Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
J Anim Behav Biometeorol (2024) 12:e2024010
Received: November 28, 2023 | Accepted: January 11, 2024
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Published Online: March 8, 2024
https://doi.org/10.31893/jabb.2024010
Animal welfare on Argentinean dairy farms based
on the Welfare Quality® protocol framework
Belen Lazzarinia | Pol Llonchb | Javier Baudraccoac
aFaculty of Agriculture Science, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Esperanza, Argentina.
bSchool of Veterinary Science, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
cIciAgro Litoral, Universidad Nacional del Litoral-CONICET, Esperanza, Argentina.
1. Introduction
Animal welfare (AW) is a multidimensional concept
comprising animal health, natural living conditions and
affective states (Fraser 2008). It is the state of an animal
with regard to its attempts to cope with its environment
(Broom 1986). The concept of AW is not new, as farmers
have always been concerned about rearing healthy and
well-nourished animals (von Keyserling et al 2009).
However, over the last two decades, there has been
increased concern among consumers and citizens about
how animals are treated on farms (Spooner et al 2014;
Alonso et al 2020), especially in developed countries but
also in emerging nations, such as Argentina (Estévez-
Moreno et al 2022).
Argentina is characterized by its large agricultural
sector and cattle population, and it is the 6th most common
dairy exporter worldwide (considering the European Union
as a single supplier) (OCLA 2023). During the last 25 years
(1997-2022), national dairy milk production has remained
stable at approximately 11,000 million liters per year. The
dairy cow population was 1.6 million, distributed across
10,076 dairy farms in 2022 (OCLA 2023).
Animal welfare plays an essential role in dairy
production. Different methods and programs have been
developed worldwide to evaluate dairy cattle welfare and
assure consumers that farms are meeting high standards
(Krueger et al 2020). Diverse evaluation programs exist, such
as the Welfare Quality® protocol (Welfare Quality 2009),
hereafter the WQ protocol, developed in Europe; the FARM
animal care program (FARM 2020), used in the USA; and the
New Zealand Dairy Cattle Code of Welfare (New Zealand
2019). Most of these protocols use resource or animal-
based measures or indicators that are transformed into a
scale to interpret the welfare status of animals at the farm.
The main welfare concerns regarding dairy cattle worldwide
include lameness, mastitis, and cow comfort (Mee and Boyle
2020; Whay and Shearer 2017).
The goal of this study was to describe AW on dairy
farms in Argentina based on the available scientific
literature using the WQ protocol as a framework. These
results may be useful for identifying the main strengths and
weaknesses as a previous step toward discussing the most
relevant policies to assist farmers and advisors in improving
AW on Argentine dairy farms.
1.1. Characterization of Argentinean dairy farms and animal
welfare legislation
Most dairy farms are managed under grazing
conditions, but the percentage of confined cows has grown
recently, mainly in the form of dry open lots and compost
barns, representing 10% of farms (Lazzarini et al 2019).
Approximately 90% of dairy cows are in three provinces:
Abstract Animal welfare is a multidimensional concept that comprises animal health, mental state and natural living
conditions and plays an essential role in dairy production. On dairy farms, animal welfare can be assessed with different
available protocols. The goal of this study was to describe the animal welfare strengths and hazards of dairy farms in
Argentina using the Welfare Quality® protocol as a framework. We conducted a literature search using the Scopus
database to find articles related to the measures included in the protocol for Argentinean farms. Furthermore, we
included data from national statistics. The data available were grouped according to the four principles of the protocol:
good feeding, good housing, good health, and appropriate behavior. The results suggest that cows are well nourished;
however, water provision is limited because grazing cows need to walk long distances, between 244 m and 460 m, to
access a water point. Heat stress is a notable constraint affecting the welfare of cows, as the temperature-humidity index
is greater than 72 for at least 100 days during the year. The prevalence of lameness and downer cows was estimated to be
2.2% and 0.7%, respectively, which are below the thresholds for ensuring good welfare. The annual average somatic cell
count was 385,000/ml, close to the cutoff recommended for good health. The mortality rate of the cows was higher than
recommended. The main strength of Argentinean dairy farms in relation to animal welfare is access to pasture throughout
the year for 90% of the farms.
Keywords: dairy cattle, animal wellbeing, dairy systems, Argentina, milk production
2
Lazzarini et al. (2024)
www.jabbnet.com
https://malque.pub/ojs/index.php/jabb
Santa Fe, Córdoba, and Buenos Aires (Mendelez et al 2021).
The annual rainfall in this area ranges between 700 and
1,100 mm, and the average air temperatures in summer and
winter are 23°C and 10°C, respectively (Lazzarini et al 2019).
The average milk production was approximately
6,000 liters of milk per cow per year, equivalent to 408 kg of
milk solids per cow, in 2019 (Lazzarini et al 2019). The
average stocking rate is 1.4 cows/ha, and the land
productivity is close to 8,000 liters/hectare per year
(Lazzarini et al 2019). A favorable milk-to-maize grain price
ratio (2.08 average in the last 20 years: OCLA 2023) allows
farmers to use large amounts of supplements (concentrates,
silage and hay), usually 50% of the cow´s diet, on average
during the year (Engler et al 2022). A recent review
(Lazzarini et al 2019) described the main characteristics of
Argentinean milk production and concluded that the main
constraints for increasing milk production are a decreasing
number of milking cows and problems related to farm
infrastructure, such as poor cow roadways, outdated and
undersized dairy facilities that affect the efficiency of
workers and the welfare of cows.
Apart from poor infrastructure on farms, other
limitations include a lack of records and poor training of
farm personnel. According to national dairy statistics, 50%
of farmers use manual records (Engler et al. 2022), which
limits analyses or comparisons of data and makes timely
decisions difficult. The training provided to farm staff is
usually very limited, and only 65% of personnel inseminating
cows have been trained in a course (Baudracco et al 2014).
The first legislation for cruelty in animals in Argentina
was established in 1954, with an animal protection act that
prohibits abuse and cruelty in animals. Under this act,
mistreatment and cruelty against animals are considered
criminal offenses (Act No. 14.346 October 1954). Animal
welfare falls under the responsibility of the National Service
of Health and Quality of Agricultural Food (SENASA), which
is dependent on the Ministry of Economy, Agriculture,
Livestock, and Fisheries.
In 2015, SENASA developed a code of AW for farm
animals. The code establishes good management practices
for domestic animals during possession, production,
transport, and slaughter (SENASA 2015). Specifically,
regarding dairy production, a manual of good practices was
developed in agreement with the different representative
members of the dairy sector. This guide provides
recommendations for good practices to maximize milk
production and quality, including the following topics:
milking routine and hygiene, dairy facility, animal health,
feeding, environment, calf rearing, AW, and labor
conditions. An effort was made by Aprocal (a nonprofit
association that promotes milk quality) to develop a
protocol based on the WQ protocol to certify AW on dairy
farms. However, the use of assessment protocols to
evaluate AW on farms has not yet been regularly
implemented.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Approach for this work
We used the WQ protocol (including its 4 principles,
12 criteria and 30 measures) as a framework to structure
our analysis. The WQ protocol categorizes a series of
animal-based measures or indicators into four principles for
ensuring AW in livestock production: i) good feeding, ii)
good housing, iii) good health, and iv) appropriate behavior.
The good feeding principle establishes that animals should
not suffer from prolonged hunger, i.e., they should have a
sufficient and appropriate diet and not suffer from
prolonged thirst; i.e., they should have a sufficient and
accessible water supply. The good housing principle
establishes that animals should be comfortable while
resting, thermally comfortable and able to move around
freely. According to good health principles, animals should
be free of physical injuries and diseases. Additionally,
animals should not suffer pain induced by inappropriate
management. The appropriate behavior principle
establishes that animals should be able to express normal,
non-harmful, social behaviors; be handled well in all
situations; avoid negative emotions such as fear, distress,
and frustration; and promote positive emotions. Within
these four principles, there are 12 criteria that comprise 30
different measures for assessing the welfare of dairy cows
(Table 1).
2.2. Source of information and data selection to describe
animal welfare on Argentinean farms
To describe AW on Argentinean dairy farms, we
conducted several searches (Table 1) in the Scopus
database, and we also used national statistics. The Scopus
database allows for the integration of Boolean operators
(i.e., AND, OR, NOT) to string together words or phrases as
well as truncation symbols (denoted as *) to designate a
range of possible word forms. We conducted separate
searches to identify articles related to the measures
described in the WQ protocol for Argentinean dairy farms
published between 2003 and 2023 in English and Spanish.
Table 1 shows the terms used for each search; all searches
included the following terms: cow* AND dairy* AND
argentin* plus the relevant measure. Seventeen searches
that accounted for the 30 measures were conducted in
total, as some measures were grouped in one search. For
instance, udder cleanliness, leg cleanliness and flank
cleanliness are three different measures; however, in our
search, we combined them together as “animal* clean*” OR
“udder clean*” OR “flank* clean*” OR “leg* clean*” (Table
1). We performed the same searches three times, and the
last was conducted on October 12th, 2023.
Although measures for thermal comfort (within the
good housing principle) have not been developed in the WQ
protocol, we included the temperature humidity index (THI;
Thom, 1959) in our search, which is the most widely used
environmental measure of heat stress in the scientific
literature (Galán et al 2018) (Table 1). The THI combines the
effects of air temperature and relative air humidity.
3
Lazzarini et al. (2024)
www.jabbnet.com
https://malque.pub/ojs/index.php/jabb
After the search in Scopus, the title and abstract of
the articles were scanned to select only those studies that
simultaneously met the following criteria: a) studies
reporting data on dairy cows in Argentina, b) studies
reporting quantitative data of the relevant AW measures,
and c) studies conducted with at least 10 herds, as proposed
by Thomsen et al. (2023). When the abstract did not provide
enough information to accept or reject a study, the full
article was scanned. The number of total articles found in all
searches and the number of selected articles that met the
selection criteria and a brief description of them are
presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Terms included in the literature search (from 2003 to 2023) in the Scopus database corresponding to the different animal welfare
(AW) measures within the principles of the Welfare Quality (WQ) protocol (Welfare Quality® 2009); number of articles found in Scopus;
number and brief description of the articles that met the selection criteria (a. articles reporting data on dairy cows in Argentina; b. articles
reporting quantitative data of the relevant AW measures; and c. articles that reported data for at least 10 herds) and brief description of
additional data used.
Principles
of the WQ
protocol
Criteria of
the WQ
protocol
Measures of the WQ
protocol
Terms
included in
Scopus for
literature
searcha
Articles
found
in
Scopus
(n)
Articles
that met
selection
criteria
(n)
Reference and
brief description
of articles
selected from
Scopus
Reference and
brief description
of additional data
used for
describing AW
measures
Good
feeding
Absence of
prolonged
hunger
Body condition score
(BCS)
1) “body
condition
score”
7
1
Melendez et al
(2020) reports
BCS across
22,772
lactations in 28
herds.
Absence of
prolonged
thirst
Water provision,
cleanliness of water
points, water flow,
functioning of water
points
2) "water
access" OR
"water
availab*" OR
"drink*
water" OR
“water
trough*”
5
1
Lara et al (2019)
conducted a
survey study
that identified
the major
constraints on
milk production
in 29 dairy farms
with emphasis
on farm
infrastructure.
Baudracco et al
(2014) reports
data from a farm
survey of 163
dairy farms
characterizing
productive
performance, farm
infrastructure and
management
practices.
Good
housing
Comfort
around
resting
Time needed to lie down,
animals colliding with
housing equipment during
lying down, animals lying
partly or completely
outside the lying area,
cleanliness of udders,
cleanliness of flank/upper
legs, cleanliness of lower
legs
3) “Lying
time” OR “lie
down” OR
“standing
time” OR
“animal*
clean*” OR
“udder
clean*” OR
“flank*
clean*” OR
“leg* clean*”
-
-
Thermal
comfortb
-
4)“thermal
comfort" OR
"thermal
stress" OR "
heat stress"
5
1
Recce et al
(2021) reports
historical
monthly THI
average from
2000 to 2013 for
Rafaela, Santa
Fe province, an
important dairy
region in
Argentina.
National weather
service reports
historical
meteorological
data for the
country.
Easy of
movement
Presence of tethering,
access to outdoor loafing
area or pasture
5) tethering
OR tie
-
-
4
Lazzarini et al. (2024)
www.jabbnet.com
https://malque.pub/ojs/index.php/jabb
Good
health
Absence of
injuries
Lameness (loose housed
animals), lameness (tied
animals), integument
alternations
6) lame*
3
1
Brunner et al
(2019) reports
lameness
prevalence in 27
dairy farms for
Argentina and
other countries
in South
America.
7)
“integument
alteration* or
integument
lesion*” or
integument
injur* or “skin
alteration* or
skin lesion*
or “skin
injur*”
-
-
Absence of
disease
Coughing, nasal, ocular
discharge, hampered
respiration, diarrhea,
vulvar discharge, milk
somatic cell count,
mortality, dystocia,
downer cows
8) cough* or
“nasal
discharge*”
or “ocular
discharge*”
or “vulvar
discharge*”
-
-
9) diarr*
11
-
10) “Somatic
cell count” or
mastitis
35
6
-
OCLA (2023) is the
national
observatory of the
dairy chain and
reports annual
milk production,
number of cows,
milk quality
among other data
for the whole
country.
11) Mortality
4
-
Engler et al (2022)
correspond to the
national dairy
farm survey that
includes
productive data,
management
practices, and
information of
farm
infrastructure,
from the main
dairy region, in
204 farms during
2020-2021.
12) dystocia
OR downer
OR "milk
fever"
3
1
Brunner et al
(2019) described
above.
Absence of
induced pain
by
management
Disbudding/dehorning, tail
docking
13)
Disbudding or
dehorning or
“tail docking”
-
-
5
Lazzarini et al. (2024)
www.jabbnet.com
https://malque.pub/ojs/index.php/jabb
procedures
Appropriate
behavior
Expression
of social
behaviors
Agonistic behaviors
14) “Agonistic
behavio*”
-
-
Expression
of social
behaviors
Access to pasture
15) pasture*
and access*
and graz*
7
1
Lazzarini et al
(2019) reviews
Argentinean
dairy
production,
describing the
main strength
and limitations
of dairy farms in
terms of
infrastructure,
natural
resources and
management.
Good
human-
animal
relationship
Avoidance distance
16)
“Avoidance
distance*”
OR “human*
cow*
relation*”
-
-
Positive
emotional
state
Qualitative behavior
assessment
17) Behavio*
OR emotion*
and welfare
1
-
a All searches also included the following terms: AND cow* AND dairy* AND argentin*
b No measures for thermal comfort have been developed in the WQ protocol, but we included terms related to thermal comfort in our literature search
We found 81 articles in Scopus using the search
strategy described before. After applying the selection
criteria, the number of studies was reduced to 12 (Table 1).
Even though the search included the terms cow* AND
dairy* AND argentin*, many articles from countries other
than Argentina or not related to cows appeared in the
searches. For instance, an article about Uruguay dairy
production mentioned in the abstract the word Argentina.
Another example is the case of the measure related to
diarrhea; the search identified 11 articles (Table 1), and all
of them were related to diarrhea in calves, not in cows.
Apart from the articles selected from Scopus, we included
data from the main national statistics databases, including
the National Observatory of the Dairy Chain (OCLA 2023),
the annual national dairy survey conducted by the National
Institute of Agricultural Technology of Argentina (INTA;
Engler et al 2022) and the National Weather Service
(Gastaldi et al 2022). Furthermore, a survey written by two
of the authors of this study was used (Baudracco et al 2014).
A brief description of the additional data used to measure
AW is presented in Table 1.
Finally, the main findings for Argentinean farms
regarding AW measures were compared with the
recommendations established in the WQ protocol to ensure
AW. However, when this figure was not available from the
WQ protocol, we referred to the scientific literature to make
comparisons possible, as shown in Table 2.
3. Results and Discussion
The articles selected from the search conducted in
Scopus and the additional literature described above
allowed us to describe the following AW measures (Table 2):
1) body condition score (BCS) and 2) water provision within
the good feeding principle; 3) THI associated with thermal
comfort within the good housing principle; 4) lameness, 5)
somatic cell count, 6) mortality rate, and 7) downer cows
within the good health principle; and 8) cows´ access to
pasture within the appropriate behavior principle. Table 2
shows the state of each AW measure for Argentinean farms
and the recommendations to ensure AW according to the
WQ protocol or other scientific literature.
3.1. Good feeding principle
3.1.1. Body condition score
The BCS is a reliable indicator used to assess the
nutritional status of an animal and is included in most
welfare assessment programs (Krueger et al 2020). The
assessment of BCS is infrequent on commercial dairy farms
in Argentina. A study conducted by Melendez et al. (2020)
reported that most cows (81%) were dried off with a BCS
between 2.75 and 3.5 (using a scoring system from 1 to 5;
Ferguson et al. 1994) (Table 2). Roche et al. (2009)
suggested that the BCS at drying-off (usually 60 days before
calving) should be between 2.75 and 3.0 (5-point scale) and
that during the dry period, cows should maintain or gain BCS
between 0.25 and 0.50; consequently, at calving, they
should have a BCS no greater than 3.0 and 3.5 (5-point
scale) (Roche et al. 2013). According to the results of
6
Lazzarini et al. (2024)
www.jabbnet.com
https://malque.pub/ojs/index.php/jabb
Melendez et al. (2020), cows may have an appropriate BCS,
at least when drying off. This could be a consequence of
access to relatively cheap supplements in Argentina.
They also reported that 40% of cows had reduced
BCS during the dry period. The loss of BCS in that period of
the production cycle has been associated with a higher
incidence of metabolic diseases after calving (Roche et al
2013; 2015), which can also affect AW by increasing the risk
of disease and associated pain. These results should raise
awareness among dairy farmers about the importance of
measuring and managing cow BCS, especially during critical
moments of lactation, such as during drying and calving
periods.
3.1.2. Water provision
The importance of drinking water for milk production
and AW is widely recognized (Jensen and Vestergaard 2021).
In Argentina, water troughs are generally placed in the
corners of large paddocks where cows are allowed to graze
rotationally on successive pasture plots delimited by electric
fences (Miglierina et al 2018). The WQ protocol considers
the number of water points available per group of cows, the
cleanliness of the water points, and the water flow as
measures of good welfare. However, these measures were
not found in studies on Argentinean dairy farms. Instead, we
used the distance that cows should walk to reach a water
trough in grazing systems as a measure of water availability
(Phillips 2015). The water trough distance from the grazing
area affects cattle social behavior (Phillips 2015), in addition
to its obvious effect on the hydration state of cows.
Maintaining the water source within 250 m of the animal
discourages herd movement and increases water intake
(Phillips 2015). Cows were found to walk between 244 m
(Lara et al 2019) and 460 m (Baudracco et al 2014) to reach
the water trough from the paddock (Table 2). This is a
consequence of the limited number of water troughs: one
every 19 ha (Lara et al 2021) or 34 ha (Baudracco et al
2014). Thus, on most Argentinean dairy farms, drinking
water may not be sufficiently accessible, which
compromises the principle of good feeding with regard to
water provision.
3.2. Good housing principle
3.2.1. Temperature-humidity index
In pasture-based systems, as in most farms in
Argentina, animals are exposed to environmental conditions
and may suffer from heat stress. A THI exceeding the
threshold of 72 indicates that cows may be under heat
stress (Armstrong, 1994). According to data from the
National Weather Service (Gastaldi et al. 2022), in the main
dairy region of Argentina (Rafaela, Santa Fe Province), there
were at least 77 days with a THI higher than 72 (from
December to March; average from 2014 to 2020) (Table 2).
If the whole year is taken, this figure can reach up to 100
days with a THI higher than 72. Other studies have shown
similar findings in other dairy regions of Argentina (Recce et
al 2021; Table 2). The substantial occurrence of days with
elevated THI values implies a potential risk to the well-being
of cows, particularly if proactive mitigation strategies are
not taken into account.
The provision of shade to cows under heat stress
conditions is an essential component of heat management
for decreasing body temperature (Kendall et al. 2006),
especially under grazing conditions, where cows are easily
exposed to solar radiation. On Argentinean farms, although
most farms provide natural or artificial shade, the amount of
shade available is low, as more than 90% of dairy farms have
less than 2 m2 of shade per cow (Baudracco et al 2014),
which is half of what is recommended for minimizing the
effects of heat stress (Collier et al 2006). This may explain
the decrease in milk production reported every year during
the warmest months in Argentina (OCLA 2023).
In addition to providing shade in paddocks or resting
and eating areas, waiting yards must also be shaded, as this
is where dairy cows experience the most heat stress (Collier
et al 2006). Typically, afternoon milking on Argentinean
farms starts between 3:00 PM and 5:00 PM, and milking
sessions extend for almost 2.4 hours (Engler et al 2022).
Only 27% of 204 farms surveyed in Argentina provided
shade in the waiting yard (Engler et al. 2022). Other cooling
options, such as fans and water sprinklers, are important for
reducing body temperature and mitigating heat stress
(Polsky and von Keyserling, 2017). National statistics
indicate that, in the waiting yard, only 12% of dairy farms
are provided with fans and water sprinklers (Engler et al
2022). Dairy cattle in Argentina face the challenges of hot
environments and scarce abatement techniques to decrease
heat stress in animals.
3.3. Good health principle
3.3.1. Lameness
It is a serious disease that affects dairy cows
worldwide, causing pain and suffering in animals, as well as
economic losses associated with the high cost of treatment,
decreased milk production and culling of cows (Thomsen
and Hue 2008). The prevalence of lameness was estimated
to be 2.2% on Argentinean farms (Brunner et al 2019) (Table
2). The latter study also evaluated the prevalence of
lameness in other South American countries, New Zealand,
Australia, Africa, and Eastern Europe and reported an
average of 1.7% (range between 0% and 10.5%) in all the
other regions. The prevalence of lameness on Argentinean
farms is less than the threshold suggested by EFSA (2019)
(Table 2). Furthermore, this percentage is significantly lower
than that reported in a recent review across 24 countries, in
which the mean lameness prevalence was 22.8% (range
between 5.1% and 45%) (Thomsen et al 2023).
3.3.2. Somatic cell count
It is the most widely adopted indicator
of udder health in livestock worldwide (Costa et al 2020)
and is a useful predictor of mastitis (Sharma et al 2011), one
7
Lazzarini et al. (2024)
www.jabbnet.com
https://malque.pub/ojs/index.php/jabb
of the most common and economically important diseases
related to the welfare of dairy cows. Although 34 articles
(out of 80) appeared as a result of the search that included
the terms “somatic cell count” or “mastitis”, given that
these data are well represented as an average across all
dairy farms in Argentina in national statistical databases
(OCLA 2023), we opted to incorporate this specific value for
the somatic cell count measure (good health principle) over
data reported in articles from Scopus. The annual average
somatic cell count (SCC) in Argentina in the last five years
(2018–2022) was 385,000 SCC/ml according to national
statistics (OCLA 2023; Table 2). Several studies performed
worldwide have addressed the effects of mastitis on milk
yield loss. It has been estimated that a cow with 400,000
SCC/ml will lose approximately 5% of its milk yield
(compared with the baseline of 200,000 SCC/ml) (Hand et al
2012). The WQ protocol establishes a threshold of no more
than 9% of cows in the herd with an SCC >400,000. Thus, the
health principle regarding SCC on Argentinean farms is
compromised.
3.3.3. Mortality rate
It is defined as the incidence of on-farm deaths and
emergency slaughter (deaths/100 animals/year) and is one
of the most important indicators of health status (Ortiz-
Pelaez et al 2008). Although additional research is needed to
determine whether the mortality rate can be used as a sole
measure of AW, it is associated with disease and lack of care
(Ortiz-Pelaez et al 2008); thus, the mortality rate could be a
good estimator of poor welfare on a farm when combined
with other measures. The national dairy survey of Argentina
reported a mortality rate of 5.7% for adult cows (and 14.6%
for the involuntary culling rate), which is above the
recommendations of the WQ protocol (Table 2).
3.3.4. Downer cows
During the transition or peripartum period, defined
as the period from 21 days before calving to 21 days after
calving (Grummer 1995), cows suffer important changes
that expose them to a greater risk of developing disease
(Bruckmaier and Gross 2017). The prevalence of milk fever
on Argentinean farms was 0.7% (Table 2); in addition, the
prevalence of other metabolic diseases was 2.1% for
retained placenta and 15.7% and 4% for metritis and
ketosis, respectively (Brunner et al 2019) (Table 2).
Appropriate nutritional and environmental conditions are
crucial for helping cows cope successfully with the imposed
metabolic load and for avoiding negative impacts on health,
welfare, and performance (Brunner et al 2019).
3.4. Appropriate behavior principle
We discuss this principle in regard to the pros and
cons of accessing pasture for cows. In Argentina,
approximately 90% of dairy cows are allocated outdoors
throughout the year, owing to temperate weather
conditions (Lazzarini et al 2019) (Table 2). Regarding natural
behavior, pasture-based systems offer the opportunity to
graze, which is one of the main needs of the behavioral
repertoire of dairy cows (Mee and Boyle 2020). However,
poor weather conditions, such as muddy conditions and
heat stress, may present challenges related to cow comfort,
health, and production (Bewley et al 2017). Furthermore,
most cows spend the night in an open lot (an area with no
pasture), as farmers prefer avoiding cows at pasture (alfalfa)
during night hours because of the risk of bloating. This
situation might create risks for cows exposed to harsh
conditions during rainy days, which might affect udder and
body cleanliness, thereby affecting AW. Although grazing
systems can be very good for ensuring cow comfort, as they
allow the expression of natural behavior, in Argentina,
pasture access may not guarantee AW by itself, given
management and infrastructure constraints. Research that
can address the welfare aspects of access to pasture for
cows in Argentina is needed, as this is one of the main issues
affecting consumer perceptions of dairy production (Stampa
et al 2020). Key areas of investigation should include the
cleanliness of cows, their exposure to heat stress, and the
distances covered during their transit from paddocks to the
milking yard. These factors are linked to the impact of
grazing systems on the welfare of dairy cattle.
3.5. Strategies to improve animal welfare on Argentinean
dairy farms
Dairy farmers are being challenged to optimize
production systems and produce more milk while meeting
increasing pressure from consumers concerning AW. One of
the main strengths of Argentinean dairy farms is that cows
are in contact with pasture almost all year-round, which is a
phenomenon that consumers value positively worldwide
(Schuppli et al 2014). However, the data summarized in this
study indicate that there is still considerable room for
improving AW on dairy farms in Argentina. Implementing
management practices to avoid heat stress (Piccardi et al
2011), improving farm infrastructure (Fernandes et al 2021),
investing in personnel training (Ceballos et al 2018), and
including precision livestock farming (PLF) technology
(Aquilani et al 2022) are all available strategies for improving
AW.
3.5.1. Implementation of management practices to avoid
heat stress
Apart from the negative effects on welfare and
production, heat stress has consequences for the
reproductive performance of cows, as indicated by an
increased number of days open, a reduced conception rate,
and a greater number of cows suffering from different types
of anestrus (De Rensis et al 2015). Seasonal calving is
common in grazing systems, such as New Zealand and
Ireland, where cows’ highest feed requirements (peak of
lactation) are matched with those of the highest pasture
production season (spring). In Argentina, due to the high
temperatures between December and March, the strategy
8
Lazzarini et al. (2024)
www.jabbnet.com
https://malque.pub/ojs/index.php/jabb
of concentrating mating and calving would avoid mating and
calving during the hottest months of the year rather than
matching cows’ requirements and pasture supply
(Baudracco et al 2022). This strategy can improve feed
intake, milk production and reproductive efficiency (Piccardi
et al 2011). However, seasonal calving is still performed by a
small proportion of farmers, with more than 80% of farms
implementing year-round calving (Engler et al. 2022).
The effects of heat stress can also be reduced by
choosing dairy breeds that are more tolerant to hot climates
(Gantner et al 2017). Within the Bos taurus cattle, Jersey
cows are more resistant to heat stress than Holstein cows
are (Collier et al 1982; Sharma et al 1983; Smith et al 2013).
However, in Argentina, 83% of the dairy herds are Holstein
breeds, while a small proportion are Jersey crossbred cows
(6%) (Engler et al 2022). The inclusion of a greater
proportion of Jersey genetic species would increase the
tolerance to heat stress. The adoption of seasonal calving
and the selection of more tolerant breeds are long-term
strategies. However, the inclusion of environmental
management techniques can be adopted immediately to
reduce heat stress. Shading construction should generally be
made available on dairy farms, especially on dairies with
grazing cattle. The purpose of this approach is to minimize
the solar load on animals, especially in the afternoon (Ji et al
2020), to reduce the overall heat load on the animals.
Furthermore, the installation of fans and water sprinklers
has proven to be advantageous for cooling cows and is the
most cost-effective heat stress mitigation approach (Ji et al
2020).
3.5.2. Improvements in farm infrastructure
Improving AW often requires changes in
infrastructure (Fernandes et al 2021). An intensification
process of dairy farms, with a greater number of cows per
farm, took place over the last 20 years in Argentina and
caused an increase of 49% in herd size (Lazzarini et al 2019).
Larger herd sizes are often associated with increased
stocking densities, longer walking distances on the farm,
reduced ability to examine and treat cows individually, and
longer milking times (Beggs et al 2015), which altogether
compromise AW. In addition, there is evidence that the
increased herd size in Argentina was not accompanied by
larger farming facilities (Lazzarini et al 2019). Increasing
water provision infrastructure will likely manifest in animals’
physiological functioning, boosting AW (Jensen and
Vestergaard 2021).
Table 2 Animal welfare (AW) measures for Argentinean dairy farms, grouped according to the four principles of the Welfare Quality (WQ)
protocol (Welfare Quality®, 2009) and recommendations to ensure animal welfare from the scientific literature.
Principles of the WQ
protocol
Measures of the WQ protocol
AW measures
for Argentinean dairy farms
Recommendations to ensure AW from
scientific literature
Good feeding
Body condition score
-Between 2.75 and 3.5 at drying
off (Melendez et al 2020)
Between 2.75 and 3.0 at drying off
(Roche et al 2009)
Water provision
-Distance from water troughs to
cows in the paddock: between
244 m (Lara et al 2019) and 460
m (Baudracco et al 2014)
Distance from water troughs to cows in
the paddock < 250 m (Philips 2015)
Good housing
Temperature-humidity Index (THI)
-THI >72 for more than 100
days per year (National weather
service, Gastaldi et al 2023).
-THI >72 (monthly average) for
at least 3 months per year
(Recce et al 2021)
THI: <72 (Armstrong 1994)
Good health
Lameness
-2.2% (Brunner et al 2021)
<10% (EFSA, 2009)
Somatic cell
count
-385,000 SCC/ml (OCLA 2023)a
<9% of cows in the herd with SCC
>400,000 SCC/ml (Welfare Quality®,
2009)
Mortality rate
-5.7% (Engler et al 2022)
<2.25% (Welfare Quality®, 2009)
Downer cows
-0.7% (prevalence for milk
fever; Brunner et al 2021)
<5.5% (Welfare Quality® 2009)
Appropriate behavior
Cows´ access to pasture
-Unrestricted access to pasture
all year round in 90% of the
farms (Lazzarini et al 2009)
At least 6 hours a day during at least 120
days a year (Pro Weideland 2018)
a National average from 2018 to 2022
SCC=somatic cell count
3.5.3. Training of farm personnel
Animal welfare requires investment in the training of
people responsible for the care and handling of animals
(Fernandes et al 2021). A study conducted in Brazil
confirmed the importance of training and revealed that the
implementation of training on beef farms reduced the
number of miscatches with the head bail by 45% (Simon et
al 2016). Similarly, Ceballos et al. (2018) demonstrated that,
9
Lazzarini et al. (2024)
www.jabbnet.com
https://malque.pub/ojs/index.php/jabb
compared with trained people, nontrained farm workers
had poorer quality animal handling, leading to more
undesirable animal behaviors during handling. Furthermore,
another study showed that when people do not use good
handling practices during vaccination procedures, the
animals are more stressed, display more undesirable
behaviors, and consequently suffer more welfare problems
(Chiquitelli Neto et al 2015). Thus, training farm personnel is
an effective and practical strategy for promoting positive
human–animal interactions.
3.5.4. Inclusion of precision livestock farming
These technologies have been developed with the
intention of improving animal surveillance and assisting
farmers in refining their management while minimizing
handling practices (Silva et al 2022). Better farm
management may improve animal production efficiency and
welfare. However, sensor technologies may not be taken as
a replacement for the farmer but only to support him or her
in the daily control of animals (Berckmans 2017; Stygar et al
2023). A recent review (Stygar et al 2021) described the PLF
technologies that can be used to monitor AW. Examples of
PLF technologies that can contribute to the improvement of
AW are the automatic detection of lameness and mastitis
and the assessment of BCS, among others. The proportion
of farms using PLF and the type of PLF used were not
quantified for Argentinean dairy farms. There are only
reports about the use of automatic feeding systems in dairy
parlors and automatic cup removers; approximately 12% of
the cases involved both technologies (Engler et al. 2022).
Some AW issues can be improved through better
farm management practices. However, improving
infrastructure in dairy systems and increasing the use of PLF
require access to proper financing, which has been
described as one of the most important limitations of the
Argentinean dairy industry (Lazzarini et al 2019).
3.6. Limitations and scope of this study
The description of AW was based on a low quantity
of articles and aided by national statistics, which may limit
the extension of this analysis to all farms in Argentina. Due
to the current state of the art, many AW measurements
could not be addressed in this study. However, we were
able to describe and discuss the greatest welfare concerns
regarding dairy cattle: lameness, mastitis (somatic cell
count) and cow comfort (pasture access). Furthermore, we
were able to discuss the four principles of the protocol:
good feeding, good housing, good health and appropriate
behavior. To our knowledge, this is the first study that
aimed to describe AW in dairy farms in Argentina by
analyzing the available scientific literature.
4. Conclusions
The main strength of Argentinean dairy production
systems regarding AW is year-round access of cows to
pasture on 90% of the farms, promoting the natural
behavior of cows. Dairy cows are generally well nourished,
given the common use of affordable supplements. Based on
the thresholds of the WQ protocol and other scientific
literature, we can conclude that the main aspects that need
to be addressed to improve the welfare of dairy cows are
the inclusion of heat stress mitigation techniques, the
improvement of water provision at grazing and the
reduction of SCC. The implementation of policies aimed at
promoting the training of farm personnel, together with
initiatives facilitating access to financial resources for farm
investments, appears to be important strategies for
improving the welfare of dairy cows.
Ethical consideration
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that
could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Funding
This research was funded by CAI+D project code
50520190100206LI from Universidad Nacional del Litoral
and FONCyT, PICT-2019-2019-01776.
References
Alonso ME, González-Montaña JR, Lomillos JM (2020) Consumers’ concerns
and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals (Basel) 10:385. doi:
10.3390/ani1003038.
Aquilani C, Confessore A, Bozzi R, Sirtori F, Pugliese C (2022) Review:
Precision Livestock Farming technologies in pasture-based livestock
systems. Animal 16:100429. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100429.
Armstrong DV (1994) Heat stress interaction with shade and
cooling. Journal of Dairy Science 77:2044–2050. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-
0302(94)77149-6.
Baudracco J, Lazzarini B, Rosset A, Jauregui J, Braida D, Maiztegui J (2014)
Cuantificación de limitantes productivas en tambos de Argentina: reporte
final. Available at: http://factorhumanoentambo.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/05/Proyecto-INDICES-Convenio-JIPL-FCA.pdf.
Accessed on: June 2, 2023.
Baudracco J, Lazzarini B, Rossler N, Gastaldi L, Jauregui J, Fariña S (2022)
Strategies to double milk production per farm in Argentina: Investment,
economics and risk analysis. Agricultural Systems 197:103366. doi:
10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103366.
Beggs DS, Fisher AD, Jongman EC, Hemsworth PH (2015) A survey of
Australian dairy farmers to investigate animal welfare risks associated with
increasing scale of production. Journal of Dairy Science 98:5330–5338. doi:
10.3168/jds.2014-9239.
Berckmans D (2017) General introduction to precision livestock
farming. Animal Frontiers 7:6–11. doi: 10.2527/af.2017.0102.
Bewley JM, Robertson LM, Eckelkamp EA (2017) A 100-Year Review:
Lactating dairy cattle housing management. Journal of Dairy
Science 100:10418–10431. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13251.
Broom DM (1986) Indicators of poor welfare. The British Veterinary Journal
142:524–526. doi: 10.1016/0007-1935(86)90109-0.
Bruckmaier RM, Gross, JJ (2017). Lactational challenges in transition dairy
cows. Animal Production Science 57:1471. doi: 10.1071/an16657.
Brunner N, Groeger S, Canelas Raposo J, Bruckmaier RM, Gross JJ (2019).
Prevalence of subclinical ketosis and production diseases in dairy cows in
10
Lazzarini et al. (2024)
www.jabbnet.com
https://malque.pub/ojs/index.php/jabb
Central and South America, Africa, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and
Eastern Europe1. Translational Animal Science 3:84–92. doi:
10.1093/tas/txy102.
Ceballos MC, Sant’Anna AC, Boivin X, de Oliveira Costa F, Paranhos da
Costa, MJR (2018) Impact of good practices of handling training on beef
cattle welfare and stockpeople attitudes and behaviors. Livest. Sci. 216:24–
31. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2018.06.019.
Chiquitelli Neto M, Titto CG, Maia ASC, Puoli Filho JNP, Longo ALS, Leme-
dos-Santos, TDC, Titto EAL, Camerro LZ, Pereira AMF (2015) Rational
management raises the Guzerat cattle welfare and improves the efficiency
of vaccination work. Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology
3:101-106. doi: 10.14269/2318-1265/jabb.v3n4p101-106.
Collier RJ, Beede DK, Thatcher WW, Israel LA, Wilcox CJ (1982) Influences of
environment and its modification on dairy animal health and
production. Journal of Dairy Science 65:2213–2227. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-
0302(82)82484-3.
Collier RJ, Dahl, GE, VanBaale MJ (2006) Major advances associated with
environmental effects on dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89:1244–
1253. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72193-2.
Costa A, Neglia G, Campanile G, De Marchi M (2020) Milk somatic cell count
and its relationship with milk yield and quality traits in Italian water
buffaloes. Journal of . Dairy Science. 103:5485–5494. doi:
10.3168/jds.2019-18009.
De Rensis F, Garcia-Ispierto I, López-Gatius F (2015) Seasonal heat stress:
Clinical implications and hormone treatments for the fertility of dairy
cows. Theriogenology 84:659–666. doi:
10.1016/j.theriogenology.2015.04.021.
EFSA European Food Safety Authority. (2009). Scientific opinion on welfare
of dairy cows in relation to behaviour, fear and pain based on a risk
assessment with special reference to the impact of housing, feeding,
management and genetic selection: Scientific opinion on welfare of dairy
cows in relation to behavioour, fear and pain based on a risk assessment
with special reference to the impact of. EFSA Journal 7, 1139. doi:
10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1139.
Engler P, Cuatrin A, Apez M, Maekawa M, Litwin G, Centeno A, Marino M,
Moretto M (2022) Argentine dairy statistics 2020-2021. Available at:
https://www.ocla.org.ar/noticias/25641619-encuesta-lechera-inta-2020-
2021-documento-completo. Accessed on: August 16, 2023.
Estévez-Moreno LX, Miranda-de la Lama GC, Miguel-Pacheco GG (2022)
Consumer attitudes towards farm animal welfare in Argentina, Chile,
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia: A segmentation-based study. Meat
Science 187:108747. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108747.
Farm Animal Care Manual Version 4.0 (n.d.). Nationaldairyfarm.com.
Available at: https://nationaldairyfarm.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/Animal-Care-V4-Manual-Print-Friendly.pdf.
Accessed on: December 28, 2022.
Ferguson JD, Galligan DT, Thomsen N (1994) Principal descriptors of body
condition score in Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 77:2695–2703.
doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77212-X.
Fernandes JN, Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ, Tilbrook, AJ (2021) Costs and
benefits of improving farm animal welfare. Agriculture 11:104. doi:
10.3390/agriculture11020104.
Fraser D (2008) Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50:S1. doi: 10.1186/1751-
0147-50-s1-s1.
Galán E, Llonch P, Villagrá A, Levit H, Pinto S, del Prado A (2018) A
systematic review of non-productivity-related animal-based indicators of
heat stress resilience in dairy cattle. PLoS One 13?e0206520. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0206520.
Gantner V, Bobic T, Gantner R, Gregic M, Kuterovac K, Novakovic J,
Potocnik K (2017) Differences in response to heat stress due to production
level and breed of dairy cows. International Journal of
Biometeorology 61:1675–1685. doi: 10.1007/s00484-017-1348-7.
Gastaldi LB, Gattinoni NN, De Ruyver R, Toffoli G (2022) Índice de
temperatura y humedad en localidades argentinas. Revista FAVE Sección
Ciencias Agrarias 21:12324. doi: 10.14409/fa.v21i2.12324.
Grummer RR (1995) Impact of changes in organic nutrient metabolism on
feeding the transition dairy cow. Journal of Animal Science 73:2820–2833.
doi: 10.2527/1995.7392820x.
Hand KJ, Godkin A, Kelton DF (2012) Milk production and somatic cell
counts: A cow-level analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 95:1358–1362. doi:
10.3168/jds.2011-4927.
Jensen MB, Vestergaard M (2021) Invited review: Freedom from thirst-Do
dairy cows and calves have sufficient access to drinking water? Journal of
Dairy Science 104:11368–11385. doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-20487.
Ji B, Banhazi T, Perano K, Ghahramani A, Bowtell L, Wang C, Li B (2020). A
review of measuring, assessing and mitigating heat stress in dairy
cattle. Biosystems Engineering 199:4–26. doi:
10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2020.07.009.
Kendall PE, Nielsen PP, Webster JR., Verkerk GA, Littlejohn RP, Matthews LR
(2006) The effects of providing shade to lactating dairy cows in a temperate
climate. Livestock Science 103:148–157. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2006.02.004.
Krueger A, Cruickshank J, Trevisi E, Bionaz,M (2020) Systems for evaluation
of welfare on dairy farms. The Journal of Dairy Research 87:13–19. doi:
10.1017/S0022029920000461.
Lara R, Lazzarini B, Baudracco J (2019) Caracterización técnico-productiva
de fincas lecheras del noreste de la provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Chilean Journal of Agricultural & Animal Sciences: Ex Agro-Ciencia. doi:
10.4067/s0719-38902019005000304.
Lazzarini B, Baudracco J, Tuñon G, Gastaldi L, Lyons N, Quattrochi H, Lopez-
Villalobos N (2019). Review: Milk production from dairy cows in Argentina:
Current state and perspectives for the future. Applied Animal
Science 35:426–432. doi: 10.15232/aas.2019-01842.
Mee JF, Boyle LA (2020) Assessing whether dairy cow welfare is “better” in
pasture-based than in confinement-based management systems. New
Zealand Veterinary Journal 68:168–177. doi:
10.1080/00480169.2020.1721034.
Melendez P, Bargo F, Tuñón G, Grigera, J (2020) Associations between
postpartum diseases and milk yield and changes in body condition between
drying off and parturition of dairy cows in Argentina. New Zealand
Veterinary Journal 68:297–303. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2020.1763218.
Miglierina MM, Bonadeo N, Ornstein AM, Becú-Villalobos D, Lacau-
Mengido IM (2018) In situ provision of drinking water to grazing dairy cows
improves milk production. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 66:37–40. doi:
10.1080/00480169.2017.1374885.
New Zealand. (2019). Dairy Cattle Code of Welfare. Available at:
https://www.dairynz.co.nz/media/5792347/dairy-cattle-code-of-welfare-
dairy-cattle.pdf. Accessed on: April 3, 2023.
OCLA. (2023). Observatorio de la cadena láctea Argentina. Available at:
https://www.ocla.org.ar/portafolio/17/. Accessed on: May 15, 2023.
Ortiz-Pelaez A, Pritchard DG, Pfeiffer DU, Jones E, Honeyman P, Mawdsley
JJ (2008) Calf mortality as a welfare indicator on British cattle
farms. Veterinary Journal 176:177–181. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.02.006.
Phillips C (2015) Welfare and cattle behavior. In: Cockcroft PD (ed) Bovine
Medicine, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 291-296.
Piccardi M, Capitaine Funes A, Bó GA, Balzarini M (2011) Impacto del nivel
de producción, estación de parto y el tipo de servicio sobre la tasa de
preñez acumulada a 100 días en vacas lecheras en la
Argentina. Agriscientia 28:127–135. doi: 10.31047/1668.298x.v28.n2.2790.
Polsky L, von Keyserlingk MAG (2017) Invited review: Effects of heat stress
on dairy cattle welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 100:8645–8657. doi:
10.3168/jds.2017-12651.
Pro Weideland (2018) Rahmenbedingungen und Kriterien für die Erzeugung
und Vermarktung von Weidemilchprodukten im Rahmen des Projektes
Weideland Niedersachsen, Conditions and criteria for the production and
marketing of pasture milk products within the project Pasture Lan.
Ovelgönne, Germany.
Recce S, Huber E, Notaro US, Rodríguez FM, Ortega HH, Rey F, Signorini ML,
Salvetti NR (2021). Association between heat stress during intrauterine
development and the calving-to-conception and calving-to-first-service
intervals in Holstein cows. Theriogenology 162:95–104. doi:
10.1016/j.theriogenology.2021.01.002.
11
Lazzarini et al. (2024)
www.jabbnet.com
https://malque.pub/ojs/index.php/jabb
Roche JR, Friggens NC, Kay JK, Fisher MW, Stafford KJ, Berry DP (2009)
Invited review: Body condition score and its association with dairy cow
productivity, health, and welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 92:5769–5801.
doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2431.
Roche JR, Kay JK, Friggens NC, Loor JJ, Berry DP (2013) Assessing and
managing body condition score for the prevention of metabolic disease in
dairy cows. The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Food Animal
Practice 29:323–336. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2013.03.003.
Roche JR, Meier S, Heiser A, Mitchell MD, Walker CG, Crookenden MA,
Vailati, Riboni M, Loor JJ, Kay JK 2015. Effects of precalving body condition
score and prepartum feeding level on production, reproduction, and health
parameters in pasture-based transition dairy cows. Journal of Dairy
Science 98:7164–7182. doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-9269.
Schuppli CA, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM (2014) Access to pasture for
dairy cows: Responses from an online engagement. Journal of Animal
Science 92:5185–5192. doi: 10.2527/jas.2014-7725.
Sharma AK, Rodriguez LA, Mekonnen G, Wilcox CJ, Bachman KC, Collier RJ
(1983) Climatological and genetic effects on milk composition and
yield. Journal Dairy Science 66:119–126. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-
0302(83)81762-7.
Sharma N, Singh NK, Bhadwal MS (2011) Relationship of somatic cell count
and mastitis: An overview. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
24:429–438. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2011.10233.
SENASA Service of Health and Quality of Agricultural Food. (2015). Manual
de bienestar animal. Available at:
https://www.senasa.gob.ar/sites/default/files/ARBOL_SENASA/ANIMAL/B
OVINOS_BUBALINOS/INDUSTRIA/ESTABL_IND/BIENESTAR/manual_de_bien
estar_animal_especies_domesticas_-_senasa_-_version_1-2015.pdf.
Accessed on: May 5, 2023.
Silva SR, Araujo JP, Guedes C, Silva F, Almeida M, Cerqueira JL (2022)
Correction: Silva et al. Precision technologies to address dairy cattle
welfare: Focus on lameness, mastitis and body condition. Animals
(Basel) 12:683. doi: 10.3390/ani12060683.
Simon GE, Hoar BR, Tucker CB (2016) Assessing cow-calf welfare. Part 2:
Risk factors for beef cow health and behavior and stockperson
handling. Journal of Animal Science 94:3488–3500. doi: 10.2527/jas.2016-
0309.
Smith DL, Smith T, Rude BJ, Ward SH (2013) Short communication:
comparison of the effects of heat stress on milk and component yields and
somatic cell score in Holstein and Jersey cows . Journal of Dairy
Science. 96:3028–3033. doi: 10.3168/jds.2012-5737.
Spooner JM, Schuppli CA, Fraser D (2014) Attitudes of Canadian citizens
toward farm animal welfare: A qualitative study. Livestock
Science 163:150–158. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2014.02.011.
Stampa E, Schipmann-Schwarze C, Hamm U (2020) Consumer perceptions,
preferences, and behavior regarding pasture-raised livestock products: A
review. Food Quality and Preference 82:103872. doi:
10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103872.
Stygar AH, Frondelius L, Berteselli GV, Gómez Y, Canali E, Niemi JK. Llonch P
Pastell M (2023) Measuring dairy cow welfare with real -time sensor-based
data and farm records: a concept study. Animal, 101023. doi:
10.1016/j.animal.2023.101023.
Stygar A H, Gómez Y, Berteselli GV, Dalla Costa E, Canali E, Niemi JK, Llonch
P, Pastell M (2021) A systematic review on commercially available and
validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy
cattle. Frontiers in veterinary science 8. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.634338.
Thom EC (1959) The Discomfort Index. Weatherwise 12:57–61. doi:
10.1080/00431672.1959.9926960.
Thomsen PT, Houe H (2018) Cow mortality as an indicator of animal welfare
in dairy herds. Research in Veterinary Science 119:239–243. doi:
10.1016/j.rvsc.2018.06.021.
Thomsen PT, Shearer JK, Houe H (2023) Prevalence of lameness in dairy
cows: A literature review. Veterinary Journal 295.
doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2023.105975.
von Keyserlingk MAG, Rushen J, de Passillé AM, Weary DM (2009) Invited
review: The welfare of dairy cattle--key concepts and the role of
science. Journal of Dairy Science 92:4101–4111. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-
2326.
Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle 2009 Welfare Quality®
Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands, 2009.
Whay HR, Shearer JK (2017) The impact of lameness on welfare of the dairy
cow. Veterinary Clinics of North America Food Animal Practice 33:153–164.
doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2017.02.008.
