Positive Welfare Indicators in Dairy Animals: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 3 by Camila Xu and Version 4 by Camila Xu.

Nowadays, there is growing interest in positive animal welfare not only from the view of scientists but also from that of society. The consumer demands more sustainable livestock production, and animal welfare is an essential part of sustainability, so there is interest in incorporating positive welfare indicators into welfare assessment schemes and legislation.

  • positive welfare indicator
  • cattle
  • sheep
  • goat
  • buffalo

1. Introduction

Positive animal welfare is not an innovative approach to animal welfare [1][2]. Nonetheless, it is a newer approach compared to the common welfare approach and attracts increasing attention. Welfare by definition includes positive aspects, but in animal welfare science, for decades, the focus had been mainly on alleviating poor welfare and not on promoting positive experiences [3]. Nowadays, the focus is moving gradually to also promoting positive experiences. Positive welfare focuses not only on the negative aspects of welfare, which should be alleviated and kept above a minimum standard [4][5], but also emphasizes the positive aspects of welfare that animals should be experiencing in their lives [4]. It is a topic that is gaining increasing interest not only from animal welfare scientists but also from the public, on both a national and international level since animal welfare is steadily incorporated in legislation, schemes, welfare assessment protocols, and the labelling of livestock products. Consumers demand sustainable production methods, and nowadays, animal welfare is considered an important component of sustainability [6][7]. It is not only that the consumer believes that it is ethically right to promote the enhanced welfare of livestock animals but also that animal welfare is an important part of sustainability and is becoming a necessary part of profitable livestock production that must follow the demands of the consumer [6].
Animal welfare has nowadays been recognized as a worldwide target of sustainable agricultural policy [8]. The United Nations Committee on World Food Security formally denoted animal welfare as a fundamental pillar of sustainable agricultural development, food security, and human nutrition together with the other classic domains, i.e., economics, society, and the environment [9]. At the same time, there is an increasing political modernization around the issue of animal welfare that is become apparent by the “One Health” or “One Welfare” concepts set by national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and consumer groups [10][11]. More than 90% of EU citizens prioritize animal welfare, and more than half of them are ready to pay more for products derived from systems offering a high welfare status since they are considered healthier, safer, and more environmentally friendly [12]. Although animal welfare is increasingly viewed as a sustainable solution by the consumer, intensification in livestock species is still high. There is a growing demand for livestock products due to the rapid increase in the world population. Dairy animals, especially dairy cattle, are key species in animal husbandry. Milk production is rising globally, with cattle being responsible for 81% of world milk production [13]. According to FAOSTAT [14], since the 1960s, milk production has more than doubled in developing countries. World milk production is expected to increase by 1.7% over the next decade in almost all the regions of the world [15]. Millions of dairy animals are kept in various husbandry systems, mostly intensively. Can the welfare of these animals be composed of positive aspects so that they experience a good life, and if not, what changes should be made? To answer this question, the role of welfare science is crucial. Despite the debate between scientists, there is an intense need for incorporating gradually positive welfare indicators in welfare assessment schemes and legislation. It is the responsibility of all animal welfare scientists to communicate their knowledge in an understandable manner to all individuals in society [5], and animal welfare should be able to be incorporated into laws by focusing on the ethical part of welfare [16].

2. Positive Welfare Indicators

Twenty-four positive welfare indicators were retrieved, both behavioral and physiological, all animal based. They have been studied experimentally, on the farm level or proposed on a theoretical basis. The indicators, the dairy animals that they correspond to, and the literature findings are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.
Positive welfare indicators categorized by dairy animal.
Positive Welfare Indicator Animal References
Behavioral parameters Exploration all [17][18][19]
cattle [20][21][22]
buffalo [23]
Feeding behavior, access to pasture and rumination all [18]
cattle [24][25][26][27][28]
sheep [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]
buffalo [23]
camel [33][34]
Comfort, lying, and resting behaviors cattle [35][36][37]
goat [38][39]
sheep [40][41]
buffalo [42]
camel [33]
Social affiliative behaviors and brushes all [18][19][43]
cattle [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]
camel [34]
Play behavior all [18][19][43][54][55]
cattle [56][57][58][59]
sheep [60][61]
goat [62]
Behavioral synchronization all [18][19]
cattle [36][63][64]
sheep [41][65][66]
Maternal behavior all [18]
cattle [21][67][68][69][70]
Wallowing buffalo [23][71]
Mating behavior all [18]
Pro-social behaviors all [44]
Anticipatory behavior cattle [72][73]
sheep [61][74]
goat [75]
Postures, expressions, and vocalizations Ear postures cattle [76][77][78][79][80]
sheep [81][82][83][84]
goat [85]
Tail postures cattle [76]
sheep [83]
goat [85]
Body postures cattle [19][76]
Facial expressions all [86][87]
Eye white cattle [88][89][90][91][92][93]
Vocalizations all [19][94]
cattle [94][95][96][97]
sheep [84][98]
goat [85]
buffalo [23][99]
camel [34]
Qualitative behavioral assessment cattle [100][101]
sheep [102]
buffalo [103][104]
Positive human–animal interaction all [105]
cattle [77][78][100][106]
sheep [81][83][107]
goat [108]
Other indicators Nasal temperature cattle [84][91][106]
Cognitive bias cattle [73][109][110][111][112]
sheep [32][113][114][115]
Laterality cattle [76][111][116]
Resilience all [117]
Oxytocin all [118]
cattle [119][120]
goat [119]
sheep [107]
3. Positive Welfare Indicators in Dairy Animals 

3. Discussion

According to researchers' findings, twenty-four indicators have been retrieved concerning the evaluation of positive welfare in dairy animals. All indicators have been studied in the field or under experimental conditions, apart from pro-social behaviors, proposed by Rault [44] and analyzed on a theoretical basis. They are all animal-based indicators, apart from access to pasture, which can be considered both as an animal-based and a resource-based indicator. Most of them are behavioral indicators and only two of them, nasal temperature and oxytocin, are physiological indicators. Most studies of positive welfare indicators have been applied on cattle, followed by sheep and goats, and finally buffaloes. The least studies have been performed on camels. The positive welfare indicators that presented the most results were pasture, exploration, lying/resting, play, and ear postures. All indicators that are included in welfare assessment protocols should be valid, meaning that they clearly indicate the impact on welfare between farms, in a reliable way, so that they provide consistent results (inter-, intra- and test–retest reliability) and feasible so that they can be applied in practice by the assessors easily and with limited training [121]. In addition, they should be examined regarding their cost, a determinant factor for their incorporation in welfare schemes. The indicators cited in researchers' research are not analyzed regarding these factors, and many have been studied only theoretically or experimentally and not under farm conditions. Furthermore, there is a relationship between some indicators, but in general, the association between the indicators is not clear and more studies are necessary. Access to pasture is related to synchronization, comfort, exploration, [25][36][41][122][123] and wallowing in buffaloes [23] since it is linked to increased space and stimulation. However, the link between all other indicators is not yet clear and further research is warranted. Few indicators have been studied simultaneously to understand their connection. Mattiello et al. [124] have concluded that ear posture is a promising indicator in combination with eye white. On the other hand, visible eye white decreases in both negative and positive states of high arousal [85][91][93][125]. Ear and tail positions have also been studied a lot, and under the same experiments [76][82][85] but in different species and conditions. It can be concluded that the results on positive welfare in dairy animals are scattered regarding the animal species, the husbandry conditions, the life stage of the animals, and even the experimental conditions. For these reasons, it is not possible to make proposals for key indicators, relation schemes, and incorporation in welfare assessment protocols. It can be only made some conclusions and suggestions for the direction of future studies in the positive welfare indicators of dairy ruminants, as analyzed below in this section. Feeding, ruminating, comfort, lying, and resting behaviors have been proposed and studied on the farm level as positive welfare indicators for all dairy animals, and there is enough research to support their use (more research is necessary for camels). The animals also elicit high synchronicity when performing them, which is also a positive welfare indicator [19][43]. It is easier to promote these behaviors at pasture, due to the increased allowance and the environmental stimulation, but they could be also promoted indoors by increasing space. Synchronicity is an indicator of enough space and resources for all animals that are raised both indoors and outdoors, especially the subordinated ones [41][63][65][66]. A difficulty of incorporating some synchronized behaviors, such as lying behavior as proposed by Richmond et al. [66] for the sheep in protocols, is that it may be lateralized at particular times of the day. Lying synchronicity is higher in cattle in the morning and the afternoon and so may be difficult to assess in practice [36][126]. It should be highlighted that the promotion of exploration, play, comfort, lying, and resting is linked not only to space allowance but also to environmental complexity. Access to pasture is a type of environmental enrichment with stimulations for the ruminants [20]. Species-specific behaviors such as wallowing for buffaloes [39] should be taken into consideration and are promoted with access to pasture [23]. Exploration activity and play are also motivated by environmental stimulation [43] and have been studied a lot in cattle and small ruminants. Play may be considered a more appropriate behavior for juveniles since it decreases with age [55]. It also appears as a valid positive welfare indicator to judge if the energy intake of calves is adequate, after the first week after weaning [56][58]. It could be detected by accelerometers, making it an easily detected parameter [127][128], but this means a higher cost. In general, environmental enrichment and space allowance if not access to pasture are necessary and can be a simple start for promoting positive states, especially in animals kept indoors. On the contrary, maternal care and mating behavior could not be easily assessed on the farm level since insemination takes place mostly artificially and offspring separation occurs soon in all livestock species. In dairy cattle specifically, the calf is reared group-housed, apart from its mother, separated just a few hours after birth. Promoting cow–calf bonding as a positive welfare indicator would mean reduced income for the farmer since the profit is higher when feeding the calf milk replacer [129]. Consumers are becoming concerned about cow–calf separation, although still, many are unaware of the practice. Some farmers in Germany and the UK have started keeping calves with their mothers, but the economic aspects of this husbandry system remain to be studied [129]. Social affiliative behaviors are also present in all dairy animals, although not studied enough in buffaloes and camels. Automatic brushes have positive results on cattle welfare and should be considered a promising way of promoting positive states [46][48][50][53] but in smaller husbandry systems may represent an expensive solution. Ear movements have also been studied a lot in cattle and small ruminants, but they are insufficient alone as emotional indicators. Still, they can be combined with other indicators and give a more holistic animal approach to positive welfare evaluation, and they are non-invasive, feasible, and easy to detect [76][78]. The same applies for vocalizations that can in addition be detected with microphones [94]. The nasal temperature also seems promising as a positive welfare indicator [91][106] but is a physical indicator that may be difficult to be applied in practice. Cognitive and attention bias and anticipatory tests could also be difficult to apply on a farm level since more time is required. The results show that QBA is a positive welfare indicator that is more often used for the on-farm assessment of positive emotions in dairy animals. It has been cited for cattle in the Welfare Quality protocol [130], and in the AWIN protocol for sheep [131] and goats [29]. QBA has also been studied on buffaloes [42][104] and has been proposed as a future study for camels [33]. Exploration, access to pasture, comfort, lying, resting, and synchronization are the most promising welfare indicators since they have been studied the most with results that agree but are not already used for the on-farm welfare assessment as much as QBA. A future research direction would be to try to also incorporate these indicators in schemes and protocols. It is also important to study the relationship between various positive indicators and combine them for a more holistic and valid approach of positive welfare evaluation. Especially indicators such as ear postures and social affiliative behaviors can be easily detected and combined with the above-mentioned indicators. In addition, there is a need for studies in different husbandry species of each dairy species. The positive welfare research that has been retrieved about camels and buffaloes is limited compared to other dairy animals. Furthermore, as far as researchers' knowledge, there are no official welfare assessment protocols for these species Although the dairy industry of these animals is evolved, especially for camel husbandry, there is no official protocol for their welfare evaluation. Napolitano et al. [42] have proposed a protocol for buffaloes and in general the repertoire of these animals in various studies [71][132][133]. Regarding camels, an experimental protocol has only been studied by Padalino and Menchetti [33] and the regulations regarding legislation on camels are extremely limited [33][34]. Research on camels is generally limited, focusing mainly on food science and camel health, while research in management, nutrition, and welfare is scarce [134]. A direction for future studies could be to start examining potential positive welfare indicators such as exploration, synchronization, play, and ear postures that have already been studied for cattle and small ruminants and then continue to species-specific behaviors. In order to promote positive welfare, drastic changes in the husbandry systems of dairy animals regarding both management and handling procedures should be underwent. The role of the consumer and public is crucial for these changes, since today animal welfare is driven more by the consumer than the regulations [3]. Animal welfare is considered and can be sustainable [6][7]. A positive welfare approach needs the support of consumers, farmers, and researchers [135]. Consumers are willing to pay more to buy animal products that focus on animal-based and not only resource-based measures, but the problem is that animal-based measures are more difficult to be communicated to the public [136]. Nonetheless, it is not easy to achieve the consumers’ willingness to pay for increased animal welfare in practice. The increase in public concern, in some cases, may not be enough to cover the increased price of the final product [137][138][139][140]. Other challenges can also be that the willingness to pay is influenced by various factors such as socio-demographic characteristics, gender, and educational level [137]. Still, in general, consumers are concerned about the animal welfare of food productions animal, and clean labelling and information can be a way of increasing the willingness to pay [137][140]. Furthermore, a collaborative approach to a positive welfare protocol between farmers and scientists is also important. Stokes et al. [141] developed a positive welfare assessment scheme for dairy cows based on the scientific literature, applied it on focus farms, consulted the farmers, received their feedback, refined the scheme according to farmers’ recommendations, and investigated the farmer’s attitude towards positive welfare. Farmers already valued positive indicators such as comfort and access to pasture, agreed with scientists on what could be promoted as positive aspects in the life of dairy cattle, and valued the life of their animals, supporting that they are linked to their wellbeing. They were willing to incorporate positive welfare aspects in the life of their animals, provided that they would receive adequate labeling and so business profit. Vigors and Lawrence [135] also support that positive welfare should be communicated and explained to farmers, since their concern is mostly for preventing the negatives and that, through this approach, positive experiences will arise naturally for their animals. They are willing to promote positive welfare, but they are concerned about whether their business will be economically sustainable. According to a meta-analysis by Clark et al. [139], the highest estimated consumers’ willingness to pay is for dairy and beef cattle, which is hopeful for the welfare of dairy cattle. Still, there are various challenges, as explained above. Positive welfare indicators should be incorporated in welfare assessment protocols, labeling schemes, and legislation, on a national and international level, to raise the level of welfare of all livestock species. This need is essential for all dairy animals, but especially for small ruminants, and mostly buffaloes and camels, since there is no official welfare assessment protocol for the welfare of these species. Particularly for camels, the research on welfare is limited, and on positive welfare, it is scarce.  

References

  1. Hollands, C. Toward positive animal welfare. Behav. Brain Sci. 1991, 14, 757–758.
  2. Verhoog, H. Defining positive welfare and animal integrity. In Diversity of Livestock Systems and Definition of Animal Welfare; University of Reading: Reading, UK, 2000; pp. 108–119.
  3. Rault, J.-L.; Sandøe, P.; Sonntag, Q.; Stuardo, L. Positive animal welfare: Bridging gap or raising inequalities worldwide? Front. Anim. Sci. 2022, 3, 825379.
  4. Mellor, D.J. Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “a Life Worth Living”. Animals 2016, 6, 21.
  5. Webster, J. Animal welfare: Freedoms, Dominions and "A Life Worth Living”. Animals 2016, 6, 35.
  6. Broom, D.M. Farm animal welfare: A key component of the sustainability of farming systems. Vet. Glas. 2021, 75, 145–151.
  7. Dwyer, C.M. Can improving animal welfare contribute to sustainability and productivity? BSJ Agric. 2020, 3, 61–65.
  8. Buller, H.; Blokhuis, H.; Jensen, P.; Keeling, L. Towards farm animal welfare and sustainability. Animals 2018, 8, 81.
  9. United Nations Committee. Proposed Draft Recommendations on Sustainable Agricultural Development for Food Security and Nutrition Including the Role of Livestock; Animal Health and Welfare: Easton, PA, USA, 2016; Article VIII.
  10. Destoumieux-Garzón, D.; Mavingui, P.; Boetsch, G.; Boissier, J.; Darriet, F.; Duboz, P.; Fritsch, C.; Giraudoux, P.; Le Roux, F.; Morand, S.; et al. The one health concept: 10 years old and a long road ahead. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 14.
  11. Pinillos, R.C.; Appleby, M.C.; Manteca, X.; Scott-Park, F.; Smith, C.; Velarde, A. One Welfare—A platform for improving human and animal welfare. Vet. Rec. 2016, 179, 412–413.
  12. Eurobarometer. European-Commission. Attitudes of EU Citizens towards Animal Welfare, Report; Special Eurobarometer 442; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; p. 84.
  13. FAOSTAT. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/3n/#data/qp (accessed on 28 October 2022).
  14. FAOSTAT. Dairy Production and Products: Products (fao.org). Available online: https://www.fao.org/dairy-production-products/products/en/ (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  15. FAO. Dairy and Dairy Products- OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2019–2028. Dairy Production and Products: Products (fao.org). Available online: https://www.agri-outlook.org/commodities/Dairy.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  16. Dockès, A.C.; Kling-Eveillard, F. Farmers’ and advisers’ representations of animals and animal welfare. Livest. Sci 2006, 103, 243–249.
  17. Boissy, A.; Manteuffel, G.; Jensen, M.B.; Moe, R.O.; Spruijt, B.; Keeling, L.; Winckler, C.; Forkman, B.; Dimitrov, I.; Langbein, J.; et al. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiol. Behav. 2007, 92, 375–397.
  18. Mellor, D.J. Positive animal welfare states and encouraging environmental-focused and animal-to-animal interactive behaviors. N. Z. Vet. J. 2015, 63, 9–16.
  19. Keeling, L. Indicators of good welfare. In Encyclopaedia of Animal Behavior, 2nd ed.; Chun, C.J., Ed.; Elsevier: London, UK, 2019; pp. 134–140.
  20. Tuomisto, L.; Ahola, L.; Martiskaienen, P.; Kaupinnen, R.; Huuskonen, A. Comparison of time budgets of growing Hereford bulls in a uninsulated barn and in extensive forest paddocks. Livest. Sci. 2008, 118, 44–52.
  21. Wenker, L.M.; van Reenen, C.G.; Bokkers, E.A.M.; McCrea, K.; de Oliveira, D.; Sørheim, K.; Cao, Y.; Bruckmaier, R.M.; Gross, J.J.; Gort, G.; et al. Comparing gradual debonding strategies after prolonged cow-calf contact: Stress responses, performance, and health of dairy cow and calf. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2022, 253, 105694.
  22. Westerath, H.S.; Laister, S.; Winckler, C.; Knierim, U. Exploration as an indicator of goof welfare in beef bulls: An attempt to develop a test for on-farm assessment. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 116, 126–133.
  23. Sabia, E.; Napolitano, F.; De Rosa, G.; Terzano, G.M.; Barile, V.L.; Braghieri, A.; Pacelli, C. Efficiency to reach age of puberty and behavior of buffalo heifers (Bubalus bubalis) kept on pasture or in confinement. Animal 2014, 8, 1907–1916.
  24. Arnott, G.; Ferris, C.P.; O’Connell, N.E. Review: Welfare of dairy cows in continuously housed and pasture-based production systems. Animal 2017, 11, 261–273.
  25. Crump, A.; Jenkins, K.; Bethell, E.J.; Ferris, C.P.; Arnott, G. Pasture access affects behavioral indicators of wellbeing in dairy cows. Animals 2019, 9, 902.
  26. Meagher, R.K.; Weary, D.M.; von Keyserlingk, M.A. Some like it varied: Individual differences in preference for feed variety in dairy heifers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017, 195, 8–14.
  27. Spörndly, E.; Åsberg, T. Eating rate and preference of different concentrate components for cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 2188–2199.
  28. Westerath, H.S.; Gygax, L.; Hillmann, E. Are special feed and being brushed judged as positive by the calves? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 156, 12–21.
  29. AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Goats 2015. AWINProtocolGoats.pdf (unimi.it). Available online: https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/269102/384790/AWINProtocolGoats.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2022).
  30. Dwyer, C.M. Welfare of sheep: Providing the welfare in an extensive environment. Small Rumin. Res. 2009, 86, 14–21.
  31. Stubsjøen, S.M.; Moe, R.O.; Mejdell, C.M.; Tømmerberg, V.; Knappe-Poindecker, M.; Kampen, A.H.; Granquist, E.G.; Muri, K. Sheep welfare in different housing systems in South Norway. Small Rumin. Res. 2022, 214, 106740.
  32. Verbeek, E.; Ferguson, D.; de Monjour, P.Q.; Lee, C. Generating positive affective stated in sheep: The influence of food rewards and opioid administration. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 154, 39–47.
  33. Padalino, B.; Menchetti, L. The first protocol of assessing welfare in camels. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 7, 631876.
  34. Zappatera, M.; Menchetti, L.; Costa, L.N.; Paladino, B. Do camels (Camelus dromedarius) need shaded area? A case study of the camel market in Doha. Animals 2021, 11, 480.
  35. Beaver, A.; Weary, D.M.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle housed in tiestalls compared to less-restrictive housing types: A systematic review. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 9383–9417.
  36. Stoye, S.; Porter, M.A.; Dawkins, M.S. Synchronized lying in cattle in relation to time of day. Livest. Sci. 2012, 149, 70–73.
  37. Tucker, C.B.; Jensen, M.B.; de Passillé, A.M.; Hänninen, L.; Rushen, J. Invited review: Lying time and the welfare of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 20–46.
  38. Aschwanden, J.; Gygax, L.; Wechsler, B.; Keil, N.M. Loose housing of small goat groups: Influence of visual cover and elevated levels on feeding, resting and agonistic behavior. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 119, 171–179.
  39. Ehrlenbruch, Ρ.; Meisfjord-Jørgensen, G.H.; Andersen, I.L.; Bøe, Ε.K. Provision of additional walls in the resting area—The effects on resting behavior and social interactions in goats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 122, 35–40.
  40. Jørgensen, G.H.M.; Bøe, K.E. The effect of shape, width and slope of a resting platform on the resting behavior of and floor cleanliness for housed sheep. Small Rumin. Res. 2009, 87, 57–63.
  41. Jørgensen, G.H.M.; Andersen, I.L.; Bøe, K.E. The effect of different pen partition configurations on the behavior of sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 119, 66–70.
  42. Napolitano, F.; De Rosa, G.; Serrapica, M.; Braghieri, A. A continuous recording approach to qualitative behaviour assessment in dairy buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015, 166, 35–43.
  43. Špinka, M. Social dimension of emotions and its implication for animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 138, 170–181.
  44. Rault, J.-L. Be kind to others: Pro-social behaviors and their implication for animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019, 210, 113–123.
  45. Johnsen, J.F.; Ellingsen, K.; Grøndahl, A.M.; Bøe, K.E.; Lidfors, L.; Mejdell, C.M. The effect of physical contact between dairy cows and calves during separation on their post-separation behavioural response. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015, 166, 11–19.
  46. Horvarth, K.C.; Miller-Cushon, E.K. Characterizing grooming behavior patterns and the influence of brush access on the behavior of group-housed dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 3421–3430.
  47. Horvath, K.C.; Allen, A.N.; Miller-Cushon, E.K. Effects of access to stationary brushes and chopped hay on behavior and performance of individually housed dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 8421–8432.
  48. McConnachie, E.; Smid, A.M.; Thompson, A.J.; Weary, D.M.; Gaworski, M.A.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Cows are highly motivated to access a grooming substrate. Biol. Lett. 2018, 14, 20180303.
  49. Newby, C.N.; Duffield, T.F.; Pearl, D.L.; Leslie, K.E.; LeBlanc, S.J.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Short communication: Use of a mechanical brush by Holstein dairy cattle around parturition. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 2339–2344.
  50. Park, R.M.; Schubach, K.M.; Cooke, R.F.; Herring, A.D.; Jennings, J.D.; Daigle, C.L. Impact of a cattle brush on feedlot steer behavior, productivity and stress physiology. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2020, 228, 104995.
  51. Sato, S.; Sako, S.; Maeda, A. Social licking patterns in cattle (Bos taurus): Influence of environmental and social factors. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1991, 32, 3–12.
  52. Sato, S.; Tarumizo, K.; Hatae, K. The influence of social factors on allogrooming in cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1993, 38, 235–244.
  53. Velasquez-Munoz, A.; Manriquez, D.; Paudyal, S.; Solano, G.; Han, H.; Callan, R. Effect of a mechanical grooming brush on the behavior and health of recently weaned heifer calves. BMC Vet. Res. 2019, 15, 284.
  54. Ahloy-Dallaire, J.; Espinosa, J.; Mason, G. Play and optimal welfare: Does play behavior indicate the presence of positive affective states? Behav. Process. 2018, 156, 3–15.
  55. Held, S.; Špinka, M. Animal Play and Animal Welfare. Anim. Behav. 2011, 81, 891–899.
  56. Bertelsen, M.; Jensen, M.B. Does dairy calves’ motivation for social play behavior build up over time? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019, 214, 18–24.
  57. Duve, L.R.; Weary, D.M.; Halekoh, U.; Jensen, M.B. The effects of social contact and milk allowance on responses to handling, play, and social behavior in young dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 6571–6581.
  58. Krachun, C.; Rushen, J.; de Passille, A.M. Play behavior in dairy calves is reduced by weaning and by a low energy intake. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 122, 71–76.
  59. Miguel-Pacheco, G.G.; Vaughan, A.; de Passillé, A.M.; Rushen, J. Relationship between locomotor play of dairy calves and their weight gains and energy intakes around weaning. Animal 2015, 9, 1038–1044.
  60. Hass, C.C.; Jenni, D.A. Social Play among Juvenile Bighorn Sheep: Structure, Development, and Relationship to Adult Behavior. Ethology 1993, 93, 105–116.
  61. Chapagain, D.; Uvnäs-Moberg, K.; Lidfors, L.M. Investigating the motivation to play in lambs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 160, 64–74.
  62. Baxter, E.M.; Mulligan, J.; Hall, S.A.; Donbavand, J.E.; Palme, R.; Aldujaili, E.; Zanella, A.J.; Dwyer, C.M. Positive and negative gestational handling influences placental traits and mother-offspring behavior in dairy goats. Physiol. Behav. 2016, 157, 129–138.
  63. Nielsen, L.H.; Mogensen, L.; Krohn, C.; Hindhede, J.; Sørensen, J.T. Resting and social behavior of dairy heifers housed in slatted floor pens with different sized bedded lying areas. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1997, 54, 307–316.
  64. Tuomisto, L.; Huuskonen, A.; Jauhiainen, L.; Mononen, J. Finishing bulls have more synchronised behavior in pastures than in pens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019, 213, 26–32.
  65. Bøe, K.E.; Berg, S.; Andersen, I.L. Resting behavior and displacements in ewes—Effects of reduced lying space and pen shape. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 98, 249–259.
  66. Richmond, S.E.; Wemelsfelder, F.; de Heredia, I.B.; Ruiz, R.; Canali, E.; Dwyer, C.M. Evaluation of Animal-Based Indicators to Be Used in a Welfare Assessment Protocol for Sheep. Front. Vet. Sci. 2017, 4, 210.
  67. Bunchli, C.; Raseli, A.; Bruckmaier, R.; Hillmann, E. Contact with cow during the young age increases social competence and lowers the cardiac stress reaction in dairy calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016, 187, 1–7.
  68. Johnsen, J.F.; de Passile, A.M.; Mejdell, C.M.; Bøe, K.E.; Grøndahl, A.M.; Beaver, A.; Rushen, J.; Weary, D.M. The effect of nursing on the cow-calf bond. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015, 163, 50–57.
  69. Lenner, A.; Ragán, P.; Komlósi, I. Study of changes in the strength of the connection between grey cattle cows and their offspring after weaning. Acta Agrar. Debr. 2021, 1, 129–136.
  70. Meagher, R.K.; Beaver, A.; Weary, D.M.; von Kayserlingk, M.A.G. Invited review: A systematic review of the effects of prolonged cow-calf contact on behavior, welfare and productivity. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 5765–5783.
  71. De Rosa, G.; Grasso, F.; Pacelli, C.; Napolitano, F.; Winckler, C. The welfare of dairy buffalo. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 8, 103–116.
  72. Neave, H.W.; Webster, J.R.; Zobel, G. Anticipatory behavior as an indicator of the welfare of dairy calves in different housing environments. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245742.
  73. Crump, A.; Jenkins, K.; Bethell, E.J.; Ferris, C.P.; Arnott Kabboush, H. Optimism and pasture access in dairy cows. Sci. Rep. 2015, 11, 4882.
  74. Anderson, C.; Yngvesson, J.; Boissy, A.; Uvnäs-Moberga, K.; Lidforsa, L. Behavioural expression of positive anticipation for food or opportunity to play in lambs. Behav. Process. 2015, 113, 152–158.
  75. Gygax, L.; Reefmann, N.; Wolf, M.; Langbein, J. Prefrontal cortex activity, sympatho-vagal reaction and behavior distinguish between situations of feed reward and frustration in dwarf goats. J. Behav. Brain. Res. 2013, 239, 104–114.
  76. De Oliveira, D.; Keeling, L. Routine activities and emotions: Integrating body language into an affective state framework. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0195674.
  77. Lange, A.; Franzmayr, S.; Wisenöcker, V.; Futschik, A.; Waiblinger, S.; Lürzel, S. Effect of different stroking styles on bahaviour and cardiac parameters in heifers. Animals 2020, 10, 426.
  78. Lange, A.; Waiblinger, S.; van Hassel, R.; Mundry, R.; Futschik, A.; Lürzel, S. Effect of restrain on heifers during gentle human-animal interaction. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021, 243, 105445.
  79. Proctor, S.H.; Carder, G. Can ear postures reliable measure the positive emotional state of cow? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 161, 20–27.
  80. Boissy, A.; Aubert, A.; Désiré, L.; Greieveldinger, L.; Delvar, E.; Veissier, I. Cognitive science to relate ear postures to emotion sin sheep. Anim. Welf. 2011, 20, 47–56.
  81. Coulon, M.; Nowak, R.; Peyrat, J.; Chandèze, H.; Boissy, A.; Boivin, X. Do lambs perceive regular human stroking as pleasant? Behavior and heart rate variability analysis. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0118617.
  82. Reefmann, F.; Bütikofer Kaszàs, F.; Wechsler, B.; Gygax, L. Ears and tail postures as indicators of emotional valence in sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 118, 199–207.
  83. Reefmann, F.; Wechsler, B.; Gygax, L. Behavioral and physiological assessment of positive and negative emotion in sheep. Anim. Behav. 2009, 78, 651–659.
  84. Tamioso, P.R.; Rucinque, D.S.; Taconeli, C.A.; Da Silva, G.P.; Maiolino Molento, C.F. Behavior and body surface temperature as welfare indicators in selected sheep regularly brushed by a familiar observer. J. Vet. Behav. 2017, 19, 27–34.
  85. Briefer, F.E.; Tettamanti, F.; McElliigott, A.G. Emotions in goats: Mapping physiological, behavioral and vocal profiles. Anim. Behav. 2015, 99, 131–143.
  86. Whittaker, A.L.; Marsch, L.E. The role of behavioral assessment in determining positive affective states in animals. CAB Rev. 2019, 14, 1–13.
  87. Descovich, K.; Wathan, J.; Matthew, C.; Leach, M.; Buchanan-Smith, H.; Flecknell, P.; Farningham, D.; Vick, S.-J. Facial expression: An under-utilized tool for the assessment of welfare in mammals. Altex 2017, 34, 409–429.
  88. Battini, M.; Agostini, A.; Mattiello, S. Understanding cows’ emotions on farm: Are eye white and ear postures reliable indicators? Animals 2019, 9, 477.
  89. Gómez, Y.; Bieler, R.; Hankele, A.K.; Zähner, N.; Savary, P.; Hillmann, E. Evaluation of visible eye white and maximum eye temperature as non-invasive indicators of stress in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018, 198, 1–8.
  90. Proctor, S.H.; Carder, G. Measuring positive emotions in cows: Do visible eye whites tell us anything? Physiol. Behav. 2015, 147, 1–6.
  91. Proctor, S.H.; Carder, G. Can changes of nasal temperature be used as an indicator of emotional state in cows? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016, 184, 1–6.
  92. Sandem, A.; Braastadt, B.; Bøe, K. Eye white may indicate emotional state on a frustration-contentedness axis in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 79, 1–10.
  93. Sandem, A.; Braastadt, B. Effects of cow-calf separation on visible eye white and behavior of dairy cows—A brief report. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005, 95, 233–239.
  94. Laurijs, K.A.; Briefer, F.E.; Inonge, R.; Webb, L.E. Vocalizations in farm animals: A step towards positive welfare assessment. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021, 236, 105264.
  95. Meen, G.H.; Schellenkens, M.A.; Slegers, M.H.M.; Leenders, N.L.G.; van Erp-van der Kooij, E.; Noldus, L.P.J.J. Sound analysis in dairy cattle vocalisation as a potential welfare monitor. Comput Electron. Agric. 2015, 118, 111–115.
  96. Schnaider, M.A.; Heidemann, M.S.; Silva, A.H.P.; Taconeli, C.A.; Molento, C.F.M. Vocalization and other behaviors as indicators of emotional valence: The case of cow-calf separation and reunion in beef cattle. J. Vet. Behav. 2022, 49, 28–35.
  97. Stěhulová, I.; Lidfors, L.; Špinka, M. Response of dairy cows and calves to early separation: Effect of calf age and visual and auditory contact after separation. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 110, 144–165.
  98. Greiveldinger, L.; Veissier, I.; Boissy, A. Emotional experience in sheep: Predictability of a sudden event lowers subsequent emotional responses. Physiol. Behav. 2007, 92, 675–683.
  99. Rosa, D.; Napolitano, F.; Saltalamacchia, F.; Bilancione, A.; Sabia, E.; Grasso, F.; Bordi, A. The effect of rearing system on behavioral and immune responses of buffalo heifers. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2007, 6, 1260–1263.
  100. Ellingsen, K.; Coleman, G.J.; Lund, V.; Mejdell, C.M. Using qualitative behavior assessment to explore the link between stockperson behavior and dairy calf behavior. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 153, 10–17.
  101. Schmitz, L.; Ebinghaus, A.; Ivemeyer, S.; Domas, L.; Knierim, U. Validity aspects of behavioural measures to assess cows´ responsiveness towards humans. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2020, 228, 105011.
  102. Zufferey, R.; Minnig, A.; Thomann, B.; Zwygart, B.; Keil, N.; Schüpbach, G.; Miserez, R.; Zanolari, P.; Stucki, D. Animal-Based Indicators for On-Farm Welfare Assessment in Sheep. Animals 2021, 11, 2973.
  103. De Rosa, G.; Grasso, F.; Winckler, C.; Bilancione, A.; Paceli, C.; Masucci, F.; Napolitano, F. Application of the Welfare Quality protocol to dairy buffalo farms: Prevalence and reliability of selected measures. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 6886–6896.
  104. Napolitano, F.; De Rosa, G.; Grasso, F.; Wemelsfelder, F. Qualitative behaviour assessment of dairy buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 141, 91–100.
  105. Rault, J.-L.; Waiblinger, S.; Boivin, X.; Hemsworth, P. The Power of a Positive Human—Animal Relationship for Animal Welfare. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 590867.
  106. Proctor, S.H.; Carder, G. Nasal temperatures in dairy cows are influenced by positive emotional state. Physiol. Behav. 2015, 138, 340–344.
  107. Nowak, R.; Boivin, X. Filial attachment in sheep: Similarities and differences between ewe-lamb and human-lamb relationships. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015, 164, 12–28.
  108. Celozzi, S.; Battini, M.; Prato-Previde, E.; Mattiello, S. Humans and Goats: Improving Knowledge for a Better Relationship. Animals 2022, 12, 774.
  109. Bučková, K.; Špinka, M.; Hintze, S. Pair housing makes calves more optimistic. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 20246.
  110. Daros, R.R.; Costa, J.H.C.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Hötzel, M.J.; Weary, D.M. Separation from the Dam Causes Negative Judgement Bias in Dairy Calves. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e98429.
  111. Franchi, A.G.; Herskin, M.S.; Jensen, M.B. Do dietary and milking frequency changes during a gradual dry-off affect feed-related attention bias and visual lateralization in dairy cows? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2020, 223, 104923.
  112. Kremer, L.; Bus, J.D.; Webb, L.E.; Bokkers, E.A.M.; Engel, B.; van der Werf, J.T.N.; Schnabel, K.S.; van Reenen, C.G. Housing and personality effect on judgement and attention biases in dairy cows. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 22984.
  113. Monk, J.; Belson, S.; Colditz, I.; Lee, C. Attention Bias Test Differentiates Anxiety and Depression in Sheep. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 246.
  114. Monk, J.E.; Lee, C.; Dickson, E.; Campbell, D.L.M. Attention Bias Test Measures Negative But Not Positive Affect in Sheep: A Replication Study. Animals 2020, 10, 1314.
  115. Stephenson, M.; Haskell, M.J. The Use of a “Go/Go” Cognitive Bias Task and Response to a Novel Object to Assess the Effect of Housing Enrichment in Sheep (Ovis aries). J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2022, 25, 62–74.
  116. Kappel, S.; Mendl, M.T.; Barrett, D.C.; Murrell, J.C.; Whay, H.R. Lateralized behavior as indicator of affective state in dairy cows. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0184933.
  117. Colditz, G. Competence to thrive: Resilience as an indicator of positive health and positive welfare in animals. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2022, 62, 1439–1458.
  118. Rault, J.-L.; van den Munkhof, M.; Buisman-Pijlman, F.T.A. Oxytocin as an Indicator of Psychological and Social Well-Being in Domesticated Animals: A Critical Review. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1521.
  119. D’Aniello, B.; Mastellone, V.; Pinelli, C.; Scandurra, A.; Musco, N.; Tudisco, R.; Pero, M.E.; Infascelli, F.; Di Lucrezia, A.; Lombardi, P. Serum Oxytocin in Cows Is Positively Correlated with Caregiver Interactions in the Impossible Task Paradigm. Animals 2022, 12, 276.
  120. Lürzel, S.; Bückendorf, F.; Waiblinger, S.; Rault, J.-L. Salivary oxytocin in pigs, cattle, and goats during positive human-animal interactions. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2020, 115, 104636.
  121. Sørensen, J.T.; Fraser, D. On-farm welfare assessment for regulatory purposes: Issues and possible solutions. Livest. Sci. 2010, 131, 1–7.
  122. Tucker, S. Behaviour of cattle. In The Ethology of Domestic Animals: An Introductory Text, 3rd ed.; Per Jensen, J., Ed.; CABI: Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK; Boston, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 189–198.
  123. Dwyer, C.M. Behavior of sheep and goats. In The Ethology of Domestic Animals: An Introductory Text, 3rd ed.; Per Jensen, J., Ed.; CABI: Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK, 2017; pp. 199–213.
  124. Mattiello, S.; Battini, M.; De Rosa, G.; Napolitano, F.; Dwyer, C. How can we assess positive welfare in ruminants? Animals 2019, 9, 758.
  125. Sandem, A.; Braastadt, B.; Bakken, M. Behavior and percentage eye white in cows waiting to be fed concentrate—A brief report. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 97, 145–151.
  126. Tucker, C.B.; Cox, N.R.; Weary, D.M.; Špinka, M. Laterality of lying behavior in dairy cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 120, 125–131.
  127. Gladden, N.; Cuthbert, E.; Ellis, K.; McKeegan, D. Use of a Tri-Axial Accelerometer Can Reliably Detect Play Behavior in Newborn Calves. Animals 2020, 10, 1137.
  128. Rushen, J.; de Passillé, A.M. Automated measurement of acceleration can detect effects of age, dehorning and weaning on locomotor play of calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 139, 169–174.
  129. Placzek, M.; Christoph-Schulz, I.; Barth, K. Public attitude towards cow-calf separation and other common practices of calf rearing in dairy farming—A review. Org. Agric. 2021, 11, 41–50.
  130. Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality Consortium. Lelystad. Nederlands. 2009. Microsoft Word—Old Cattle Protocol without Veal Calves—120809—PPN (wur.nl). Available online: http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/media/1088/cattle_protocol_without_veal_calves.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2022).
  131. AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Sheep 2015. Available online: https://neiker.eus/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/AWIN-Sheep.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2022).
  132. Herskin, M.S.; Kristensen, A.-M.; Munksgaard, L. Behavioural responses of dairy cows toward novel stimuli presented in the home environment. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004, 89, 27–40.
  133. De Rosa, G.; Grasso, F.; Braghieri, A.; Bilancione, A.; Di Francia, A.; Napolitano, F. Behavior and milk production of buffalo cows as affected by housing system. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 92, 907–912.
  134. Iglesias Pastrana, C.; Navas González, F.J.; Ciani, E.; Barba Capote, C.J.; Delgado Bermejo, J.V. Effect of Research Impact on Emerging Camel Husbandry, Welfare and Social-Related Awareness. Animals 2020, 10, 780.
  135. Vigors, B.; Lawrence, A. What are the positives? Exploring positive welfare indicators in a qualitative interview study with livestock farmers. Animals 2019, 9, 694.
  136. Vigors, B. Citizen’ and farmers’ framing of positive animal welfare and the implications of farming positive welfare in communication. Animals 2019, 9, 147.
  137. Alonso, M.E.; González-Montaña, J.-R.; Lomillos, J.M. Consumers’ Concerns and Perceptions of Farm Animal Welfare. Animals 2020, 10, 385.
  138. Lagerkvist, C.L.; Hess, S. A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2011, 38, 55–78.
  139. Clark, B.; Stewart, G.B.; Panzone, L.A.; Kyriazakis, I.; Frewer, L.J. Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy 2017, 68, 112–127.
  140. Napolitano, F.; Girolami, A.; Braghieri, A. Consumer liking and willingness to pay for high welfare animal based product. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 21, 537–543.
  141. Stokes, J.E.; Rowe, E.; Mullan, S.; Pritchard, J.C.; Horler, R.; Haskell, M.J.; Dwyer, C.M.; Main, D.C.J. A “Good Life” for Dairy Cattle: Developing and Piloting Framework for Assessing Positive Welfare Opportunities Based on Scientific Evidence and Farmer Expertise. Animals 2022, 12, 2540.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback