouble Shooting Lameness

Define the Problem

Locomotion Scoring

Non-Infectious Infectious

Courtesy J. K. Shearer, Univ. of FL., Gainesville

Courtesy S. l. Berry, UC Davis

If You Can’t Answer this Question, You Probably

Can’t Correct the Problem

Yes She’s Lame, But Why?

Page 25

5/15/16

3

Baptism by Fire! Lesions Recorded Most Frequently in Confinement Herds

Lesion Frequency % of Total None 15119 31.17% Digital Dermatitis 13498 27.83% Sole Ulcer 6447 13.29% White Line Disease 6103 12.58% Foot Rot 2257 4.65% Toe Ulcer 2082 4.29% Thin Sole 1049 2.16% Foreign Body/Other 470 0.97% Sole Hemorrage 467 0.96% Injury 455 0.94% Upper Leg 251 0.52% Corkscrew 98 0.20% Axial Fissure 69 0.14% Heel Erosion 43 0.09% Interdigital Hyperplasia 43 0.09% Vertical Wall Crack 19 0.04% Horizontal Fissure 16 0.03% Digital Sepsis 14 0.03% Hardship Groove 6 0.01%

a DeFrain et al., 2013. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7329

Lesion Incidence in Confinement Herdsa

a DeFrain et al., 2013. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7329

44.43%

21.22%

20.08%

7.42%

6.85% Digital Dermatitis

Sole Ulcer

White Line Disease

Foot Rot

Toe Ulcer

Data represents 58,155 cows on 17 dairies in the US.

Disease Threat And Immune Suppression Are Greatest

Around Parturition

Adapted from Nelson; and Kehrli et al.

-60 -30 0 30 60 90 120

Incidence rate of metabolic and infectious diseases

Immune function

Day Relative to Calving

(white blood cell activity)

mDG - 238

Cascade of Non-infectious claw lesions!

Non-infectious lesion pathways!

©ckwm

MINERAL NUTRITION TRANSITION

Overton, 1998.

Grummer (1993)

Page 26

5/15/16

4

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

1st 2nd ≥3rd

Lacta7on

NEFA,m

M

Ca<8.0mg/dl

Ca≥8.0mg/dl

Adapted from J. P. Goff, 2009

Blood Non Esterified Fatty Acid Level By Calcium Status and Lactation

Psychological Stress-Induced Lower Serum Zinc and

Zinc Redistributiona

a Biol Trace Elem Res (2013) 155:65–71

7dG – 7 days of psychological stress

14dG – 14 days of psychological stress

RG – recovery group

Impact of Rumen Acidosis on Endotoxin Leakage

Zebeli et al. 2010. J. Anim. Sci. 88:1545 Hypocalcaemia and Claw Disorders

0

20

40

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Num

ber o

f Cow

s

Month of Lactation

Green, et al. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250-2256

Number Lame By Month Of Lactation

DG - 893

Leach et al., 1997 reported white line lesions were most severe at 63 DIM; Collick et al., 1989 estimated 66% of sole ulcers occurred by 100 DIM

LAMENESS AND PROFITABILITY

Transition disorders may accentuate development of claw disease

Dry Period

Lameness Related to Hypocalcaemiaa

a Sogstad et al., 2006. J. Dairy Sci. 89:2519 HR = hazard ratio - risk of the insult causing greater harm b Tomlinson et al., 2004. J. Dairy Sci. 87:797

§  Milk fever in primi and multiparous cows was associated with greater incidence of sole ulcers (HR = 4.8)

§  Calcium is the mineral required in greatest quantity for production of healthy claw hornb

Courtesy S. Berry, UC Davis

©ckwm

Page 27

5/15/16

5

The Digital Cushion Alterations in supporting cushions

Pressure

Tension

Ketosis - Lipid mobilization

Structural & functional alterations in cushions

31

Suspensory Apparatus and Fat Pad

Courtesy of K. Burgi, (N. Cook, T. Bennet, UW Madison)

Body Condition Goals

BCS of > 4.0 – Usually results in decr DMI and

peripartum pblms

BCS of < 3.0 – Often results in lower peak MY and lower lactation MY

> 1 pt BCS loss in early lactation may result in

decreased reproductive performance

Adapted from J. Drackley Univ. of IL

Trauma Pedal Bone

Page 28

5/15/16

6

Hemorrhages of the sole (NO corium exposed) are much more common

The initial stage… Cascade of Non-infectious claw lesions!

Non-infectious lesion pathways!

Adaptive damage to the pedal bone

©ckwm

Hyperkeratosis / horn overgrowth

a Tsuka, T. et al. 2014. Quantitative evaluation of the relationship between dorsal wall length, sole thickness, and rotation of the distal phalanx in the bovine claw using computed tomography. J. Dairy Sci. 97:6271

Examples of Pedal Bone (DP) Rotation

DP – Distal phalanx

HC – Horn capsule

Forward rotation of DP with heel overgrowth Sinking of DP with toe overgrowth

Effects Of Soft Elastic Flooring On Claw Shape Horn Microstructure

B. Benz


USE of Rubber … …Transition alleys

Pic Jeff Defrain


Page 29

5/15/16

7

Hard floor (concrete)

Horn Microstructure Is Influenced By Hardness Of Floor

Soft floor (rubber)

Dimensions

of

Horn tubules

Cortex/medulla

ratio


ANATOMY OF THE FOOT AND CLAW

Medial Claw Rotation Medial Claw Rotation

Claw Load Adaptation

Causes of Medical Claw Rotation and Cork Screw Claw

§  Medial Claw Rotation – MCR

•  Environmentally induced adaptation

•  Increased length of metatarsal bone

•  Deep sand bedded stalls, very soft rubber or other mattress materials

•  Soft flooring conditions – rubber in alleys, holding area, parlor and in free stall barn

§  Cork Screw Claw – CSC

•  Genetic abnormality – rotation of pedal bone

Cow Welfare Risk Factors

Intrinsic risks §  Season, gestation, lactation,

genetics

Extrinsic risks 1. Cow comfort 2. Flooring system 3. Hygiene 4. Social integration 5. Cow flow 6. Nutrition

47

Page 30

5/15/16

8

Conclusions §  Cow welfare affects more than just lameness

and is an obvious cost center $$$

§  Cow level metabolic disorders may lead to Claw Horn Disruption

§  Herd level effects –

•  Stall comfort

•  Lying surface

•  Walking surface

Page 31

1

Science‐based consensus for animal welfare assessment programs’ recommended prevalence of

lameness in dairy herds

J. K. Shearer, DVM, MS

Professor and Extension VeterinarianCollege of Veterinary Medicine

Iowa State UniversityAmes, IA [email protected]

Professor EmeritusCollege of Veterinary Medicine

University of Florida

Prevalence of Lameness

• Prevalence of Lameness

Number of cows with lameness

Number of cows

– Commonly determined by locomotion scoring (LS)

X 100 = % Prevalence

Prevalence of Lameness

Selected prevalence rates reported in the literature:

Whay et al, 2002 22.1% (range of 0‐50%)

Cook, 2003 21% (summer), 24% (winter)

Espejo et al, 2006 24.6% (range 3.3 to 57.3%)

Von Keyserlingk, et al. 2012 28% (British Columbia)

31% (California)

55% (Northeastern US)

Farm average = 21 to 55% Range for individual farms ~3 to 80%

Page 32

2

Farmer Perception of Lameness

• Perception of Lameness– Wells et al., 1993

• 13.7‐16.7% ‐ these prevalence rates were 2.5 times higher than those estimated by the herd managers.

– Whay, et al., 2002 • 22.1% ‐ nearly 4 (3.8) times higher than those estimated by farmers (5.7%)

– Espejo et al., 2006• 24.6% ‐ was 3.1 times higher than those reported by farmers at 8.3%

2.5 to 4 times lower lameness prevalence

than estimated by researchers

Lameness Detection

Detection of Abnormal Gait

• Locomotion Scoring

– Reliance on presence of an abnormal gait and/or behavioral indicators of pain associated with locomotion

• More commonly applied with dairy cattle

• Mobility Scoring

– Scores are based upon evidence of pain exhibited as lameness or an inability of animals to keep pace with their groups (i.e. speed of gait)

• Used more commonly in feedlot and packing plant settings

Page 33

3

Behavioral Indicators of Lameness

• Head “bobb” during locomotion • Shortening or lengthening of the stride• Changes in the degree of abduction or adduction of the limbs

– an increased deviation from the vertical seen in one hindlimb

• Tracking (i.e. changes in claw placement) – resulting in the hind claw not being placed in the same location as the front

claw after initiation of the stride

• Changes in the alignment of the pin bones (tuber coxae) – deviations from a hypothetical horizontal line when viewed from behind

• Changes in the animal’s willingness to walk – reluctance to move being frequently associated with lameness affecting

multiple claws

• Changes in the stance phase of the stride – resulting in the animal maintaining its weight on the sound limb for as long as

possible in order to minimize weight bearing time on the lame limb

JK Shearer, ML Stock SR Van Amstel and JF Coetzee. Assessment and Management of Pain associated with Lameness in Cattle, Veterinary Clinics of North America, Food Animal Practice, edited by Hans Coetzee, 2013, 29:135‐156.

Locomotion Scoring

For detection at early as well as advanced stages of lameness

Locomotion Scoring

Courtesy of ZINPRO Corp.

Page 34

4

Relationship between Behavioral Indicators of Pain and the Presence of Foot Lesions

Behavior vs. Presence of a Lesion Correlation Coefficient P <

Arching of the Spine 0.55 0.001

Speed of gait 0.43 0.001

Tracking of the Feet 0.45 0.001

Position of the Head 0.38 0.01

Rotation of the Feet 0.50 0.001

O’Callahan, International Symposium on Lameness in Ruminants, Orlando, FL, 2002

____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Comments

• The Sprecher system of locomotion scoring has limitations– 45% of cows with an arched back may not have a lameness problem

– Since most cows are moving when evaluated, some misclassification of cows scoring 2 or 3 may be unavoidable

• By necessity, many cows are scored only while walking

Page 35

5

Rotation of the Rear Feet (Rear View)

Degree of “Cow Hocking”

Lameness (Leg) scoring based on hind limb posture

• Toussaint Raven (1989)– Normal posture – straight & parallel

– Straight posture from rear was associated with longer survival (McDaniel 1994)

– Low heritability score 0.08 (McDaniel 1994)

From T. Raven, Cattle Footcareand Claw Trimming, 1989.

Toussaint Raven (1989): Demonstrated a connection between hind limb posture as seen from rear and condition of the outer claws.

“Cow Hocked”

Page 36

6

Lameness scoring based on rear view hind limb posture

2 31

Lameness score determined by angle of the spine and the interdigital space

1

23

2

3

170 170

240 240

Lameness scoring based on rear view hind limb posture

• Application

– Use as indicator for whole herd trimming

• Trimming is indicated when …

– Less than 40% Score 1

–More than 20% Score 3

– If 50% of the herd Scores 2 and 3

Locomotion Scoring

• Locomotion Scoring Systems

– 5‐Point System (Sprecher System)

• LS 1 = not lame, 2 = mild lameness, 3 = moderate lameness, 4 = lame, 5 = severely lame

– 4‐Point System

• 1 = not lame, 2 = mild to moderate lameness, 3 = lame and 4 severely lame

– 3‐Point System

• 1 = not lame, 2 = lame and 3 = severely lame

Page 37

7

Mobility Scoring

• Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) Mobility Scoring

• Zinpro Beef Cattle Mobility Scoring

• Mobility Scoring of Feedlot Cattle

AHDB Dairy Mobility Scoring System

• Developed in the UK (University of Bristol)– “Assesses the cow’s ability to move easily”

• claimed to avoid influences of an animal’s breeding or conformation• Focus is more on identifying cows that need treatment rather than features of conformation

– 4‐Point Score• 0 = normal, has good mobility, even weight bearing rhythm on all 4 feet and a flat back

• 1 = imperfect mobility, steps are uneven, arched back

• 2 = impaired mobility, affected limb is easily identified, arched back

• 3 = unable to keep up with the healthy herd, exhibits uneven weight bearing that is easily observed, shortened strides and an arched back

http://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/technical‐information/animal‐health‐welfare/lameness/husbandry‐prevention/mobility‐scoring/#.Vy0Gy4QrJMw

Step‐Up Locomotion Scoringhttp://www.zinpro.com/lameness/beef/locomotion‐scoring

This system is based upon observation of cattle gait with emphasis on head bob and stride length

Page 38

8

Mobility Scoring of Feedlot Cattle

Mobility Score Mobility Descriptors

1 Normal. Walks easily, long fluid strides, even weight bearing with no apparent lameness or change in gait.

2 Slightly hesitant and stiff; but keeps up with normal cattle when the group is walking; may exhibit one or more of the following: stiffness, shortness of stride, or slight limp.

3 Obvious stiffness and reluctance to move often lagging behind normal cattle when the group is walking; will exhibit one or more of the following: obvious stiffness, difficulty taking steps, obvious limp, or exhibiting obvious discomfort.

4 Extremely reluctant to move even when encouraged by a handler. Steps are short and unsteady.

Criteria for Establishing Thresholds and Goals

What criteria should we use to establish thresholds and goals for prevalence of lameness in herds?

Mean prevalence for all herds?

Or

Mean prevalence of the top 10% of herds or is it more reasonable to use the upper quartile (25%) of herds?

Page 39

9

Prevalence of “Severe” Lameness

• All herds and all cows– Prevalence of severe lameness

• Cook, 2003– Prevalence of severe lameness 4.5% (LS ≥4)

• Espejo et al, 2006– Prevalence of severe lameness 6% (LS ≥4)

• Von Keyserlingk, et al, 2012– Prevalence of severe lameness

» British Columbia 7.1%

» California 3.6%

» Northeastern US 8.2%

Determining Thresholds and Goals

• Minnesota study of 5,626 cows in 50 herds (53 high production groups)– The best quartile (top 25%) of farms had approximately 15% (LS > 3) of cows scored as clinically lame

• 2.5% of cows were scored as severely lame

• Authors concluded that…

A goal of less than 15% clinically lame cows in a freestall herd should be achievable.

Espejo, L. A., M. I. Endres and J. A. Salfer. 2006. Prevalence of Lameness in High‐Producing Holstein Cows Housed inFreestall Barns in Minnesota. J. Dairy Sci. 89:3052–3058.


• Wisconsin study of 30 herds (3,621 lactating cows)

– Top 25% of the herds

• Less than 0.2% of cows were severely lame LS = 4

• 11.2% (summer) and 14.0% (winter) were moderately lame (locomotion score = 3, on a 4‐point scale)

Cook NB Prevalence of lameness among dairy cattle in Wisconsin as a function of housing type and stall surface. Jnl of theAmerican Veterinary Medical Association. 2003., 223 (9): 1324

Page 40

10


• Minnesota study of 5,626 cows in 50 herds (53 high production groups)

– The best 10th percentile of farms had a mean prevalence of lameness of 5.4%

– Severe lameness

• Only 1.5% of cows had a LS = 4 and no cows with LS = 5

Espejo, L. A., M. I. Endres and J. A. Salfer. 2006. Prevalence of Lameness in High‐Producing Holstein Cows Housed inFreestall Barns in Minnesota. J. Dairy Sci. 89:3052–3058.

Thresholds and Goals for the Prevalence of Lameness

• Based upon observations of herds in the top 25 percentile (Espejo et al, 2006 and Cook, 2003)

– Reasonable (Achieveable) thresholds:

• Prevalence of lameness – 11% to 15%

• Prevalence of severe lameness ‐ < 2.5%

– Acceptable Goals:

• Prevalence of lameness – 5%

• Prevalence of severe lameness ‐ < 1%

Current Welfare Assessment and Audit Programs

Page 41

11


• FARM Program– Threshold for locomotion (3‐Point Scoring System)

• 95% of the lactating and dry herd scores 2 or less on the NDFP Locomotion Scorecard

• 5% or less severe lameness

• American Humane Association– Lameness/Locomotion Score

• “At a minimum, at least 95% of the lactating and dry cows MUST have a Lameness/Locomotion (LL) Score of 1 or 2 on a 5‐point scale”.


• Validus

– Locomotion

• Lactating and Dry cows– Less than 5% of cows observed score 3, 4 or 5

• Heifers 3‐8 months– Less than 3% of heifers observed (3‐8 mos.) score 3, 4 or 5

• Heifers 8 mos. and older– Less than 3% of heifers observed (3‐8 mos.) score 3, 4 or 5


• Dairy‐Well Animal Welfare Tool

– Evaluate highest milk producing group, oldest cows

– Survey hospital/special needs or lame pens for emaciated cows

• Lameness Scoring – < 15% Cows Scored as Lame

– < 1% Cows Scored as Severely Lame

» Severely lame cows must be kept separate and must be receiving treatment (verified by treatment records)

Page 42

1

The Big PictureDAVE SJEKLOCHA, DVM; CATTLE EMPIRE, LLC, SATANTA, KS

DCWS, MAY 20, 2016

Perspective

Empire Calf Ranch

52,000 hd cap.; 24,000 on bottles

Bulls/steers – all go to feedyard

First experience

Manager had fairly extensive experience – followed his lead

Many paradigms, traditions, habits, -not all good.

Can’t be overstated

Perspective, Cont’d.

ECR is a subsidiary of Cattle Empire, LLC

Cattle Empire is the 5th largest cattle-feeding company in the US

4 Feedyards, ranging in size from 18,000 hd to 87,000 hd capacity

Page 43

2

Perspective, Cont’d.

ECR is a subsidiary of Cattle Empire, LLC

Cattle Empire is the 5th largest cattle-feeding company in the US

Family owned and operated– The Brown Family

4 Feedyards, ranging in size from 18,000 hd to 87,000 hd capacity

We produce beef…

Why Question Everything?

Each of us have our own ideas, problems and perspectives…

Why Question Everything?

Paradigms and traditions

Are we doing the best we can for production of safe, wholesome meat and milk?

Pot Roast

Ultimately food

Consumer concerns

Welfare

Antimicrobial use

Food Safety

Page 44

3

Hutches

California-style

Sit on slatted decks

Individual stalls, 3 stalls/unit

Relatively inexpensive

Save space

Ventilation is decent

Hutches

California-style

Sit on slatted decks

Individual stalls, 3 stalls/unit

Not terribly user-friendly

Isolation not ideal

Flush system – aerosolization?

AMA, ADA

Frigid temps/slats

Calf Catcher

Can hold calf to front of hutch, with head extended outside.

Pony shoes, metal straps, off-billet.

Greatly reduces direct contact with the calf.

Page 45

4

Thermal control

Hard to keep calves warm on slats

Coats?

Began setting hutches on ground, bedding in winter time

Move up to slats at about 45 days

Calves did so well, we continued protocol through summer

Page 46

5

Antibiotic Use

Use of an antibiotic is an indication that there has been a failure in management.

Antibiotic Use

If we manage our calves better, we can reduce the use of antibiotics.

Page 47

6

Antibiotic Use



Antibiotic Use



Can you buy good management in a bottle?

Can you pick out the poison?

Page 48

7

Antibiotic Use

Paradigms

The more calves you treat, the better worker you are

Antibiotic Use

Paradigms


Multiple doses better than single dose

Antibiotic Use

Paradigms



Scouring calves are not dehydrated, they just have an antibiotic deficiency

Page 49

8

Antibiotic Use

Paradigms



Scouring calves are not dehydrated, they just have an antibiotic deficiency

AMDUCA, other laws don’t apply

Feed Management

Reminder: Steers, going to feedlot

Started feeding calves with dairy approach – always have feed, clean up and throw away

Seemed like ration changes occurred weekly – loose stools

Health focus seemed to be primarily on stool, not calf performance, health

Workers defaulted to treating anything with a loose stool

Page 50

9

Feed Management

Now – slick bunk

Reduces labor

Helps workers ID sick calves

Concept of “sick calves won’t eat” was an epiphany to many

Former feed management didn’t allow for workers to see which calves truly weren’t eating.

Had to get them past the paradigm of pulling perfectly healthy calves whose manure wasn’t making a pretty stack

Hungry?

Feed Management

Since we have gone to slick bunk feed management:

Treatment expense: 65% reduction

Feed consumption: Increased 25%

Shipping wts (180 doa): + 70 lbs

Death loss: Decreased by 33% +

Calf Handling

Ears – primary means of restraint, along with tails

Calves are caught by hand in group pens, held by ears, tails to be treated

Page 51

10

Calf Handling

Ears – primary means of restraint, along with tails

Calves are caught by hand in group pens, held by ears, tails to be treated

How many of these are you going to catch and manhandle in a day?

Wait until they are so sick that they are easier to handle.

Animal welfare?

Mobile Hospital

Page 52

11

Mobile hospital use

Paradigm shift was HUGE! HUGE, I TELL YOU, HUGE!!!!!

No more manhandling of calves

No more restraint with ears, tails

Had to re-train workers on how to identify sick calves, approach calves

Issues:

Sorting sick vs. healthy

Getting calves out of pen

Identifying sick calves – ignored calves with resp disease, pulled everything that had a loose stool.

Feed management helped a lot

Our Consumer

Wants to believe the Chik Fil A ads…

Page 53

12

Our Consumer…

Image of wild animals – these cute cuddly polar bears, drinking Coca Cola!

Our Antagonists…

Image of wild animals – these cute cuddly polar bears, drinking Coca Cola!

But why are these bears so thirsty??

Our Antagonists…

Because they just finished a delicious meal!!

Reality Check

Page 54

13

Acknowledgements

Cattle Empire – Roy Brown, CEO; Trista Brown-Priest, CSO

Brown Family

Tim Murphy, PhD, COO

Wes Davis, Operations Manager, ECR

Calie Kalkowski, Assistant Foreman, ECR

Questions?

Page 55

1

Consequencesoffeedingandhousingpracticesforanimalwelfareand

performance

EmilyMiller‐CushonDepartmentofAnimalSciences,

[email protected]

2016DairyCattleWelfareSymposiumMay20,2016

• How do we improve calf welfare?

Managementpracticesandwelfare


• Feeding practices with implications for calf welfareMilk feeding program

Approach to weaning

Solid feed provision

Page 56

2

Intensifiedfeedingforcalves

• Conventional feeding• feeding at about 10 % of body weight

• E.g. 4 – 6 L/d

• Intensified feeding• Higher feeding levels of milk/milk replacer

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49

Milkintakeovertime

Milk intake, L/d

Weaning week

Day of age

Adapted from Miller‐Cushon et al. 2013. J. Dairy Sci. 96: 551‐564

Ad libitum milk allowance

Restricted milk allowance (5 L/d)

Whendocalveseatintheday?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0:00 4:00 8:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 0:00

Feeding time (min/h)

Miller‐Cushon et al. 2013. J. Dairy Sci. 96: 551‐564

Time of day

Non‐nutritive sucking on restricted milk allowance

Ad libitum milk allowanceRestricted milk allowance (5 L/d)

Page 57

3

• Reduced stress, and improved affective state• Fewer vocalizations (Thomas et al., 2001)

• More play behavior (Krachun et al., 2010)

• Fewer unrewarded visits to the feeder

• Improved immune function (Smith et al., 2002)

Othereffectsofmilkallowance

• Intensified vs. conventional milk replacer levels• Earlier age at first breeding (Raeth‐Knight et al., 2009; Davis Rincker et al., 2011)

• Correlation between preweaning ADG and milk yield (Soberon et al., 2010)

Longer‐termadvantages?

• Calves are highly motivated to suck• Physiological consequences (de Passille et al., 1993)

• Non‐nutritive (or cross‐sucking) reduced by• Providing a teat versus a bucket

• Providing more milk

Feedingmethodmatters

Page 58

4



Approach to weaning


Weaningcalves

• Solid feed establishes fermentation in the rumen, initiating process of rumen development

• When and how do calves start eating solid feed?

Weaningcalves

• Solid feed establishes fermentation in the rumen, initiating process of rumen development

• When and how do calves start eating solid feed?

• Intensified milk feeding programs• Reduce solid feed meal frequency and duration

• Delay rumen development and reduce post‐weaning nutrient digestibility (Terré et al., 2007; Hill et al., 2010)

Page 59

5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Week

Concentrate intake, kg DM/d

Milk‐feeding stage Post milk‐weaning

P < 0.001 P = 0.4

Intakeofsolidfeed

Weaning

Adapted from Miller‐Cushon et al. 2013. J. Dairy Sci. 96: 551‐564

Milk offered ad libitum

Milk offered at 5 L/d

Pre‐ andpost‐weaninggrowth

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Body weight (kg)

Week of age

Milk offered ad libitum

Milk offered at 5 L/d

Milk‐feeding stage Post milk‐weaning

Weaning


Intensifiedfeedingandweaning

• Weaning success relies on sufficient solid feed intake early in life

• Post‐weaning body weight advantages vary• 8 – 20 kg (Jasper and Weary, 2002; Miller‐Cushon et al., 2013)

• No difference (Borderas et al., 2009; DePassillé et al., 2011)

• Facilitating a smooth transition at weaning… • Gradual weaning (Sweeney et al., 2010)

• Weaning later (de Passillé et al., 2011)

Page 60

6

Automatedcalffeeders

• Opportunity to control feeding programs• Gradual weaning

• Potential to wean according to starter intake

• Weaning based on starter intake (de Passillé and Rushen, 2012)• Start/end of weaning defined by target starter intakes

• Individual variability in weaning• Age (30 – 80 d)

• Duration (4 – 38 d)



Approach to weaning


Solidfeedprovision

• Concentrate intake stimulates rumen papillae development

• What about hay?

• For calves provided elevated amounts of milk, access to hay

• Increased total intake (Khan et al., 2007)• Improved rumen environment

• Increased rumen pH• Did not delay rumen metabolic development

• Calves with access to hay spend less time performing non‐nutritive oral behavior (Castells et al., 2012)

Page 61

7

Selectionofsolidfeed

Feed types offered as a mixture

0

20

40

60

80

100

Intake, %

of total D

MI

conc

entr

ate

hay

conc

entr

ate

hay

Feed types offered separately

Adapted from Miller‐Cushon et al. 2013. JDS: 96:4624‐4633.


• Housing practices with implications for calf welfare Social housing

Environmental factors

Benefitsofsocialhousing

• Increased solid feed intake (de Paula Vieira, 2010; Jensen et al., 2015)

• Reduced stress at weaning• Fewer vocalizations (de Paula Vieira, 2010)

• More consistent weight gain (Chua et al., 2002)

Page 62

8

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Solid

feed intake, %

of BW Wean

(10 d)

Milk feeding Post-weaning

Week of age

Socialhousingandintake

Pair‐housed calves

Individually‐housed calves

Adapted from Miller‐Cushon and DeVries, 2016. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 1406‐17

Benefitsofsocialhousing

• Normal social behavior and social bonding (Færevik et al., 2007)

• Improved affective state?• Calves are motivated to access a social partner (Holm et al., 2002)

• Group‐housed calves prefer to feed alongside another calf (Miller‐Cushon and DeVries, 2016)

Socialhousingandcompetition

• Computerized calf feeders• 10 – 25 calves / feeder

• How does competition affect intake and growth?

• 24 vs. 12 calves/feeder (Jensen, 2004)• Greater rate of intake

• Longer wait times

• More frequent displacements/disturbances

Page 63

9

Competitionandmilkintake

Milk intake (L/calf/d)

Week of age

Competitive (1 teat/pen)

Non‐competitive (2 teats/pen)


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Whataboutlonger‐term?

• Longer‐term implications of social housing for early calf management Behavioral and cognitive development

Performance and production

0123456789

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

Displacemen

ts, #/d

Rate of intake, g DM/m

in

Non‐competitive feeding prior to weaning

Competitive feeding prior to weaning


• Week of 13 of age (6 weeks post‐weaning)

Behaviorcanpersistpost‐weaning

Page 64

10

Behavioraldevelopment

• Evidence that early social contact influences … • Competitive behavior and ability to cope with a competitive challenge (Duve et al., 2012; Miller‐Cushon et al., 2014)

• Frequency of agonistic behavior and placement in dominance hierarchy (Veissier et al., 1994)

Cognitivedevelopment

• Cognitive development depends on early life experiences and exposure to enrichment

• In dairy calves• Social environment influences learning (Gaillard et al., 2014) and reactivity to novel environments

• Potential effects of other early enrichments?

• Cognitive ability and animal welfare?

Insummary…

• Modifications to feeding and housing practices have potential to enhance welfare

• Intensified feeding for calves improves growth and affects behavior early in life, but calves must be weaned appropriately

• Social housing can be beneficial but in the short and longer‐term, but competition should be limited where possible

• We need to consider longer‐term consequences and/or benefits of different approaches to managing calves

Page 65

1

VFD and Animal Welfare

Elizabeth Cox MS, DVM

Merck Animal Health

Cattle Technical Service

Liz Introduction

Objectives and Discussion

1. Review of VFD

2. Judicious antibiotic use is part of animal welfare

3. How do we share that message?

Page 66

2

What is this all about?

Review of Veterinary Feed Directive

Multi Drug Resistant Pathogens

MDR bugs are a great concern within animal health

Page 67

3

VFD: The rules are changing

1. Limit antimicrobial drug use in animals that is considered necessary for assuring animal health

2. Limit antimicrobial drug use in animals that includes veterinary oversight or consultation.

3. Cannot use fed antibiotics for growth promotion and efficiency

4. All fed antibiotics will need a VFD (Rx) from vet

Veterinary Oversight

FDA believes that veterinarians are uniquely qualified: determine the disease causing

microorganisms and to determine appropriately timed administration to prevent disease based

on specific, known risk

Will need a Rx or VFD

FDA believes that the judicious use of

antimicrobial drugs in the feed or water (includes milk replacer) of food-producing animals needs the

scientific and clinical training of a licensed

veterinarian.

Page 68

4

Definition of Judicious Use Judicious use: accurately identifying bacterial disease that is present or likely to be present and selecting the suitable antimicrobial drug

Class of Antibiotic Common Name on

Farm

Ranking by FDA of

importance

3rd Gen

Cephalosporins

Ceftiofur (Excede,

Naxcel, Excenel)

CRITICAL

Flouroquinolones Enrofloxacin (Baytril) CRITICAL

Macrolides Draxxin, Micotil,

Zactran, Zuprevo, Tylan

CRITICAL

Trimeth/Sulfameth TMS pills, SMZ pills CRITICAL

Natural penicillins Penicillin G HIGH

Aminopenicillins Ampicillin (Polyflex) HIGH

Aminoglycosides Neomycin, Gentamicin,

Spectinomycin,

Streptomycin

HIGH

Tetracyclines Oxytetracycline,

Aureomycin

HIGH

VFD: Follow Label Instructions

• NO extralabel use of medicated feed

• Only option is labeled dose for labeled amount of time

For all fed antibiotics (including milk replacer)

Page 69

5

VFD: Prohibited Uses

No feeding for “increased rate of weight gain” or “improved feed efficiency” for the medically

important antimicrobial drugs.

Ionophores (rumensin) are exception

VFD: For Use in Prevention- OK

1. There is evidence of effectiveness

2. Such a preventive use is consistent with accepted veterinary practice

3. The use is linked to a specific etiologic agent

4. The use is appropriately targeted to animals at risk of developing a specific disease

5. No reasonable alternatives for intervention exist

What does this have to do with welfare?

• Goal of VFD is responsible use of antibiotics

• Antibiotics still to be used:

– Disease treatment

– Disease prevention

– Under supervision by veterinarian

Page 70

6

2014: Nestle partners with Global Animal

Rights Company

May 2015 Walmart Animal Announcement

May 2015 Walmart Animal Welfare Announcement

Page 71

7

May 2015 Walmart Animal Announcement

1. Report to authorities and take appropriate disciplinary and corrective action in any cases of animal abuse.

2. Adopt and implement the principles of the Five Freedoms in their own operations and industry producer programs, and publish a corporate policy on animal welfare.

3. Find and implement solutions to address animal welfare concerns including, but not limited to: a. Housing systems that lack sufficient space, enrichment or socialization (for example, sow gestation crates, hen battery cages and veal crates); b. Painful procedures where avoidable or without pain management (for example, tail docking, de-horning and castration)

Five Freedoms

1. Freedom from hunger and thirst

2. Freedom from discomfort

3. Freedom from pain, injury or disease

4. Freedom to express normal behavior

5. Freedom from fear and distress

Five Freedoms- antibiotic use?




Page 72

8

AABP animal welfare statement

AABP believes that management systems, medical practices and surgical procedures should minimize

pain, discomfort and distress, utilizing current scientific and expert opinion where available.

AVMA's principles of vet ethics

A veterinarian shall be influenced only by the welfare of the patient, the needs of the client, the safety of the public, and the need to uphold the public trust vested in the veterinary profession, and shall avoid

conflicts of interest or the appearance thereof.

Are antibiotics included in Animal Welfare?

Page 73

9

AASV Position Statement: Raising Pigs without Antibiotics

Any pork production system that is marketing pigs raised without the use of antibiotics should closely involve veterinarians in the management of herd health. If a pig is sick, or is at risk of getting sick, it is our responsibility as swine veterinarians to prevent or treat illness in a judicious manner to maintain animal health and welfare.

Five Freedoms




Industry Perspective

– Funding of research

– Vaccines

– Immune modulators

– Nutrition

– Monoclonal antibodies

– Genetics

Our business depends on animal agriculture

Page 74

10

For the future

• Transparency and accountability of practices

• Antibiotics are one of many tools

• New technologies developed

• Probably no new ‘blockbuster’ antibiotics

Summary 1. VFD rules start January 2017

a) All fed antibiotics require VFD (Rx) from veterinarian

2. Dairy calf raisers will be most affected

3. Putting the responsibility on your vet’s license

4. Antibiotics are part of animal welfare

5. Need to practice judicious use

Page 75

11

Questions for iClicker 1. Do you think treatment with antibiotics is part of

upholding animal welfare?

2. If so, how do we communicate that message?

3. Should definitions of animal welfare include a statement regarding treatment with antibiotics when deemed necessary by a veterinarian? Ex. AASV public statement

Page 76

1

Dairy Cattle Welfare Symposium: Intersection of Best Practices and Sustainability Location: The Ohio Union at Ohio State University, Columbus, OH May 20th and 21st

Pain management: Science-based guidelines for Welfare audits

Jim Reynolds DVM, MPVM, DACAWPraedium Ventures LLC Adjunct Professor, Western University College of Veterinary Medicine Pomona, California

Painful procedures

If a procedure will cause pain:

1) is the procedure necessary for the animal or society (i.e. a real (true) benefit)?• If not, leave the animal alone

2) If the procedure will cause pain and is necessary, then pain management must be considered provided.

Pain has two basic parts: Sensory and Emotional

Noxious stimulus of nociceptorsSharp painDull pain

Mental (emotional) statePerception of noxious stimulusExpectation of pain/fear/anxiety/distress

Page 77

2

Mechanics of pain

Stimulation of nociceptors• Mechanical, thermal, chemical, polymodal

Primary Sensitization• Inflammatory mediators can stimulate nociceptors directly

• Bradykinin, serotonin, prostaglandins, cytokines

• Can also decrease the activation threshold

• NSAIDs decrease prostaglandin synthesis

Sharp pain: A delta nerve fibers• Lightly myelinated• Respond to mechanical and thermal stimuli

• Initial reflex response to pain

Dull, burning pain: C nerve fibers• Non‐myelinated• Slow conduction• Polymodal:• Chemical, mechanical and thermal stimuli

How do we know animals are in pain?

Cattle tend to be stoic

Behaviors associated with pain• Avoidance/flight

• Vocalization

• Kicking/stamping feet

• Flicking tail

• Facial expressions

• Change in stride/reluctance to step on foot

• Depression/increased lying

• Bruxism (?)

Physiologies associated with pain• Inflammation

• Cytokines, prostaglandins decrease threshold of nociceptors

• Substance P• Neuropeptide released quickly in inflammation and tissue damage

• Cortisol • Pain, fear, distress

• Inappetence

Absence/reduction of these after anesthesia or analgesia

How can we alleviate pain?

Anesthetics• General anesthesia

• Local anesthesia

• Temporary pain management

Analgesics• Non‐Steroidal Anti‐Inflammatory Drugs (meloxicam, flunixon)

• Oral, IV, SQ, Regional

IM, SQEpidural

RegionalFlank

Paravertebral

Oral

IV

Page 78

3

What pain do dairy animals typically suffer?

• Birth

• Injury

• Disease

• Lameness

• Leg lesions

• Muscle/ ligament• Slips, falls

• Anxiety/distress

• Disbudding/dehorning

• Castration

• Surgery

• Supernumerary teat removal

• Restraint

• Injections

• Branding

• Tail docking

• Tail bending/tail jacks

• Dragging/lifting

• Electric prods

The use of gardening shears to cut off tails "is the most humane way to do it", he said, to prevent workers from being slapped in the face by a soiled tail.

Nose‐lead vs. Halter

Nose-lead is a distraction device, it should never be used without a halter

Halter is a restraint device

This is a form of animal abuse that is commonplace because of a lack of understanding of these handling devices

Slide courtesy of Dr. Jan Shearer

Page 79

4

How do Welfare Audits Deal with Pain?

1. FREEDOM FROM HUNGER AND THIRST by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor.

2. FREEDOM FROM DISCOMFORT by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.

3. FREEDOM FROM PAIN, INJURY OR DISEASE by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.

4. FREEDOM TO EXPRESS NORMAL BEHAVIOUR by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind.

5. FREEDOM FROM FEAR AND DISTRESS by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.

The Five Freedoms: welfare ideals for farm animals(all animals)

Animal Welfare is An Ethical Issue Informed by Science

The science of pain in cattle is clear:• They feel pain• We do things that cause cattle pain• Medicine dictates we alleviate all pain, suffering and distress

• We have techniques and drugs to alleviate pain

Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice Pain Management March 2013

Pain Management in welfare audits:• Consumers expect food to be produced ethically

• Producers want animals to be treated well

• Livestock industries have historically adopted painful procedures without pain alleviation

• Welfare audits often balance industry practices with animal welfare

Pain from LamenessWelfare audits address:

1. Protocols and SOPsMore likely to have good hoof care with well developed protocols and SOPs

2. TrainingMore likely to follow the SOP if trained

3. Observations of animalsLocomotion scores

% of animals clinically lame

Comparison to industry norms

4. Interviews with employees

LCS 1

LCS 2

LCS 3

LCS 4

LCS 5

http://www.zinpro.com/ASPX_Main/en-US/pdf/Locomotion%20scoring%20guide.pdf12

Audit Goal:Determine if the dairy has a functional hoof care program that serves the animals

Page 80

5

AVMA Welfare Policy Castration and Dehorning of Cattle

(https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Pages/Castration‐and‐Dehorning‐of‐Cattle.aspx)

• Both dehorning and castration should be done at the earliest age practicable.

• Disbudding is the preferred method of dehorning calves. Local anesthetic and nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) should be considered for other dehorning procedures..

• Elastrator rubber banding techniques have been associated with increased chronic pain and should be discouraged. High tension‐banding systems may be used with appropriate veterinary supervision and/or training in those situations where surgical castration may predispose to postsurgical complications.

• There are a number of acceptable castration techniques utilized by the cattle industry. The castration method used should take into account the animal's age, weight, skill level of the operator/technician, environmental condi ons, and facilities available, as well as human and animal safety.

American Veterinary Medical Association policy

Tail Docking of Cattle

The AVMA opposes routine tail docking of cattle. Current scientific literature indicates that routine tail docking provides no benefit to the animal, and that tail docking can lead to distress during fly seasons. When medically necessary, amputation of tails must be performed by a licensed veterinarian.

https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Pages/Tail‐Docking‐of‐Cattle.aspx

NOTATION:For further information on welfare implications of tail docking of cattle please visit AVMA's website at:

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Documents/tail_docking_cattle_bgnd.pdf

“The cow has a tail for a purpose”

• Communication / behavioral

• Signaling other cows and calves (and people)

• Estrus activity

• Fly control• Eicher, S. D., and J. W. Dailey. 2002.

Indicators of acute pain and fly avoidance behavior in Holstein calves following tail‐docking. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2850–2858.

• Temperature control“The cow has a tail for a purpose”Tail Docking Dairy Cattle Animal Welfare Institute

http://www.ohiovma.org/ (6-2010)

15

Page 81

6

American Humane Association Audit criteria for dehorning and castration

Disbudding/Dehorning:

• The cautery paste method of disbudding is permissible for use only for calves less than 7 days of age.

• The hot iron method of disbudding is permissible for use only for calves less than 30 days of age and must be performed under local anesthesia.

• After 30 days of age, if dehorning is determined to be necessary, the procedure must be performed by a veterinarian under local anesthesia and the calves must be given NSAID treatment for post‐procedure pain management. Efforts must be made to avoid dehorning older cattle unless they prove to be dangerous to herdmates or human handlers.

• Note: The use of polled breeds minimizes the need to disbud.

Castration:

• Castration must be performed at the earliest possible age. Castration through the application of a band (rubber ring) to restrict blood flow to the scrotum is permissible after 24 hours of age and up through 4 days of age.

• Where this is not possible, after 24 hours of age and up to 2 months of age, castration through use of a Burdizzo clamp, or surgical castration performed by the veterinarian under anesthesia, are permissible.

• After 2 months of age, castration must be performed surgically by the veterinarian under local anesthesia with provisions made to control bleeding.

http://www.humaneheartland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=106&jsmallfib=1&dir=JSROOT/Animal+Welfare+Standards+Full+Standards+%2B+Supplements

Dehorning calves“As early as possible”

• Disbudding preferred – less tissue damage

• Validus: Local anesthesia and analgesia required if over 4 days old• Possible role of endogenous endorphins, steroids and behavior of newborn calves

• FARM program (assessment – not an audit) allows no pain management to 8 weeks of age• Disbudding preferred—horn buds considered up to 8 weeks

Castration

Perform as young as possible

(1 to 3 days old)• Rubber rings may be acceptable on newborns

• Not acceptable after 4 days old

• Consider pain management

• Local anesthesia• Analgesia

The only true methods to manage pain from castration:• General anesthesia• Epidural anesthesia (high; not caudal)

Page 82

7

American Humane Association

Teat Removal:

• Removal of supernumerary teats is not permitted unless their presence interferes with the placement of the milking cup. In these cases, removal of supernumerary teats must be performed within 4 months under local anesthesia.

• If removal of supernumerary teats is necessary for calves or heifers older than 4 months of age, the procedure must be performed under local anesthesia by a veterinarian.

Tail Docking/ Switch Trimming:

• Tail docking must not be performed.

• Switch trimming is permitted only as necessary.

Surgical Procedures:

• Surgical procedures such as Caesarian‐sections must be performed by a qualified veterinarian.

http://www.humaneheartland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=106&jsmallfib=1&dir=JSROOT/Animal+Welfare+Standards+Full+Standards+%2B+Supplements

Animal Welfare is a basic part of good medicine

• It is not complicated

• Do what is best for the animal in front of you

• Create welfare programs for farms as part of management• Just like reproductive, mastitis, calf programs

• The audit then provides information on how the program is performing

Selected resources

Tucker CB1, Mintline EM2, Banuelos J2, Walker KA3, Hoar B4, Varga A5, Drake D2, Weary DM3. Pain sensitivity and healing of hot‐iron cattle brands. J An Sci 2014 Dec;92(12):5674‐82. doi: 10.2527/jas.2014‐7887. Epub 2014 Nov 17.

Kroll LK1, Grooms DL2, Siegford JM3, Schweihofer JP3, Daigle CL3, Metz K3, Ladoni M4. Effects of tail docking on behavior of confined feedlot cattle. J An Sci 2014 Oct;92(10):4701‐10. doi: 10.2527/jas.2014‐7583. Epub 2014 Sep 2.

Stull CL1, Payne MA, Berry SL, Hullinger PJ. Evaluation of the scientific justification for tail docking in dairy cattle. JAVMA 2002 May 1;220(9):1298‐303.

Stafford KJ1, Mellor DJ. The welfare significance of the castration of cattle: a review. N Z Vet J 2005 Oct;53(5):271‐8.

Stafford KJ1, Mellor DJ. Dehorning and disbudding distress and its alleviation in calves. Vet J 2005 May;169(3):337‐49.

Coetzee JF1. Assessment and management of pain associated with castration in cattle. Vet Clinics of N Am Food An Pract 2013 Mar;29(1):75‐101. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2012.11.002.

Anderson DE1, Edmondson MA. Prevention and management of surgical pain in cattle. Vet Clinics of N Am Food An Pract 2013 Mar;29(1):157‐84. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2012.11.006. Epub 2012 Dec 23.

Stock ML1, Baldridge SL, Griffin D, Coetzee JF. Bovine dehorning: assessing pain and providing analgesic management. Vet Clinics of N Am Food An Pract 2013 Mar;29(1):103‐33. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2012.11.001. Epub 2012 Dec 23.

Stock ML1, Coetzee JF2. Clinical pharmacology of analgesic drugs in cattle. Vet Clinics of N Am Food An Pract 2015 Mar;31(1):113‐38, vi‐vii. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2014.11.002. Epub 2015 Jan 8.

Neave HW1, Daros RR, Costa JH, von Keyserlingk MA, Weary DM. Pain and pessimism: dairy calves exhibit negative judgement bias following hot‐iron disbudding. Plos One 2013 Dec 4;8(12):e80556. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080556. eCollection 2013.

Kristensen E1, Jakobsen EB. Challenging the myth of the irrational dairy farmer; understanding decision‐making related to herd health. N Z Vet J 2011 Jan;59(1):1‐7. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2011.547162.

American Veterinary Medical Association Policies (welfare policies often link to literature reviews) https://www.avma.org/kb/policies/pages/default.aspx

Page 83

1

DAIRY COW BEHAVIOR AND WELFARE IN HERDS WITH

ROBOTIC MILKING SYSTEMS

Dairy Cow Welfare Symposium 2016

Meagan King, Ph.D. Candidate

Advisor: Trevor DeVries

Advisory Committee Members:

Ed Pajor, Stephen LeBlanc, Tom Wright

Rapid increase in recent years

500 in U.S.

600-700 in Canada

25,000-30,000 worldwide

Research to date

Mostly examines cow traffic and feed supplemented in robot

Much less research on housing and management

Endless data and reports available

Robotic Milking Today

Cows must voluntarily visit robot to realize benefits

Major factor in cows’ visit behavior is lameness

Lameness prevalence in North American freestall herds ranges from 15 to 55%

(Ito et al., 2010; von Keyserlingk et al., 2012; Solano et al., 2015; Westin et al., 2016)

assessments include lameness scoring

Challenges and Opportunities

Page 84

2

Research Goals

1. Identify associations of housing, management, and lameness with productivity and behavior

2. Use productivity and behavioral data to earlier detect health disorders

#1: On-farm Study

41 robotic herds in Canada (26 ON, 15 AB)

Collected milking activity & production data for 6 d

Surveyed management, barn design, fetch cows

Sub-sample of each herd

Gait scoring (GS; 5-point scale)

40 cows/herd

Or 30% of herd if >130 cows

Lying behavior (30 cows/herd)

Variable Average Standard Dev.

Milk yield (kg/cow/day) 33.7 ±2.8

Milk frequency (#/cow/day) 3.0 ±0.3

Milk produced per robot (kg/day) 1645 ±229

Fetched cows (% of total cows/day) 8.1 ±6.7

Clinical lameness (% cows GS≥3) 26.2 ±13.0

Severe lameness (% cows GS≥4) 2.2 ±3.1

Stocking density (cows/lying stall x 100%) 88.6 ±17.2

Cows per robot (cows/robots) 49.4 ±7.9

#1: Study Herds Summary

Page 85

3

#1: Two Analyses

1. Herd-level

Associations of housing, management, and lameness with productivity and behavior

2. Cow-level

Comparison of lame and sound cows

Lame = GS ≥ 3 (n = 353)

Sound = GS < 3 (n = 865)

Body condition scoring (5-point scale)

#1: Herd-level Productivity

Milk yield/cow

↓ with severe lameness (% herd GS≥4) +1% = -0.6 kg/d

Milk yield/robot

↓ with severe lameness (% herd GS≥4) +1% = -32 kg/d

↑ with # cows per robot +1 cow/robot = +32 kg/d

Milking frequency/cow

↓ with clinical lameness (% herd GS≥3) +10% = -0.07 x/d

↓ with # cows per robot +10 cows/robot = -0.24 x/d

#1: Herd-level Behavior

Fetch cows

↓ with more frequent scraping of manure alleys

↑ with higher stocking density in stalls

Lying time

↑ with more frequent feed push-up

Length of lying bouts

↑ in deep-bedding vs. mattresses

↑ with more prevalent clinical lameness

Page 86

4

#1: Cow-level Comparison

Lame cows …

… produced less milk (-1.6 kg/d)

… in fewer milkings/d (-0.3 milkings/d)

… were 2x more likely to be fetched >1x/week

… spent more time lying down (38 min/d)

… in longer lying bouts (3.5 min/bout)

They also had greater night:day activity ratios

Cows with BCS ≥ 3.5

Produced less milk

More daily refusals

Cows with BCS ≤ 2.5

Spent more time standing

Fewer daily refusals

#1: Other Findings (Cow-Level)

#2: Longitudinal Study

Enrolled cows prior to calving

Sept 2014 – Sept 2015

Monitored cows throughout lactation

Continuous milk, rumination, lying data

Barn staff diagnosed, treated, and recorded illness

Analyzed data relative to day of diagnosis

… Can we earlier identify illness?

Page 87

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

Milk

yie

ld (3

-d r

ollin

g a

vera

ge)

Rum

ina

tion

time

(min

/d)

Act

ivity

(uni

ts/d

Days relative to diagnosis

Activity Rumination Milk yield

#2: Illness Detection

Hoof disorders (16 cows)

Take Home Messages

Negative impacts of lameness

Not just severe lameness (2.2%)

Clinical lameness (26.2%)

Management and lameness affect productivity, voluntary milking, and lying behavior

Robot data can be used to earlier detect illness

Thank you!

Special thanks to participating producers

Funding was provided by:

Page 88

1

On‐Farm Needs for Dairy Animal Handling

Frank DinisCharles Ahlem Ranch

Hilmar, Ca

Background• Herd Manager of 8 Dairy Facilities in Hilmar, CA• Total Herd size of 8,000 Jerseys and Cross-breds• 12 years with Charles Ahlem Ranch• Responsible for 70 Total employees

o HR Manager Alec Brown

• Vertically Integrated with Hilmar Cheese• Direct interaction with Hilmar Cheese Customers

o Ex: Dairy Tours o Q & A customer Sessions

Where we began…

• Identified the need for Training because we were faced with two options:o Hire employees with “experience”

• Carry baggageo Hire employees with no experience

• Doesn't know anything

Question….how do we pass our knowledge, experience and standard to the both groups?

Page 89

2

How did we start?

• In 2011 we identified an area of need that was not being met in the industry

• There was no industry standard or tools for Employee training readily available o Materials, Trainers, Curriculum?

• Reached out to our vets and industry for help

What we found…• Our First Step:

o Dairy animal handling • Merck Module #1 – Basic Cow Handling (2012)

o Started with Key Outside employeeso Now a Standard for the on-boarding process for

new employees

• This was our standard for 2 years …as we waited for more!

In the meantime….Creating the Culture• In order to set the Standard: We needed to define

our Dairy Culture:o Owners (set the tone)o Upper Management (implements the vision)

• Department Heads o Middle Management (execute the program)

• Herdsman and/or Supervisor

You need everyone on board!

Page 90

3

Training DefinedAll employee training has 3 components1. People Safety2. Specific Training Topic3. Animal Handling and Safety

We built on the program • The Basic Training program

o Curriculum based training• Group or Position specific

Ex: Feeders, Milkers, Outside Guys

o Merck Module #1 – Basic cow Handling• All employees • New Hires

o Merck Module #2 – Moving Cows in/out of the Parlor

• Focused on Training Specifically for the Milking Crew

o Milkers’ Schoolso Safety Meetings

How the program evolved • Employee Training and Documentation

Handbook o Animal Care Commitment Employee Contractso Written Standard Operating Procedures

• Each area of responsibly has specific SOPo Ex: Euthanasia, Down Cow Care

o In order for the employee to be successful we must provide the training (its not about just signing a piece of paper)

Page 91

4

Where we are now• Starting at the beginning

• Cows remember their human interactions for a lifetime• Training for our animals starts at day 1

o We are their surrogate mothers

• Classroom training: • Implement Merck Modules • From Calf to Cow

o 6 Modules now available • Includes Exam and Certificates

On‐Farm Training with Vets/Trainers

o Animal side training (hands on)• Calving School• Milker’s School

o LEAH Certification - Low Energy Animal Handling• 12 hour on-farm training program

o Combination Cow side and Classroomo Certification for passing Exam

What Iʹve Learnedo Leave the credentials at home

• Reality is they don’t care your credentials• Make sure you relate to them on their level• Take the science out and relate it back to actual life

experience

o Lead by Example• Don’t tell them what they are doing wrong• Show them how to do it right

o Visual Aids, Hands-on and Practical Examples (get down to the basics)

• Different levels of literacy and comprehension

Page 92

5

How do you Measure Success

• The Cows Tell you!o Walk the cows

• How do the cows react to you/employee• The “flight zone” is getting smaller

• Compare your Workers comp o The 1st year ours dropped in half

• Employee Moraleo Turnovero Confidenceo Employee “buy-in” = complianceo Walk the employees

• are they demonstrating the Learned behavior?

Moving forward…Training…• Is an on-going process • Is important for the future of the Industry• Is the right thing to do for our Animals

Page 93

1

Building an Effective Training Program for Dairy Personnel

Luís G. D. Mendonça¹ and Alexandre Scanavez¹Assistant Professor, Dairy Extension Specialist

Department of Animal Sciences and Industry

Kansas State University

What Frequency Do You Use Computers?

A – Never

B – At least once a week

For a training session related to your job (tasks you are alreadydoing), would you rather have the information delivered in a face-

to-face format or computer-based format?

A – Face-to-face format

B – Computer-based format

C – Either

Page 94

2

Outline

• Importance of training employees

• Key elements to build an effective training program

• Using technology to deliver information in training programs

• Aspects to consider

Importance of Training Employees

• Employee job performance will impact profitability of a dairy

operation

• Consumer and public concerns of livestock production (Thornton, 2010;

Brom, 2010; Verbeke and Viaene, 2010; McGlone, 2001)

– Food safety and quality;

– Animal well-being;

– Environmental impact;

– Worker health and safety

Training workforce

Key Elements to Build an Effective Training Program

Page 95

3


1. New employee training program

2. Refresher training sessions

3. Setting goals and frequent communication

4. Employee turnover rate

New Employee Training Program

Manager

Milker Milker

Headmilker

MilkerMilker

Tractor

FeederFeeder

New employee training program

not in place

Refresher training session in 6 months

Nov-16

On-farm training May-16:- Animal handling

- Milker school

Milker Milker Milker Milker

Milker Milker MilkerMilker MilkerMaternity

Milker Milker

Maternity

Maternity

MilkerMaternity

Head milker

Manager

Milker Milker

Head milker

MilkerMilker

Tractor

FeederFeeder

New employee training program

not in place

On-farm training Nov-16:- Animal handling

- Milker school

New Employee Training Program

Milker Milker MilkerMilker Milker Milker


MilkerMaternity

MilkerMaternity

Head milker

Maternity

Maternity

Page 96

4



– Topics to address: animal handling, safety, and basics of daily tasks

– Systematic approach

– One person responsible to assure new employees will be trained

– Engagement: build supervisor-employee relationship

– Follow-up with new employees (mentor with leadership skills)

– Screening and selecting new employees (hiring process)




– Focus to 3 subjects

– Readdress topics discussed in previous sessions

– Expand employees’ knowledge

– Explain WHY not just HOW

– Stimulate “healthy” discussions

– Involve the manager or person responsible for supervising employees

(follow-up)

Refresher Training Sessions

Manager

Milker Milker

Head milker

MilkerMilker

Milker Milker MilkerMilker Milker MilkerMilkerMaternity

MilkerMaternity


Head milker

Page 97

5

Employees

Middle managers

Supervisors

Topmanagement


Employees

Middle managers

Topmanagement

Supervisors

Refresher Training SessionsLeadership

CultureAttitude

Employee morale

Employees

Middle managers

Topmanagement

Supervisors


Page 98

6

Employees

Middle managers

Topmanagement

Supervisors

Refresher Training SessionsBuild cohesive

teams





– Select key performance indicators (KPIs) for each area

– Compile the information and present the information in an understandable

format

– Feedback to employees

3 4 7 5 4 4 5 4 3 6 5 4 40%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

1st lact + >2nd lact

1st lact

>2nd lact

Dairy Died

Dairy 1 0.7%

Dairy 2 0.6%

Scours first 15 daysDairy 0-5 days 6-10 days 11-15 days

Dairy 1 4% 5% 3%

Dairy 2 3% 7% 5%

Goal 15% or less

Colostrum Management- October 2015

Goalless than 7%

Calves died in first 5 days of life

Still

bir

th, %

Goal 1% or less

Calving ManagementDairy 1

Setting Goals and Frequent Communication

Page 99

7

Diarrea en los primeros 15 dias de edadBecerras muertas en los primeros 5 dias

Lecheria Muerto

Lecheria 1 0.7%

Lecheria 2 0.6%

Lecheria 0-5 dias 6-10 dias 11-15 dias

Lecheria 1 4% 5% 3%

Lecheria 2 3% 7% 5%

Goal 15% o menos

Gestión del Calostro- Octubre 2015

Goal 1% o menos

Nov-14 Dic-14 Ene-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Abr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Ago-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15

Vaquillas+

Vacas3% 4% 7% 5% 4% 4% 5% 4% 3% 6% 5% 4% 4%

Vaquillas 4% 4% 10% 4% 4% 7% 7% 5% 5% 7% 7% 5% 4%

Vacas 2% 4% 5% 5% 3% 2% 4% 3% 3% 5% 4% 4% 4%

Porcentaje de natimuertos por mesMeta 7% o menos(becerros y becerras muertos en la lecheria – maternidad)

Lecheria 1

Setting Goals and Frequent Communication





4. Employee turnover rate

– High turnover rate = time invested in orientation and training

Using Technology to Deliver Information in Training

Programs

Page 100

8

Using technology to deliver information in training programs

• Advantages:

– Fast delivery of content to employees

– Flexibility in time to deliver the training sessions

– Assess the effectiveness of the learning experience

– Record-keeping system for employee training

• Disadvantages:

– It may limit interactions during training sessions

– Implementation: devices, trained individuals, and sufficient material

– User friendly (employee’s perspective)


- Beef Cattle InstituteKansas State University



- PeopleFirst ™

Zoetis Inc.

Page 101

9



- PeopleFirst ™

Zoetis Inc.

- Dairy Care 365 ™

Merck Animal Health



- PeopleFirst ™

Zoetis Inc.


Merck Animal Health

- K-State Dairy EmployeeTraining and DevelopmentKansas State University



- PeopleFirst ™

Zoetis Inc.


Merck Animal Health


- Dairy Worker Safety TrainingNew Mexico State andThe University of Texas

Page 102

10



- PeopleFirst ™

Zoetis Inc.


Merck Animal Health


- Dairy Worker Safety TrainingNew Mexico State andThe University of Texas

- U.S. Agricultural Safety and Health Centers - NIOSH

Aspects to Consider• What is in your toolbox to educate employees?

– Veterinarians and nutritionists

– Extension programs

– Support from allied industry

– Online material

– In-house training

• Language used in training sessions and material delivered to employees

• New employee training program and refresher training sessions

• Can you incorporate technology in training programs?

Thank you!

Luís G. D. Mendonç[email protected]

785-532-2652

Page 103

1

Monitoring Personnel Performance With Emphasis on Animal Welfare

Gustavo M. Schuenemann, DVM, MS, PhD

Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine,

College of Veterinary Medicine

(©2016 G.M. Schuenemann)

2016 Dairy Cattle Welfare Symposium, Columbus, OH

Monitoring Personnel Performance

• Each dairy herd has its own fingerprint of management:

– Animals

– Environment

– Facilities/Equipment

– Feed/water

– People

• How do we assess PERFORMANCE?


Stillbirth

Calf born dead or died within 24 hours after birth (normal gestation length)

Page 104

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAQQjRw&url=http://www.vetmed.vt.edu/education/curriculum/vm8054/Labs/Lab14/NOTES/Fingrprt.htm&ei=FD9AU_qqAcTD2AX2iYFw&usg=AFQjCNEEQp3xlq7e6o2wH2xJk796qaEJgg

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAQQjRw&url=http://www.vetmed.vt.edu/education/curriculum/vm8054/Labs/Lab14/NOTES/Fingrprt.htm&ei=FD9AU_qqAcTD2AX2iYFw&usg=AFQjCNEEQp3xlq7e6o2wH2xJk796qaEJgg

2

How Do We Identify the Right People for the Right Task?

CALF

REPRO

CALVING

TMR/FEEDBUNK

PARLOR SCC/Milk

FRESH


Establish SOPs

Hands-on Training

Performance

Re-Assign Tasks

Regular Meeting Feedback

How to Build & Monitor Effective Teams?

Knowledge

Skills


Executing SOPs within Herd

Knowledge Skills Attitude Performance

Personnel

Attitude: the way a person views something or tends to behave towards it

Training

Management of Working Environment

•Format •Timing •Retention •Attendance •Practice •Follow-Up •Literacy •Language


Page 105

3

Daily EVENTS at individual level produce dynamic

(over time) information at herd level

On-Farm Desktop

Maternity

http://www.ecalving.com (©2016 G.M. Schuenemann)


Personnel: P < 0.05 Herd: P < 0.05

5 Large Dairy Herds (800-10,000 cows)

Page 106

http://www.ecalving.com/

http://www.ecalving.com/

4

Example: a 2,000-cow herd with an average of 5 births/day would need at least a total of 4

workers (5 births/4 workers = 1.369 ratio) every 24-h period (e.g., 2 workers per 12-h shift) to

take care of periparturient cows and feed colostrum to calves


y = 6.5494x - 2.3144 R² = 0.585

r = 0.77

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Fre

qu

en

cy o

f In

corr

ect

Dat

a (n

)

y = 10.935x - 3.6593 R² = 0.582

r = 0.76

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Fre

qu

en

cy o

f M

issi

ng

Dat

a (n

)

Calving:Personnel Ratio

5 Large Dairy Herds (800-10,000 cows)

Effect of Calving Personnel Performance on Stillbirth

y = -0.3381x + 10.44 R² = 0.7766

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Still

bir

th (

%)

Increase in Performance (%)

Unresolved conflicts affect attitude; no difference in knowledge and skills

Animal Welfare Implications

(Schuenemann et al., 2016; on-going study; 47 workers, 18 herds and 18,000 cows)


Skills Knowledge

Where is the Problem?

(©2016 GM Schuenemann)

Known to Others

Unknown to Others

ATTITUDE

Page 107

5

Teamwork Matters for Performance

P = (K + S)*A

Knowledge Skills Attitude

Worker Performance


Assessment of Workplace Attitude

Workplace Attitude Index (WAI)

Expectations:

– “Ideally, in this job I would expect to receive …”

Experience:

– “In this job I actually receive …”

Experience/Expectation = WAI

(Veladez, 2007; Vol 10, Issue 3)


Correlation of Knowledge and Personnel Performance

y = 2.055x + 42.658 R² = 0.8407

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 10 20 30

Kn

ow

led

ge (

%)

Personnel Performance (%)

(Schuenemann et al., 2015 J. Dairy Sci. 98:564)


Page 108

6

Correlation of Workplace Attitude with Personnel Performance

y = 0.0246x + 0.2599 R² = 0.7432

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Wo

rkp

lace

Att

itu

de

Ind

ex

Personnel Performance (%)



Economics for a 2,000-cow Herd

95% CPP and 5% TO 85% CPP and 30% TO

$43,490 or $21 per cow/yr

166 calves lost/yr 19 calves lost/yr



Facilities and Environment: Assessment of COW COMFORT

IceQube

• Monitor “lying time” (h/d) to determine:

– Potential problems with dry matter intake

– Negative energy balance

– Increased “standing” time is associated with lameness

– …


Page 109

7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Res

tin

g Ti

me

(h/d

)

Days

Dairy A: Lying Time (h/d) for Pre-Partum Cows and Heifers

The red rectangle shows the expected range of hour per day of lying time


(Schuenemann et al., 2016; on-going study)

Dairy B: Lying Time (h/d) for Pre-Partum Cows and Heifers

The red rectangle shows the expected range of hour per day of lying time

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lyin

g Ti

me

(h/d

)

Days



Stillbirth Decreases 1.3 Percentage Points for Every Hour of Additional Lying Time

y = -1.3157x + 22.099 R² = 0.6531

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Still

bir

th (%

)

Prepartum Lying Time (h/d)

Lying time (h/d) of prepartum cows (20 to 10 d prior to calving) were correlated with the annual prevalence of stillbirth (%) of 14 dairy herds in Ohio



Page 110

8

What Makes an Effective Team?

We are looking for a herd manager with PEOPLE skills, team builder (dirt under the nails experience) …

Milking(10)

Pre-partum & Calving (4)

Fresh Cows & Hospital (4)

Feeding(3)

Hoof Trimming(1)

Reproduction(3)

Owner Advisory Team (3)

Maintenance(2)

Cow Pusher & Clean Stall (3)

Herd Manager (1)

Records(1)


Personnel: Income Distribution

Inco

me

$ per hour $8.50 Working hours per day 12 Working days/month 26.4 6 work:1 day-off Monthly gross income $2,692.80 Annual gross income $32,313.60 Net income $26,544.60 $2,212 monthly

39.3

17.5 14.9 13.1

9.1

3.5 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Dis

trib

uti

on

(%)


Length (8, 10, or 12 h) of Work Shifts

AM PM

Personnel Area Task Start Shift Hours End Shift

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

11.5

12

12.5

13

13.5

14

14.5

15

15.5

16

16.5

17

17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

20

20.5

21

21.5

22

22.5

23

23.5

Rafael General Manager 7 11 18 Oscar General Manager 7 11 18 Alejandro Calving Calving/colostrum 6 8 14

Manuel Calving Calving/colostrum 6 8 14

Victor Calving Calving/colostrum 14 8 22

Tom Calving Calving/colostrum 14 8 22

Maria Calving Calving/colostrum 22 8 6

Luna Calving Calving/colostrum 22 8 6

Alejandro Calving Calving/colostrum 6 12 18 Manuel Calving Calving/colostrum 6 12 18 Victor Calving Calving/colostrum 18 12 6 Tom Calving Calving/colostrum 18 12 6

Alejandro Calving Calving/colostrum 6 10 16 Manuel Calving Calving/colostrum 6 10 16 Victor Calving Calving/colostrum 14 10 0 Tom Calving Calving/colostrum 14 10 0 Maria Calving Calving/colostrum 22 10 8 Luna Calving Calving/colostrum 22 10 8

8 h

12 h

10 h

Page 111

9

Managing the Working Environment

Personnel: No resources for the tasks Day-off for Christmas or Holiday Pay raise or bonus (incentives) “No-show” worker Want to use cell phone Change of work shift (night vs day) Fix gate/water hose Restroom for women This is not my job! Want break Dryer/washer don’t work …

Owner/Herd Manager: Be on time for your shift “No-show” worker No cell phone or texting while at work Pick up trash/clothing from lockers Improve milking routine Work as a team and communication High SCC and milk quality Keep accurate/readable records SOPs for safety/treatments SOPs for feeding/handling cows-calves Clean, clean, clean! …


About 25% of Personnel with Vision Issues

Vision loss/impairment

SOPs with pictures

(Source: http://www.cdc.gov/visionhealth/about/resources.htm)

How Text May Look for Personnel with Vision Problems


OSU Veterinary Extension Gustavo M. Schuenemann, DVM, MS,

PhD

Front or Rear Leg?


Page 112

10

High Risk Scenario: Have very Motivated Workers, BUT without K and S

P = (K + S)*A

Knowledge Skills Attitude

Worker Performance

“Google” Translated Calving Protocol


Written protocol: what to do (e.g., treatment for a specific disease) SOP within the protocol: how to do it (operational steps and resources needed)

Name: Maria A. Gomez Card ID#: OH-00001-01 Issued: 02/02/2016 Expires: 02/02/2017

This person has successfully completed the training course listed above and has demonstrated proficient knowledge and skills by passing the examination.

Instructor: Gustavo M. Schuenemann Course: Milking routine and parlor management

DAIRY TRAINING CERTIFICATION CARD

Certification of Knowledge and Skills

Documenting that a system is in place for consistency!


Page 113

11

Coincidence or Not …,


IF …

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

EQUALS …

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

THEN …

K N O W L E D G E 11 + 14 + 15 + 23 + 12 + 5 + 4 + 7 + 5

S K I L L S 19 + 11 + 9 + 12 + 12 + 19

H A R D W O R K 8 + 1 + 18 + 4 + 23 + 15 + 18 + 11

= 96% = 82%

= 98%

A T T I T U D E 1 + 20 + 20 + 9 + 20 + 21 + 4 + 5

All are important, BUT fall just short of 100%

= 100%

THANK YOU!

Gustavo M. Schuenemann Email: [email protected]; Ph: 614-292-6924


Page 114

1

Dairy Cattle Welfare Symposium

Antone MickelsonMay 21, 2016


Northwest Dairy Association

Communication efforts

Challenges

Looking Ahead

Questions


Largest coop in U. S.

5th

Billion dollars in annual sales

FY 2015

2.6

Billion pounds of milk

8.3

Largest privatelyowned company

in Pac NW

As of 2015

Page 115

2

Dairy Cattle Welfare SymposiumInternal customers

Employees

Co‐op members

Service providers

External

Key stakeholders

Retail/wholesale customers

Consumers


Reports

Annual Financial Report

CSR Report


Formal Letters

Executive Staff Management

Major reorganizations

Major Policy Announcements

Participation in FARM is a condition of membership

Membership Changes

Mergers, acquisitions etc.

Page 116

3


MeetingsAnnual producer meeting

Board meetings

Kitchen meetings Directors

Special meetings AB Residue

Animal welfare

Young Cooperator (YC)

Industry


One on One

Board of Directors

Staff

Field staff

Office staff

Milk truck drivers


WebsitesNDA ‐ Producer Pricing

Quality Information

Farm management resources

News/announcements

Darigold – Consumer Retail

Consumers

Page 117

4


Social media

Facebook

Instagram

Twitter

Snapchat

Tumblr

Pinterest


Inbound Communication

Field Staff

Board members

Email/phone calls/text

YCs

Meetings

Dairy Cattle Welfare SymposiumCommunication Challenges

Internet

Speeds in rural communities

Outdated technology

Various platforms

Written

Interesting enough to read?

Time to read?

Page 118

5

Dairy Cattle Welfare SymposiumLooking ahead – to transparency

Work to improve existing efforts

Targeted communication plan

Town hall meetings

Webinars

Specialty meetings

Increase social media


Questions?

Antone Mickelson

[email protected]

509‐952‐6455

Page 119

1

Food Integrity and Consumer Perception

Charlie Arnot

[email protected]

www.foodintegrity.org

www.bestfoodfacts.org

Page 120

2

“Just ship it. I cannotafford to lose anothercustomer.”

“The time lapse besidesthe cost is costing us huge $$$$$ … We need to protect our self.”

Page 121

3

“Unemployed people asking for a hand out,a nickel. I’d never seen this in the ruralcommunities where I grew up. This was ahorrifying experience for me.”

Page 122

4

“Science will go further than has everbeen possible to eradicate the miseriesof hunger and starvation on Earth.”

“These places I’ve see have clubbed my mind – they are so poor and depressed. I don’t know whatwe can do to help these people, but we’ve got to do something.”

Page 123

5

“This strange principle of increasing yieldsby shrinking plants was the central insightof the Green Revolution, and its impact wasenormous.”

By the 1960s, Mexico’s wheat production increased six fold

Page 124

6

“I now say that the world has the technology to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10‐billion people. Themore pertinent question today is whether farmers andranchers will be permitted to use this new technology.”

‐ Norman Borlaug, September 2000

How Does the Public See You?

The BIG BIAS

Page 125

7

“I believe (size) food companies are likely to put their interests ahead of my interests.”

2015 Mean 5.88

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

18% 52% 29%

0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10

2015 Mean 7.52

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5% 38% 57%

0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10

Small

Large

“(Size) farms are likely to put their interests ahead of my interests.”

2015 Mean 5.56

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

22% 51% 27%

0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10

2015 Mean 7.06

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

7% 46% 47%

0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10

Small

Large

What Consumers Told Us

Page 126

8

1. They can identify with an individual not a company – shared values

2. The larger the company the more likely profit will supersede public interest

3. Mass production creates greater opportunity for error and the size and scale of the error increases the impact

What Did We Hear?

How Did We Get Here?

• Today food is generally:

– Safer

– More available

– More affordable

• And yet consumers have more questions and are more skeptical than ever before

• How did that happen?

Today’s Food System

Page 127

9

1968 Events

1968 Democratic Convention

Page 128

10

Vietnam

Christmas Eve 1968

Greetings from Lunar Orbit

1970 ‐ Kent State

Page 129

11

1972 – Watergate Break‐In

’70s‐’80s Events

’90s – 2000s Events

Page 130

12

2000s ‐ Events

Subprime Mortgage Crisis

2000s – More Events

Page 131

13

Food is personal…

We need it for survival

Food is personal…

We feed it to our children

It’s part of our culture/celebrations

Food is personal…

Page 132

14

Consolidation, Integration and Industrialization

Significant Social Shifts

THEN• Authority is granted

primarily by office

• Broad social consensus driven by WASP men

• Communication is formal, indirect (mass communication)

• Progress is inevitable

• Institutions are respected

NOW• Authority is granted primarily

by relationship

• No single social consensus, great diversity, many voices

• Communication is informal, direct (masses of communicators)

• Progress is possible

• Institutions are not trusted

CFI Trust Model

Page 133

15

Definition: The privilege of operating with minimal formalized restrictions (legislation, regulation, or market requirements) based on maintaining public trust by doing what’s right.

Public Trust: A belief that activities are consistent with social expectations and the values of the community and other stakeholders.

Social License

Tipping Point

Flexible Responsive Lower Cost

Rigid Bureaucratic Higher Cost

Social License

• Ethics

• Values

• Expectations

• Self regulation

Social Control

• Regulation

• Legislation

• Litigation

• ComplianceSingle triggering event

Cumulative impact

The Social License To Operate

Social License Challenge: Biotechnology

Page 134

16

Social License Challenge: Climate Change

Growing Challenges: Public Health

Growing Challenges: Animal Welfare

Page 135

17

CFI Trust Model

Shared values are 3-5x more important to building trust than sharing facts or demonstrating technical skills/expertise

What Drives Consumer Trust?

TRUST

Sustainable Balance

Page 136

18

Three Levels – Six Stages

1. Pre‐ Conventional

• Direct impact on me

2. Conventional

• Societal expectations

3. Post‐Conventional

• Principle drivenLawrence Kohlberg, 1927 ‐ 1987

Kohlberg’s Moral Hierarchy

Punishment‐Obedience

The “law & order” orientation

Universal ethical principle orientation

The “good boy / nice girl” orientation

Personal rewards orientation

Social contract orientation

We have an ethical obligation to produce dairy sustainably and do what’s right for people, animals and the planet.

We comply with all environmental laws and regulations

We use today’s dairy production technology because it maximizes productivity and profitability

Pre‐Conventional Direct impact on me

Conventional Societal expectations

Post Conventional Principle driven


Punishment‐Obedience

The “law & order” orientation

Universal ethical principle orientation

The “good boy / nice girl” orientation

Personal rewards orientation

Social contract orientation

NGOs

BusinessPre‐Conventional Direct impact on me

Conventional Societal expectations

Post Conventional Principle driven


Page 137

19

Trust‐Building Transparency

2015 Consumer Trust Research

Shared Values = Trust

Overcoming the Bias Against Size

Big is Bad

Inverse relationship between size and the perception of shared values

Transparency Means Business

“Consumers have begun to weigh a new set of factors more heavily in their purchase, disrupting the consumer value equation in ways that present both opportunities and challenges for the food industry. “

Page 138

20

• 2015 research proves increasing transparency increases trust

• Transparency is no longer optional – it’s a basic consumer expectation

• Consumers primarily hold food companies responsible for transparency

• Transparency is the key to overcoming the “Big is Bad” bias.

• Consumers want information on your practices – practices are an illustration of values in action and values drive trust.

• Consumers want the ability to engage. They want to be heard and acknowledged and they want straight answers to their questions.

Takeaways

Accuracy

Relevance

Stakeholder Participation

Clarity

Credibility

Disclosure

Motivations

Elements of Trust Building Transparency

Page 139

21

1. Motivation – Act in a manner that is ethical and

consistent with stakeholder interest. Show you

understand and appreciate issues and take action that

demonstrates you balance public interest with self

interest.

Trust Building Transparency

Motivations

Disclosure

2. Disclosure – Share information important to stakeholders, both positive and negative, even if it might be damaging. Make it easy to find; helpful in making informed decisions; easy to understand and timely.

Stakeholder Participation

3. Stakeholder Participation – Ask those interested in your activities and impact, for input. Make it easy to provide; acknowledge it has been received and explain how and why you make decisions.

4. Relevance – Share information stakeholders deem relevant. Ask them. Show you understand.


5. Clarity – Share information that is easily understood.

Relevance

Clarity

7. Accuracy – Share information that is truthful, objective, reliable and complete.


6. Credibility – Admit mistakes; apologize; accept responsibility; engage critics; share plans for corrective action. Demonstrate you genuinely care and present more than one side of controversial issues.

Accuracy

Credibility

Page 140

22

• The social decision making process in complex and multidimensional

• Decisions are not made on facts and rational thought alone

• Mistrust of institutions has become the social norm

• Tribal communication and “relational expertise” influences trusted sources and messages

• Growing pressure on brands to drive social change

Our New Reality

• Who you are is as important as what you know

– Communicating shared values makes technical information more relevant and accessible

• Embrace skepticism – It’s not personal, it’s a social condition

– Skepticism is the fuel for scientific discovery

• The public wants information from academics but not academic information

– Learn to speak the language of social media

• Transparency is no longer optional

– Authentic transparency is the path to building trust in the dairy industry in the 21st century

Implications for You

1. Begin your public engagement using shared values– “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” T. Roosevelt

2. Open the digital door to today’s dairy production– Find ways to make what you do transparent to illustrate your

commitment to do “what’s right”

3. Commit to engaging early, often and consistently– Your voice, your knowledge and your credibility matter. You

can make a difference in building public support for dairy production, but you have to learn how to play by new rules

Three Things You Can Do

Page 141

23

Food Integrity and Consumer Perception

Charlie Arnot

[email protected]

www.foodintegrity.org

www.bestfoodfacts.org

Page 142

1

Improving Animal Welfare Through Management

Juan S. Velez. M.V. M.S. Dipl. ACT

Our people

Page 143

Our Parlors

Page 144

What have we done to improve welfare?


Page 145

BENEFITS

2 week vacation first year. 3 weeks up to 5 years and 3 more days every five years of service up to 35 days. Subsidized health, vision and dental insurance. 401K plan with 100% matching up to 3% of employee salary contribution and 50% from 3 to 5% of salary contribution.



Page 146




Page 147




Page 148



Attitude Words can never adequately convey the incredible impact of our attitudes toward life. The longer I live the more convinced I become that life is 10 percent what happens to us and 90 percent how we respond to it. Charles R. Swindoll

Page 149

Page 150