Factors influencing how Canadian dairy producers respond to a downer cow scenario.

Understanding how downer cattle are managed allows for the evaluation of strengths and weaknesses in these practices, which is an important step toward improving the care these animals receive. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to analyze factors associated with the care and management of downer cattle by Canadian dairy producers. Data were obtained from the 2015 National Dairy Study, and analysis was limited to the 371 respondents completing the downer cow scenario. The scenario described a downer cow that the producer wanted to keep in their herd but must be moved, and was followed by questions addressing the cow's care and management. Using multivariable logistic regression models, associations between respondent demographics and farm characteristics, and the presence of downer cow protocols, we assessed decisions regarding euthanasia and use of behavioral prognostic indicators. Written downer cow protocols were reported by 18.2% of respondents, 67% indicated that they had a nonwritten protocol, and 14.8% reported that they did not have a protocol (either written or nonwritten). Respondents from western provinces were more likely to have a written protocol than those from Ontario. Nineteen percent of the respondents with a written or unwritten protocol reported veterinary involvement in developing their downer cow protocol, which occurred more commonly on farms with more frequent herd health visits and a good producer-veterinarian relationship. An area to move a downer cow to was present on 88% of farms, with respondents who were farm staff being less likely to report having knowledge of a designated area than respondents who were the farm owner. In addition, approximately half (45%) of respondents reported moving downer cattle with hip lifters as their most common method. Behavioral prognostic indicators chosen by respondents were associated with the respondent's geographic region, age, farm size, and education. Most notably, older respondents were more likely to use appetite, and less likely to use attitude, as a prognostic indicator compared with younger respondents. Using perceived pain as a prognostic indicator was more common among respondents from western and Atlantic provinces compared with respondents from Ontario, and more common among respondents with a college or university education. These results highlighted herd and farmer demographics that were associated with how Canadian dairy producers managed downer cattle in 2015 and could be used as a benchmark for evaluating how these management practices compare with those currently implemented.

Communication preferences and social media engagement among Canadian dairy producers.

The objective of this study was to determine communication preferences of dairy producers in Canada. A secondary objective was to evaluate social media engagement of dairy producers. A survey was administered to Canadian dairy producers between March and April, 2015 to collect information on current management practices on their farms. A total of 1,373 Canadian dairy producers responded to the survey, representing a response rate of 12%. The survey consisted of 192 questions; however, only questions regarding producer demographics, importance of information sources, and internet and social media use were evaluated in this study. The primary outcome variables of interest included use of the internet to access dairy information, importance of different sources of information about dairy herd health and management, and use of online search engines and social media platforms. For each outcome, logistic regression analyses were used to investigate associations between the outcome and demographic variables. Veterinarians were viewed as a "very important" source of information by the majority of respondents (79%), whereas milk recording and dairy producer organizations were viewed as a "very important" source of information by 36% of respondents. Other producers (46%) and magazines or newspapers (51%) were commonly viewed as an "important" source of information. Online search engines were commonly used by respondents (94%). Social media was viewed as less important, and had mixed levels of use. YouTube (70%), Facebook (63%), and Twitter (18%) were the most commonly used social media platforms. Eighty percent of Twitter users reported using the platform to interact with and obtain or share information about herd health management online, which was the highest reported interactivy regarding herd health among all social media platforms. This exploratory study offers insight into the communication preferences of Canadian dairy producers and can be used to facilitate future communication strategies aimed at engaging rural farming audiences across Canada.

Short communication: Describing mortality and euthanasia practices on Canadian dairy farms.

The objective of this study was to describe mortality rates and euthanasia practices used for cows, heifer calves, and male dairy calves on Canadian dairy farms. An internet survey was administered to Canadian dairy producers between March and April 2015 to collect information on current management practices. Approximately 81% (867/1,076) and 63% (673/1,065) of respondents reported that at least one animal died unassisted and at least one animal was euthanized on the farm in the preceding 12-mo period, respectively. Overall, mean mortality was 8% for cows, and 6 and 2% for preweaning and weaned heifers, respectively. On average, 48, 76, and 89% of all reported mortality events in cows, weaned heifers, and preweaning heifers were recorded as unassisted deaths. Cows that died without assistance were necropsied more often than preweaning heifers dying without assistance; these cows were also necropsied more than cows that were euthanized. Conversely, preweaning heifers that were euthanized were necropsied more frequently than those that died without assistance. Choosing not to perform necropsies on animals that die of unknown causes could represent a missed opportunity to identify cause of death and inform changes to prevent future deaths. The use of a firearm was the most common method for euthanizing cows and heifers (54%) and male dairy calves (51%). Approximately 7% of respondents reported using blunt force to euthanize animals. The use of this method was much higher for euthanasia of male dairy calves (34%) than for heifer calves (7%). Québec respondents euthanized their animals using blunt force more often than farmers from other regions. Further, 53% of respondents using blunt force indicated it was their primary method of calf euthanasia; these results are extremely concerning. Approximately 31% of respondents who reported that they do not use blunt force to euthanize heifers and cows did report using blunt force to euthanize male dairy calves. These results can be used to inform veterinarian-client communication, broader extension tools and programs, and industry policies to improve dairy cattle health and welfare, a goal that is becoming of increasing importance from a consumer assurance perspective.

Canadian National Dairy Study: Describing Canadian dairy producer practices and perceptions surrounding cull cow management.

Farmer decisions surrounding culling have an important effect on the health and welfare of cull cows. The objectives of this study were to describe the self-reported shipment behaviors of Canadian dairy producers and understand farmer perspectives on the factors that were most influential in their decision to cull a cow. A nationwide survey was administered between March and April 2015 that included 192 questions covering producer background information, farm characteristics, biosecurity practices, disease prevalence, calf health, cow welfare, lameness, milking hygiene, reproduction, and Internet and social media use. The survey yielded a 12% response rate; a total of 1,076 respondents (78% of all survey respondents completed the culling section of the survey) were included in this study for analysis. Approximately 80, 51, and 38% of respondents reported shipping at least 1 cow to auction, direct to slaughter, and to another dairy farm in the past 12 mo, respectively. Ability of the cow to remain standing (93% of respondents) and drug withdrawal times (92% of respondents) were identified as the most important factors for consideration when culling cows. The time between culling decision and when the cow was actually transported was longer for lame cows than sick cows; almost 70% of respondents reported that cows culled for illness were typically shipped within 1 wk of culling decision, whereas only 51% of respondents indicated the same was true for lame cows. Last, Canadian dairy producers generally exhibited strong confidence that their culled cows would arrive at slaughter in the same condition as they left, but felt very unsure about knowing the location of their final destination. These results highlight several gaps between producer perceptions and the true situation, and can be used to develop tailored programs and inform policy and regulatory decisions aimed at improving cull cow decisions and cow welfare.

A qualitative study of Ontario dairy farmer attitudes and perceptions toward implementing recommended milking practices.

Recommended milking practices (RMP) are protective against mastitis. However, many producers do not adopt, or only partially adopt, these measures. This study aimed to explore the attitudes and perceptions of Ontario dairy farmers toward barriers to implementation of RMP and to investigate what motivates behavior change in relation to milking hygiene. Four focus groups with Ontario dairy producers were conducted, and verbatim transcripts were analyzed thematically. The main barriers to adoption of RMP were identified and categorized into 2 groups: intrinsic barriers and physical barriers. Intrinsic barriers included personal habits and convenience, not perceiving udder health as a priority on their farm, and lack of information. Physical barriers included employee training and compliance, convenience of implementing RMP, and time, money, and labor barriers. Producers used their bulk tank somatic cell count (SCC) as a measure of perceived severity of udder health problems on farm. Those with lower SCC were less likely to prioritize udder health compared with peers experiencing elevations in SCC. Lack of udder health problems translated for some producers into non-adoption of certain RMP, as they felt these practices were not needed unless a problem arose. Others felt motivated to implement more practices and work toward better udder health if such efforts translated into rewards for better-quality milk. Some producers perceived RMP as not meaningful or useful, seemingly due to a lack of education about the reasons behind RMP implementation. Understanding the importance of these practices is one key to implementing them. To overcome some of the intrinsic barriers, increased efforts in knowledge translation are needed, including efforts in retraining current practices, as well as in establishing best practices.

Dairy farmers' expectations and receptivity regarding animal welfare advice: A focus group study.

Discussion and incorporation of best practices for animal welfare have been increasing in research, and in commercial operations, including through welfare assessment initiatives. The aim of this study was to explore dairy farmers' perceptions about being approached and receiving advice about animal welfare (i.e., lameness, hock injuries, and disbudding practices). It is useful for dairy consultants, researchers, or animal welfare assessment programs to gain an in-depth understanding of farmers' expectations when broaching the subject of animal welfare issues to facilitate communication about what can be perceived as a sensitive topic. We collected qualitative data using a focus group methodology. Five focus groups of farmers (n = 36 in total), took place in Ontario, Canada. Discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participant age ranged from 21 to 80 yr (median = 47). Represented herd size ranged from 25 to 550 milking cows (median = 75). Farm type included free stall (n = 14) and tie stall (n = 22). Rigor was incorporated by using systematic thematic analysis: transcripts were coded line by line, and codes were categorized and then expanded and collapsed into themes, which were further refined to reflect farmer perceptions in a thematic map. Thematic analysis of the focus group discussions suggested 6 major themes related to farmers' receptivity to and expectations of animal welfare advice. Themes 1 to 4 provided insights into what farmers expected from those who were broaching topics: (1) an established relationship with the farmer; (2) expertise in dairy care/welfare; (3) prevention of "barn blindness"; and (4) provision of animal care services before and after welfare issues are broached. Theme 5 helped determine how welfare topics should be broached: the communication approach. Theme 6 identified who farmers feel should broach animal welfare topics on farm. Focus group discussions also provided insights into potential disconnects between farmer and veterinary expectations about animal welfare issues during herd health visits. Those who have established relationships with farmers are better received and are expected to broach welfare issues, especially if they are perceived to be an expert in animal care and welfare, and if they communicate the issue tactfully and work with the farmer to establish a plan of action.

Training method for animal-based measures in dairy cattle welfare assessments.

Quantitative assessments of animal welfare are increasingly being used in the dairy industry. It is important to have good precision and accuracy within and among assessors. This study explored the effectiveness of a 3-d training workshop for animal-based measures (ABM) of welfare in dairy cows, in which 14 people were trained to evaluate 6 ABM, specifically hock injuries (HI), lameness (LM), body condition score (BCS), and udder, flank, and leg cleanliness (collectively CLN). All scoring systems were modified to a dichotomous outcome, acceptable or unacceptable. Acceptable HI included no swelling or hair loss, unacceptable HI included swelling or scab; acceptable BCS was >2 on a 5-point scale, unacceptable BCS was ≤2. Acceptable CLN was up to minor splashing, unacceptable CLN was distinct plaques to a solid manure plaque. Lameness was evaluated using locomotion score or in-stall lameness score (SLS) in tiestalls; unacceptable LM was ≥3 (lameness score) on a 5-point scale, where 3 equals mild lameness or ≥2 of 4 behavioral in-stall lameness score indicators were detected. Classroom instruction took place on d 1 of training. Day 2 consisted of group assessment of LM (n = 25 cows), and HI, CLN, and BCS (n = 30 cows), and individual assessment of HI, CLN, and BCS (n = 20 cows) were performed. Day 3 included individual assessments of HI, CLN, and BCS (n = 33 cows), and individual video assessment of LM (n = 27 cows). An additional training video for LM was sent to trainees 3 wk after the workshop, and another follow-up assessment of LM took place via video (n = 37 cows). Repeatability and accuracy of the trainees was assessed using Fleiss's κ (FK) and Byrt's κ (BK) to examine group-level inter-rater agreement and expert-trainee agreement, respectively. The kappa systems use a scale of poor (<0), slight (0.01 to 0.20), fair (0.21 to 0.40), moderate (0.41 to 0.61), substantial (0.61 to 0.80), or almost perfect (0.81 to 1.00). At the conclusion of the workshop, FK was 0.66 for HI and 0.43 for LM, and BK mean (and range) was 0.85 (0.63 to 1.00) for HI and 0.66 (0.56 to 0.85) for LM. Each trainee achieved perfect agreement for BCS [BK mean = 1.00 (1.00 to 1.00)] and each trainee achieved almost perfect agreement for CLN [BK mean 0.90 (0.82 to 0.94)]. After the follow-up video and 3 wk of experience, trainees achieved a FK of 0.66 and a BK mean of 0.74 (0.62 to 0.89) for LM. In conclusion, multiple assessors can achieve substantial agreement for ABM with adequate training.

Inducing ovulation early postpartum influences uterine health and fertility in dairy cows.

The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effect of GnRH early postpartum on induction of ovulation, uterine health, and fertility in dairy cows. Holstein cows without a corpus luteum (CL) at 17 ± 3 DIM were assigned randomly to receive i.m. GnRH (n = 245) at 17 ± 3 and 20 ± 3 DIM or remain as controls (n = 245). Ovaries were scanned by ultrasonography twice weekly totaling 4 examinations. Ovulation was characterized by the appearance of a CL ≥ 20 mm at any ultrasound or CL <20mm in 2 consecutive examinations. Clinical and cytological endometritis were diagnosed at 35 DIM. Compared with control, GnRH increased ovulation up to 3.5d after the last treatment (78.7 vs. 45.0%) and did not affect the prevalence of clinical endometritis (23.9 vs. 18.6%) or cytological endometritis (30.9 vs. 32.8%). Prevalence of clinical endometritis increased in cows that had calving problems (32.6 vs. 15.9%) and metritis (40.6 vs. 15.8%). Metritis increased prevalence of cytological endometritis (50.7 vs. 23.5%). Treatment with GnRH did not affect pregnancy per artificial insemination at 32 (37.6 vs. 38.6%) or 74 d after artificial insemination (35.0 vs. 31.5%), but reduced pregnancy loss (6.8 vs. 18.1%). No overall effect of GnRH treatment on hazard of pregnancy was observed; however, an interaction between GnRH treatment and ovulation showed that GnRH-treated cows that ovulated had increased hazard of pregnancy by 300 DIM compared with GnRH-treated and control cows that did not ovulate (hazard ratio=2.0 and 1.3, respectively), but similar to control cows that ovulated (hazard ratio=1.1). Gonadotropin-releasing hormone early postpartum induced ovulation without affecting uterine health, but failed to improve pregnancy per artificial insemination or time to pregnancy, although it reduced pregnancy loss.