Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T00:24:28.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dairy producers in the Southeast United States are concerned with cow care and welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2020

Amanda Lee ,
Susan Schexnayder ,
Liesel Schneider ,
Stephen Oliver ,
Gina Pighetti ,
Christina Petersson-Wolfe ,
Jeffrey Bewley ,
Stephanie Ward  and
Peter Krawczel
Amanda Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science; University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TENN, USA
Susan Schexnayder
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TENN, USA
Liesel Schneider
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science; University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TENN, USA
Stephen Oliver
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science; University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TENN, USA
Gina Pighetti
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science; University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TENN, USA
Christina Petersson-Wolfe
Affiliation:
Department of Dairy Science, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Jeffrey Bewley
Affiliation:
Alltech Inc., Nicholasville, KY, USA
Stephanie Ward
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Peter Krawczel*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science; University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TENN, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Peter Krawczel, Email: krawczel@utk.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research communication addresses the hypothesis that Southeast dairy producers' self-reported bulk tank somatic cell count (BTSCC) was associated with producers' response to three statements (1) ‘a troublesome thing about mastitis is the worries it causes me,’ (2) ‘a troublesome thing about mastitis is that cows suffer,’ and (3) ‘my broad goals include taking good care of my cows and heifers.’ Surveys were mailed to producers in Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia (29% response rate, N = 596; final analysis N = 574), as part of a larger survey to assess Southeastern dairy producers' opinions related to BTSCC. Surveys contained 34 binomial (n = 9), Likert scale (n = 7), and descriptive (n = 18) statements targeted at producer self-assessment of herd records, management practices, and BTSCC. Statements 1 and 2 were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.’ Statement 3 was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale from ‘very unimportant’ to ‘very important.’ Reported mean BTSCC for all participants was 254 500 cells/ml. Separate univariable logistic regressions using generalized linear mixed models (SAS 9.4, Cary, NC, USA) with a random effect of farm, were performed to determine if BTSCC was associated with probability for a producer's response to statements. If BTSCC was significant, forward manual addition was performed until no additional variables were significant (P ≤ 0.05), but included BTSCC, regardless of significance. Bulk tank somatic cell count was associated with ‘a troublesome thing about mastitis is the worries it causes me,’ but not with Statements 2 or 3. This demonstrates that >75% of Southeastern dairy producers are concerned with animal care and cow suffering, regardless of BTSCC. Understanding Southeast producers' emphasis on cow care is necessary to create targeted management tools for herds with elevated BTSCC.

Keywords

Bulk tank somatic cell countcow careproducer perceptionsuffering
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 87 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 60 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Hannah Dairy Research Foundation 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

DeLong, KL, Lambert, DM, Schexnayder, S, Krawczel, PD, Fly, M, Garkovich, L and Oliver, S (2017) Farm business and operator variables associated with bulk tank somatic cell count from dairy herds in the southeastern United States. Journal Dairy Science 100, 9298–9310.Google ScholarPubMed
Giovannini, AEJ, van den Borne, BHP, Wall, SK, Wellnitz, O, Bruckmaier, RM and Spadavecchia, C (2017) Experimentally induced subclinical mastitis: are lipopolysaccharide and lipoteichoic acid eliciting similar pain responses? Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 59, 40.10.1186/s13028-017-0306-zGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jansen, J, van den Borne, BH, Renes, RJ, van Schaik, G, Lam, TJ and Leeuwis, C (2009) Explaining mastitis incidence in Dutch dairy farming: the influence of farmers' attitudes and behaviour. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 92, 210–223.Google ScholarPubMed
Kielland, C, Skjerve, E, Østerås, O and Zanella, AJ (2010) Dairy farmer attitudes and empathy toward animals are associated with animal welfare indicators. Journal Dairy Science 93, 2998–3006.Google ScholarPubMed
Nechanitzky, K, Starke, A, Vidondo, B, Müller, H, Reckardt, M, Friedli, K and Steiner, A (2016) Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. Journal Dairy Science 99, 2904–2914.10.3168/jds.2015-10109Google ScholarPubMed
Norman, HD, Walton, LM and Durr, J (2018) Somatic Cell Counts Of Milk From DHI Herds Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding. Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding Research Report SCC19 (2-18) Beltsville, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, AN (1992) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing, and Attitude Measurement. London, UK: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
Sauro, J and Dumas, JS (2009) Comparison of three one-question, post-task usability questionnaires. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems ACM Boston MA USA 1599-1608.Google Scholar
Schewe, RL, Kayitsinga, J, Contreras, GA, Odom, C, Coats, WA, Durst, P, Hovingh, EP, Martinez, RO, Mobley, R, Moore, S and Erskine, RJ (2015) Herd management and social variables associated with bulk tank somatic cell count in dairy herds in the eastern United States. Journal Dairy Science 98, 7650–7665.Google ScholarPubMed
Spooner, JM, Schuppli, CA and Fraser, D (2012) Attitudes of Canadian beef producers toward animal welfare. Animal Welfare 21, 273–283.Google Scholar
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, and Food & Drug Administration (2017) Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk Ordinance 2017 Revision Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Ventura, BA, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Weary, DM (2015) Animal welfare concerns and values of stakeholders within the dairy industry. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28, 109–112.10.1007/s10806-014-9523-xGoogle Scholar
Widmar, NO, Morgan, CJ, Wolf, CA, Yeager, EA, Dominick, SR and Croney, CC (2017) US Resident perceptions of dairy cattle management practices. Agricultural Sciences 8, 645–656.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Lee et al. supplementary material

Lee et al. supplementary material

Download Lee et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.2 MB