Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

Minutes from the NC1029 meeting on June 26, 2012, 9AM Central time Introductions The Chair, Anna Johnson, called the meeting to order, welcomed participants, and made introductory remarks. Station reports Iowa State University, Anna Johnson Anna presented her work about lameness and pain in sows and human-animal interactions in pigs. USDA-ARS Purdue, Don Lay Don presented work from his group at USDA and Croneys work at Purdue, including work with veal calf housing, gas euthanasia of piglets, mechanisms controlling aggression in laying hens, effects of perch use by laying hens, shelter cat welfare, temperament testing in dogs, and environmental enrichment for laying hens. University of California, Cassandra Tucker Cassandra presented work about assessing comfort of standing surfaces for dairy cows. University of Minnesota, Marcia Endres Marcia presented work about sampling regimes in on-farm assessment of dairy cattle welfare and epidemiological work looking at the mortality and management of freestall barns for dairy cows. Washington State University, Ruth Newberry Ruth presented work about vocalizations in piglets, cognitive bias in grizzly bears, social isolation of chicks and epidemiological work with laying hen housing. Administrative Advisor report, Ernie Minton, Kansas State University We agreed that the electronic format for our meetings was acceptable and agreed that we will take this same approach next year. Cassandra Tucker, UC Davis, will host and organize the electronic session (via Adobe Connect) as chair, likely in May or June 2013. Ernie also highlighted that agricultural experimental stations may provide travel funds to attend our meetings. Candace Croney was nominated as secretary for 2013, but she declined. Angela Green has now been approached about serving in this role for 2013 and, at the time of writing these notes (July 13, 2012), it was not yet clear if she had accepted or not. Station reports are due to Anna Johnson by Aug 13, 2012. Please follow the format sent out by Ernie and Anna. Update about USDA NIFA process, Margo Holland and Peter Johnson (via email) We anticipate release of the foundational RFAs in mid-August to early September. While we can't guarantee, we also anticipate that animal health, animal welfare, etc. researchers will have opportunities for grant submissions. If you have specific questions, let us know, we will try to answer if possible. An electronic recording of this meeting can be found at: https://connect.extension.iastate.edu/p4l6lpd8alm/

Objective one: To develop novel animal behavior measurement techniques and to evaluate animal behavior as an indicator of animal welfare. UC-Davis evaluated novel measurements: EMG (muscle activity) in dairy cattle We evaluated the effect of slope on skeletal muscle activity during 90 min of standing. Sixteen Holstein cows will stand on floors with 0%, 3%, 6%, and 9% slope for 90 min/treatment before milking in a cross-over design, with 24 h between each testing session. Electromyograms (EMG) will be used to evaluate the activity of middle gluteal and biceps femoris muscles. Contractions were recorded before, after and during exposure to each slope. Median power frequency (MPF) and median amplitude (MA) values were used for analysis in general linear models (PROC GLM in SAS). We predicted that restless behavior, muscle fatigue (as measured by MPF and MA) and latency to lie down after testing would increase with the slope of the standing surface. We found, however, no significant differences in muscle function, restless behavior or latency to lie down associated with slope. Myoelectrical activity (MPF) was greater for the middle gluteal muscle (91.4±1.69 Hz) compared to the biceps femoris muscle (77.7±1.24 Hz, P<0.001) indicating the middle gluteal muscle was more active under these test conditions. The number of steps increased over the 90-min of standing (P<0.001, from 4.5 to 6.5 steps/min in the first and last 15 min, respectively), regardless of the slope. Although restless behavior and muscle function did not change with slope in this context, this work is the first to use EMG to assess skeletal muscle activity in cattle. We suggest that this technology, along with restless behavior, may be useful in assessing muscle function, and perhaps fatigue, in more strenuous situations, such as prolonged standing associated with transport. PhD student, Eranda Rajapaksha, presented these findings at the International Society for Applied Ethology meeting in July/Aug 2011. Objective two: To improve our understanding of various aspects of on-farm welfare assessment and auditing programs such as sampling (including frequency of visits, number of animals/pens/cages monitored, and other aspects of methodology) and the appropriateness and feasibility of various on-farm measurements. UC-Davis and U Minnesota evaluated the appropriate sample size required to measure lameness, hygiene, leg injuries and body condition score on dairy farms. We visited 52 randomly selected free-stall dairy farms in Minnesota once during the summer (completed before 2011). Cows in the high-production pen were evaluated for lameness using a 5-point locomotion scoring system (1 = normal locomotion, 2 = imperfect locomotion, 3 = lame, 4 = moderately lame, and 5 = severely lame). Animals were scored for body condition (BCS) using a 5-point scale, where 1 = emaciated and 5 = obese. Hygiene scores were assessed by the amount of dirt on the udder and lower hind legs based on a 5-point scale with 1 = clean and 5 = dirty. Hock injuries were classified as 1 = no lesion, 2 = hair loss (mild lesion), and 3 = swollen hock (severe lesion). Subsets of data from each farm were created with 10 replicates of random sampling with replacement using PROC SURVEY SELECT in SAS. These subsets represented 100, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 15, 10, 5 and 3% of the cows measured/farm. The association between the estimates derived from each subset and the estimated prevalence of the pens were evaluated using linear regression. Cows were rarely very thin (BCS = 2; 0.10% of cows) or very fat (BCS e 4, 0.11% of cows). A relatively large portion of the cows were dirty (hygiene score 3 or more = 54.9% of cows). Approximately a quarter (24.4%) of the cows were classified as lame (locomotion score e 3) and 6% were classified as severely lame (score e 4). Ten percent of cows had severe hock lesions (10.6% cows with hock score = 3). Subsets of data from each farm were created with 10 replicates of random sampling with replacement using PROC SURVEY SELECT in SAS. These subsets represented 100, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 15, 10, 5 and 3% of the cows measured/pen. The association between the estimates derived from each subset and the estimated prevalence of the pens was evaluated using linear regression. Recording 15% of the pen represented the percentage of clinically lame cows (score 3 or more) with high accuracy (R2 > 0.9), although a higher percentage (30%) of the pen needed to be measured in order to accurately estimate severe lameness (score 4 or more). Only 15% of the pen needed to be sampled to accurately estimate (R2 >0.9) the percentage of the herd with hygiene score e 3, whereas 30% needed to be scored to accurately estimate the prevalence of severe hock lesions. Estimating the portion of thin and fat cows required that 70 to 80% of the pen be measured in order to accurately describe this parameter. Thus, unsurprisingly, a higher percentage of the group must be sampled to generate accurate estimates for relatively rare parameters among lactating cattle (e.g. very thin cows). Dr. Marcia Endres presented these findings at the Welfare Assessment at the Farm and Group Level meeting in Aug 2011. At University of Minnesota, one MS student graduated in 2011 mentored by Dr. Endres. Three manuscripts were published. Various extension presentations were given on topics related to dairy welfare. ISU studied validation of willingness to approach in the nursery pig The expectation from retailers and the public for on-farm animal welfare practices to be routinely practiced will continue. The U.S. swine industry has the Pork Quality Plus assessment program and starting in 2011 began on-farm third party verification. However, the lack of an animal-human based measure in the current programs has drawn criticism from some activist groups. Therefore, investigating the feasibility of collecting on farm-animal-human based measures that are repeatable, objective and meaningful is critical. The objective of the first study was to build a nursery pen image capturing device that could produce a digital image concurrently with a live human to allow comparisons of pig touch look and not behaviors when an unfamiliar human was in their home pen. The objective of the second study was to compare the live human observation to the digital image methodology for pigs classified as touch, look and not in commercial nursery pens with an unfamiliar human in their home pen. The objective of the third study was to compare live human observation to the digital image and to determine injection effects in commercial nursery pens. The overall conclusion for the first chapter was that pigs housed in small nursery pens was that a device could be built and used on farm and in addition there were no differences between these two methodologies. The second chapter noted differences in the methods. In the digital image including more look and less not pigs. The majority of pigs classified as not were standing, followed by sitting, standing, head in feeder, mouth around drinker and only 2.5% of nursery pigs were piling. The behavioral differences between the two methodologies may have included (1) live observer field of vision limitations (2) data collection time points for the methods differed and (3) pig and observer anatomy obstructions at the time of the count. In the third chapter there was no difference between the live and digital methodologies for pigs classified as touch, look, not and approach. There was no difference for pre injection behaviors over all treatments. Post injection, less Circumvent-PCVM injected pigs were classified as touch and look with more not compared to CircoFLEX/MycoFLEX and saline control pigs. When not pigs were broken down into behaviors and postures, more Circumvent-PCVM pigs exhibited less standing but more sitting and lying compared to CircoFLEX/MycoFLEX and saline control pigs. In conclusion the live human observation methodology of classifying nursery pig behavior took the least amount of time and thus was the quicker on-farm method. The digital image allowed for more animal-human interaction measures to be collected i.e. behaviors, postures, location and distance from the human in the pen. Determining what these pigs are engaged in if not considered approaching would provide information to a producer, veterinarian, and/or assessor on the pigs overall comfort level. It could be erroneous to conclude that all pigs classified as not are fearful of the human in their home pen and therefore in a compromised state of welfare. As a caveat, classifying these not pigs is time consuming and the digital image methodology would likely not be accepted within an industry on-farm assessment program. Therefore, if negative behavior(s), which have been identified in scientific papers i.e. piling, or escape/avoidance behaviors were counted instead of behaviors and postures from motivational systems considered to not negatively affect welfare, then only a few pigs in a pen would likely need to be counted and the remainder would be counted as acceptable or not fearful. Therefore, when deciding upon which methodology (live vs. digital) to use for an animal-human interaction test, the decision will likely be based on (1) it being practical, repeatable and meaningful and (2) the objective(s) of the study. MS student Shawna Weimer defended and passed her thesis that contained this research on 20 June 2012. At Michigan State, J Siegford is developing APHIS modules for the National Veterinary Accreditation Program on welfare. In addition, research is underway on USDA AFRI (2009, J Siegford, J Swanson et al) on developing a sensor to monitor laying hen activity and resource use. Also, research is underway on large comparative housing commercial laying hen project (2010, D Karcher et alincluding J Siegford & J Swanson). Research is also starting on evaluating health and behavior of dairy cows on pasture during transition (J Siegford & E Karcher, 2010). J Swansons PhD student is starting work examining fear and feather pecking in turkeys.

Peer review papers Abood SK, Siegford JM. 2012. Student perceptions of an animal welfare and ethics course taught early in the veterinary curriculum. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education. 39(2):136-141. doi:10.3138/jvme.0911.093R1 Banerjee D, Daigle C, Biswas S, Siegford JM. 2012. Remote activity classification of hens using wireless body mounted sensors. Body Sensor Networks 2012:107-112. Peer-reviewed article published as part of the Ninth International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks, London, United Kingdom. doi.10.1109/BSN.2012.5 Bates RO, Ferry E, Guthrie T, May G, Rozeboom DW, Siegford JM. 2012. Assessment of pork producer educational needs for adoption of group sow housing. Journal of Extension. June 25 issue. Berry, N. L., A. K. Johnson, J. Hill. S. Lonergan, L. A. Karriker, and K. J. Stalder. 2012. Loading gantry versus traditional chute for the finisher pig: Effect on welfare at the time of loading and performance measures and transport losses at the harvest facility. Published online Journal of Animal Science. June 4, 2012. Chapinal, N., A. M. de Passillé, J. Rushen, and C. B. Tucker. 2011. Short communication: Measures of weight distribution and frequency of steps as indicators of restless behavior. J. Dairy Sci. 94:800-803. Croney, C. C., M. Apley, J. L. Capper, J. A. Mench, and S. Priest. 2012. BIOETHICS SYMPOSIUM: The ethical food movement: What does it mean for the role of science and scientists in current debates about animal agriculture? J. Anim. Sci. 90:1570-1582. Dickey, E. R., A. K. Johnson, K. J. Stalder and K. Bregendahl. 2012. Effects of a premolt calcium and low-energy molt program on laying hen performance, egg quality and economics. Poultry Science. 91:292-203. Dippel, S., C. B. Tucker, C. Winckler, and D. M. Weary. 2011. Effects of behaviour on the development of claw lesions in early lactation dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 134:16-22. Fitzgerald, R. F., K. J. Stalder L. A. Karriker, L. J. Sadler, H. T. Hill J. Kaisand and A. K. Johnson. 2011. The effect of hoof abnormalities on sow behavior and performance. Accepted to Livestock Production 2012. Gesing, L. M., A. K. Johnson, J. T. Selsby, S. Abrams, H. Hill, A. Whiley, M. Faga., R. Bailey, K. J. Stalder, and M. J. Ritter. 2011. Effects of grow-finish group size on stress responses at loading and unloading and the impact on transport losses from market weight pigs. Professional Animal Scientist 27:477484. Heleski CR, Anthony R. 2012. Science alone is not always enough: the importance of ethical assessment for a more comprehensive view of equine welfare. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 7:169-178. Husfeldt, A.W., M.I. Endres, K.A. Janni, and J.A. Salfer. 2012. Management and characteristics of recycled manure solids used for bedding in Midwest freestall dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 95 :21952203. Jacobs JA, Ananyeva K, Siegford JM. 2012. Dairy cow behavior affects the availability of an automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy Science 95:2186-2194. Jacobs JA, Siegford JM. 2012. Invited review: The impact of automatic milking systems on dairy cow management, behavior, health and welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 95:2227-2247. Jacobs JA, Siegford JM. 2012. Lactating dairy cows adapt quickly to being milked by an automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy Science 95:1575-1584. Johnson, A. K., S. M. Lonergan W. D. Busby, S. C. Shouse, D. L Maxwell, J. D. Harmon, and M. S. Honeyman. 2011. Comparison of steer behavior and temperament when housed in a deep bedded hoop barn versus an open feedlot with shelter. J. Anim. Sci. 2011. 89:18931898. Krebs, N., S. L. Berry, and C. B. Tucker. 2011. Restless behavior increases over time, but not with compressibility of the flooring surface, during forced standing at the feed bunk. J. Dairy Sci. 94:97-105. Lay, D. C., Jr., R. M. Fulton, P. Y. Hester, D. M. Karcher, J. B. Kjaer, J. A. Mench, B. A. Mullens, R. C. Newberry, C. J. Nicol, N. P. O'Sullivan, and R. E. Porter. 2011. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poult. Sci. 90:278-294. Legrand, A., K. E. Schütz, and C. B. Tucker. 2011. Using water to cool cattle: Behavioral and physiological changes associated with voluntary use of cow showers. J. Dairy Sci. 94:3376-3386. Lobeck, K. M., M. I. Endres, E. M. Shane, S. M. Godden, and J. Fetrow. 2011. Animal welfare in cross-ventilated, compost bedded-pack, and naturally ventilated dairy barns in the upper Midwest. J. Dairy Sci. 94:5469-5479. Lobeck, K.M., M.I. Endres, K.A. Janni, S.M. Godden, and J. Fetrow. 2012. Environmental characteristics and bacterial counts in bedding and milk bulk tank of low profile cross-ventilated, naturally ventilated, and compost bedded pack dairy barns. Appl. Eng. Agric. 28: 117-128. Makagon, M. M., B. McCowan, and J. A. Mench. 2012. How can social network analysis contribute to social behavior research in applied ethology? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 138:152-161. Makagon, M. M., C. B. Tucker, and J. A. Mench. 2011. Factors affecting nest choice by Pekin ducks. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 129:121-128. McLean AK, Heleski CR, Yokoyama MT, Wang W, Doumbia A, Dembele B. 2012. Improving working donkey (Equus asinus) welfare and management in Mali, West Africa. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 7:123-134. Mench, J. A., D. A. Sumner, and J. T. Rosen-Molina. 2011. Sustainability of egg production in the United States-The policy and market context. Poult. Sci. 90:229-240. Parola, F., E. Hillman, K. E. Schütz, and C. B. Tucker. 2012. Preferences for overhead sprinklers by naïve beef steers: test of two nozzle types. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 137:13-22. Pittman-Elmore, M. R., J. P. Garner, A. K. Johnson, R. D. Kirkden, B. T. Richert, and E. A. Pajor. 2011. Getting around social status: Motivation and enrichment use of dominant and subordinate sows in a group setting. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 133:154 163. Rushen J, Butterworth A, Swanson JC. 2011. Animal welfare assurance: Science and application. Journal of Animal Science 89:1219-1228. Schütz, K. E., A. R. Rogers, N. R. Cox, J. R. Webster, and C. B. Tucker. 2011. Dairy cattle prefer shade over sprinklers: Effects on behavior and physiology. J. Dairy Sci. 94:273-283. Sun, G., R. F. Fitzgerald, S. J. Hoff, L. A. Karriker, A. K. Johnson, and K. J. Stalder. 2011. Development of an embedded microcomputer-based force plate system for measuring sow weight distribution. Transactions of the American Society of Applied Biological Engineers, Vol. 27:475-482. Sutherland, M. A. and C. B. Tucker. 2011. The long and short of it: a review of tail docking in farm animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 135:179-191. Swanson JC, Mench JA, Thompson PB. 2011. Introduction - the socially sustainable egg production project. Poultry Science 90:227-228. Swanson JC, Shin Y, Thompson P, Bawden R, Mench JA. 2011. Integration: Valuing stakeholder input in setting priorities for socially sustainable egg production. Poultry Science 90:2110-2121. Swanson, J. C., Y. Lee, P. B. Thompson, R. Bawden, and J. A. Mench. 2011. Integration: Valuing stakeholder input in setting priorities for socially sustainable egg production. Poult. Sci. 90:2110-2121. Abstracts Elmore, M. R. P., J. P. Garner, A. K. Johnson, R. D. Kirkden, B. T. Richert, and E. A. Pajor. 2011. The impact if environmentally enriched housing on sow motivation, behavior and well-being. J. Anim. Sci. 89(E2)48. Endres, M.I, L.A. Espejo, and C.B. Tucker. 2011. Evaluation of the sample needed to accurately estimate outcome-based measurements of dairy welfare on farm. Pg 12 in Proc. 5th International Conf. on the Assessment of Anim. Welfare at Farm and Group Level, Guelph, Canada, Wageningen Acad. Publ., The Netherlands. Husfeldt, A.W., M. I. Endres, K.A. Janni, J.A. Salfer, and J.K. Reneau. 2011. Chemical and bacteriological characteristics of digested, composted, and separated raw manure solids prior to use as freestall bedding. J. Dairy Sci. 94 (Suppl. 1):734. Husfeldt, A.W., M.I. Endres, J.A. Salfer, and J.K. Reneau. 2011. Mortality and herd turnover rates in dairy herds utilizing recycled manure solids for bedding freestalls. J. Dairy Sci. 94 (Suppl. 1):733. Husfeldt, A.W., M.I. Endres, K.A. Janni, J.A. Salfer, and J.K.Reneau. 2011. Chemical and bacteriological characteristics of digested, composted, and separated raw manure solids used as freestall bedding. J. Dairy Sci. 94 (Suppl. 1):734. Johnson, A. K. 2011. ASAS Early career achievement award presentation: Working to foster the discovery, sharing and application of knowledge concerning the well-being of farm animals. J. Anim. Sci. 89(E1)411. Johnson, A., J. Coetzee, K. Stalder, l. Karriker, and S. Millman. 2011. Pain: A sow lameness model. J. Anim. Sci.89(E2)48. Leuer, R.F., J. K. Reneau, J. M. Lukas, and M. I. Endres. 2011. Predictors of transition cow success from a voluntary milking system. Midwest ADSA:116. Leuer, R.F., J.K. Reneau, J.M. Lukas, and M.I. Endres. 2011. Predictors of primiparous and multiparous transition cow success from an automatic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 94 (Suppl. 1):194. Lobeck, K.M., M.I. Endres, S.M. Godden, and J. Fetrow. 2011. Dairy welfare in three housing systems in the upper Midwest. Pg 84 in Proc. 45th Congress of ISAE, Indianapolis, IN, Wageningen Acad. Publ., The Netherlands. Lobeck, K.M., M.I. Endres, S.M. Godden, and J. Fetrow. 2011. Herd turnover and mortality in low profile cross-ventilated and naturally ventilated dairy barns in the Upper Midwest. J. Dairy Sci. 94 (Suppl. 1):733. Lobeck, K.M., M.I. Endres, S.M. Godden, and J. Fetrow. 2011. Temperature and humidity in cross-ventilated and naturally ventilated dairy barns in the upper Midwest. J. Dairy Sci. 94 (Suppl. 1):734. Mack, L. A., S. D. Eicher, A. K. Johnson, D. C. Lay Jr., B. T. Richert, and E. A. Pajor. 2011. Alleyway width in a free-access stall system influences gestating sow behavior and welfare. 2011. In: E. A. Pajor and J. N. Marchant-Forde (eds.) 45th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology. p70. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Indianapolis, IN. Mack, L. A., S. D. Eicher, A. K. Johnson, D. C. Lay Jr., B. T. Richert, and E. A. Pajor. 2011. Can prenatal social stress impact sex characteristics in piglets? J. Anim. Sci. 89(E1)683. Marchant-Forde, J. N., J. P. Garner, A. K. Johnson, R. M. Marchant-Forde, and D. C. Lay. 2011. The effects of group size on aggression when mixing unacquainted sows in outdoor paddocks. J. Anim. Sci. 89(E1)12. Sapkota, A., B. L. Davis, A. Johnson, and J. J. McGlone. 2011. Market pig transport losses, surface temperatures and trailer air temperatures with medium or heavy bedding on the trailer. J. Anim. Sci. 89(E1)219. Shahid, M.Q., M.I. Endres, J.K. Reneau, R. Chebel, and H. Chester-Jones. 2011. Mortality patterns in Midwest DHIA herds. J. Dairy Sci. 94 (Suppl. 1):16. Tapper K. A. Johnson, L. Karriker, K. Stalder, J. Coetzee, R. Parsons, and S. Millman.. 2011. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to mitigate pain in lame sows. In: E. A. Pajor and J. N. Marchant-Forde (eds.) 45th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology. p10 Wageningen Academic Publishers, Indianapolis, IN. Tapper, K., A. Johnson, L. Karriker, K. Stalder, J. Coetzee, R. parsons and S. Millman. 2011. Objective pain measurement in sows with induced transient lameness. J. Anim. Sci. 89(e2)53.