Using the Herd Status Index to remotely assess the welfare status of dairy herds based on prerecorded data

• Published in: Animal (Cambridge, England) Vol. 16; no. 10; p. 100641
• Main Authors: Dallago, G.M., Mauyenova, N., Warner, D., Cue, R.I., Vasseur, E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier B.V 01-10-2022; Elsevier
• Subjects: Cluster analysis; Dairy cow; Dairy herd improvement data; Herd management; Precision dairy farming; Cluster analysis; Dairy cow; Herd management; Precision dairy farming; Dairy herd improvement data
• ISSN: 1751-7311; 1751-732X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.animal.2022.100641

•Herd status index was previously developed to remotely assess dairy herd welfare status.•A validation of the index was done based on animal outcome measures of welfare.•In its current form, the index has a weak ability to assess herd welfare status.•The index requires further improvement before being used for advisory services.•A broader range of welfare outcome measures are required.
The use of prerecorded data to remotely assess the herd welfare status is a promising approach to reduce the need for costly and time-consuming on-farm welfare assessments. Therefore, the objective of this study was to validate the Herd Status Index, an index developed based on Dairy Herd Improvement data from Canada, to remotely evaluate the welfare status of dairy herds. Herd-level prevalence of five animal-based welfare outcomes, measured once on 2 986 Quebec – Canada dairy herds between 2016 and 2019, were used to generate clusters with different welfare status using the algorithm partitioning around medoids. Dairy Herd Improvement data from 12 months prior to the welfare assessment were extracted and used to calculate the Herd Status Index. A linear model was used to carry out comparisons between clusters. Three stable clusters were found to best describe the data. Cluster two had the best overall welfare status since it had the lowest prevalence of all welfare issues while cluster three had the highest prevalence of most welfare issues, with the exception for the prevalence of neck lesions that was not different than cluster one. Cluster one had an overall intermediate welfare status. The Herd Status Index was higher (i.e., indicating a good welfare status) on cluster two compared to cluster three, but neither cluster three nor two differed to cluster one. In its current format, the Herd Status Index has a weak potential to identify herds with varying prevalence of welfare issues and it requires further improvements before it could be used to accurately assess the welfare status of the herds.