Elsbeth N. Stassen

Assessing Economic Consequences of Foot Disorders in Dairy Cattle Using a Dynamic Stochastic Simulation Model

Foot disorders are an important health problem in dairy cattle, in terms of economics and animal welfare. The incidence, severity, and duration of foot disorders account for their importance. Prevalence of both subclinical and clinical foot disorders is high. More insight into the economic consequences could increase awareness among dairy farmers and could be an incentive for them to take action on this problem of animal welfare. The objective of this research was to estimate the economic consequences of different types of foot disorders, both clinical and subclinical. A dynamic stochastic Monte Carlo simulation model was used, taking into account the different types of foot disorders. The economic consequences of the foot disorders modeled were costs due to milk production losses, culling, prolonged calving interval, labor of the dairy farmer and the foot trimmer, visits of a veterinarian, treatment, and discarded milk. Under the milk quota system in The Netherlands, costs due to foot disorders for a default farm with 65 cows averaged

Assessing the welfare impact of foot disorders in dairy cattle by a modeling approach

4,899 per year (ranging from

Measures to improve dairy cow foot health: consequences for farmer income and dairy cow welfare.

3,217 to

Moral Convictions and Culling Animals: A Survey in the Netherlands

7,001), an annual loss of

The end of animal life: a start for ethical debate : Ethical and societal considerations on killing animals

75 per cow. This calculation implies that the costs due to foot disorders are more substantial than farmers might think. The costs of subclinical foot disorders account for 32% of all costs due to foot disorders. The costs due to foot disorders that are present without treatment or detection by the farmer are considerable. This finding implies that farmers might underestimate the benefits of taking action earlier and more thoroughly. A clinical foot disorder costs, on average,

Attitudes of Dutch Citizens toward Sow Husbandry with Regard to Animals, Humans, and the Environment

95, and a subclinical foot disorder

Dairy farmers' attitudes and intentions towards improving dairy cow foot health

18. The highest costs classified by foot disorder were those due to digital dermatitis, which has a high incidence and relatively high clinical prevalence. The highest costs classified by cost factor were those due to milk production losses and culling. Sensitivity analysis showed that variables regarding milk production were important for economic costs due to foot disorders. Furthermore, the probability of getting a foot disorder and probability of cure were important for estimating the costs due to foot disorders. Farmer awareness concerning dairy cow foot health and taking action more thoroughly, therefore, could reduce the economic consequences and improve welfare simultaneously.

Social-ethical issues concerning the control strategy of animal diseases in the European Union: A survey

Foot disorders are the main cause of dairy cow lameness and are considered to have a major impact on the welfare of dairy cattle. This study adopts a modeling approach, using a dynamic stochastic model, to provide more insight into the welfare impact of different types of foot disorders, both clinical and subclinical. The impact of specific foot disorders on welfare was assessed by simulating the incidence and duration of foot disorders and the pain associated with them. Pain assessment was based on locomotion scores, with underlying knowledge obtained from scientific literature and experts. The results demonstrated the seriousness of the welfare impact of foot disorders. The negative welfare impact was measured on a scale from 0 to 60, where the maximum outcome represents a cow having very severe pain during the whole year. On average, each cow achieves a welfare impact score of 12, which is 20% of the maximum welfare impact score. This welfare score equals having severe pain for a period of 3 months, indicating a serious impact on welfare. On average, digital dermatitis impacts most on welfare, which is caused by a high incidence of the painful clinical stage, followed by sole hemorrhages (SoH) and interdigital dermatitis and heel horn erosion (IDHE). The combination of a high incidence and long duration of SoH and IDHE causes this relatively high welfare impact of foot disorders that occur mostly subclinically. On average, over 1 year, 46% of the welfare impact due to foot disorders is caused by clinical foot disorders. The fact that subclinical foot disorders contribute more or less equally to the effects on welfare as clinical ones, indicates that farmers may readily underestimate the welfare impact by a factor two. Modeling welfare impact at cow level, individual cases of foot disorders, stresses the importance of pain intensity, indicating the importance of clinical foot disorders. This study demonstrated the serious welfare impact of foot disorders in dairy cattle and pointed out the considerable impact of subclinical foot disorders. Furthermore, the approach of welfare assessment, for example herd v. cow level, influenced the ranking of foot disorders for their impact on animal welfare. Potentially, this leads to different prioritization of specific solution strategies for dairy farmers, for example, focusing on cow comfort, hygiene or preventive medical treatments, foot trimming and/or health monitoring. The findings in this study support in raising awareness about this welfare issue.

Fundamental Moral Attitudes to Animals and Their Role in Judgment: An Empirical Model to Describe Fundamental Moral Attitudes to Animals and Their Role in Judgment on the Culling of Healthy Animals During an Animal Disease Epidemic

Dairy farming in western countries with cubicle housing is an efficient way of dairy farming. Though, a disadvantage is the high prevalence and incidence of foot disorders (clinical and subclinical), which cause high economic losses and also seriously impair the welfare of dairy cattle. To point out the importance of reducing the amount and severity of foot disorders, advice to farmers should include information about the scale of the problem and the consequences in terms of economics and animal welfare. To provide support in making decisions on implementing intervention measures, insight into costs and benefits of different measures should be available. The objective of this study, therefore, is to provide more insight into the costs and benefits, for farmer and cow, of different intervention measures to improve dairy cow foot health. Intervention measures were modeled when they were applicable on a dairy farm with cubicle housing and when sufficient information was available in literature. Net costs were calculated as the difference between the costs of the measure and the economic benefits resulting from the measure. Welfare benefits were calculated as well. Cost-effective measures are: improving lying surface (mattress and bedding, €7 and €1/cow per year, respectively), reducing stocking density (break even) and performing additional foot trimming (€1/cow per year). Simultaneously, these measures have a relative high welfare benefit. Labor costs play an important role in the cost-effectiveness of labor-intensive measures. More insight into cost-effectiveness and welfare benefits of intervention measures can help to prioritize when choosing between intervention measures.

Moral “Lock-In” in Responsible Innovation: The Ethical and Social Aspects of Killing Day-Old Chicks and Its Alternatives

ABSTRACT In this paper the results are presented of a national survey in the Netherlands. The aim was to identify and describe the convictions about animals that people have in Dutch society and the role of these in judgments on the culling of healthy animals during an animal disease epidemic. A total of 1,999 responses was received and two groups of respondents were distinguished: A profile (50% of the respondents) and B profile (28%). The A profile respondents considered humans to be superior to animals, whereas the B profile respondents considered both to be equal. Both groups were of the opinion that animals have value, that people have a duty to care for and protect all animals, and that all animals have a right to life. These convictions were based on a number of values, such as animal life, the ability of animals to feel pain and emotions (sentience), and the importance of animal species in the ecosystem. The results of a case study suggest that convictions play a role in judgment. More A respondents agreed with the culling of healthy animals during an animal disease epidemic. More B respondents partly (dis)agreed or disagreed with this. Most respondents (A: 81%, B: 61%) agreed with culling to protect human life. The most important argument against culling was the value of animal life. The A respondents rated all arguments against culling significantly lower than did the B respondents.