Effects of thermal stress on calf welfare

Cold and heat stress present welfare challenges for dairy calves. The consequences of thermal stress on biological functioning have been well documented, and many housing and management strategies have been evaluated to mitigate those detrimental impacts. In cold weather, mitigation strategies have largely focused on nutritional interventions or limiting heat loss with resources such as bedding or jackets. In hot weather, heat abatement strategies such as supplemental shade, increased environmental air exchange through passive ventilation, and forced air movement through mechanical ventilation have been evaluated. Recently in Wisconsin's continental climate, our group evaluated how 2 aspects of calf welfare-the needs for thermal comfort and social contact (i.e., pair or group housing vs. individual housing)-may align or conflict in winter and summer, respectively. In both seasons, calves pair-housed in outdoor hutches preferred social proximity. When 2 calves shared a hutch, the heat load was greater than for a single calf, which may be beneficial for thermal comfort in winter. In summer, the potential detriments from the additional heat load of 2 calves was mitigated with passive hutch ventilation, which calves preferred. Nonetheless, knowledge gaps remain regarding the impacts of thermal stress on calves' affective states, and much remains unknown about their preferences and motivations for specific thermal stress mitigation resources. Future research to address these gaps could improve our understanding of calf welfare and inform best practices for calf management.

Actively ventilating calf hutches using solar-powered fans: Effects on hutch microclimate and calf thermoregulation

Although active ventilation via fans is an effective and widely adopted heat abatement method for use with adult dairy cattle, it has yet to be investigated in outdoor hutch-housed dairy calves despite most US calves being raised in such systems. We investigated a solar-powered fan system for outdoor calf hutches and its effect on hutch microclimate and calf thermoregulation. During summer, a 3 × 3 Latin square was replicated 4 times (n = 12 preweaning heifers) with 4-d exposure periods to minimally (CON; rear windows closed), passively (PASS; rear windows opened), or actively (ACT; solar-powered fan, activated at dry bulb temperature [Tdb] > 21°C) ventilated hutch systems. Hutch microclimate and calf thermoregulation were evaluated either continuously (Tdb, humidity, rectum surface temperature, and behavior) or after a daily 30-min inside restriction (air speed, air particle number, noise level, respiration, and sweating rate, and skin and rectal temperature). Active ventilation substantially increased hutch air speed relative to PASS and CON (1.76 vs. 0.19 vs. 0.05 m/s). However, PASS hutches had the lowest INT Tdb (27.2 vs. 26.4 vs. 27.8°C), whereas ACT INT Tdb was reduced at 0900 and 1000 h relative to CON but not PASS. Similarly, ACT reduced calf respiration rates and lowered rectum surface temperature at 0800 and 0900 h when compared with CON but not PASS. The lack of strong ACT influence on calf outcomes over PASS could partially be explained by the decreased proportion of time ACT calves spent inside their hutch (48.7 vs. 67.3 vs. 64.1% of each hour). Overall, ACT improved hutch microclimate and calf responses relative to CON but not PASS. Either ACT or PASS ventilation may be sufficient to provide heat abatement to continental hutch-housed calves.

Perceptions of dairy cow-handling situations: A comparison of public and industry samples

Inappropriate cattle handling poses a reputational threat to the dairy industry. To enhance social sustainability, handling practices must resonate with societal values about animal care. However, it has yet to be determined to what extent industry and public stakeholders differ in their perception of common cattle handling situations. We administered an online survey to samples of dairy industry (IND) and public (PUB) stakeholders to examine how they perceive a variety of cow-handling scenarios ranging from positive to negative in terms of effects on animal welfare. Participants were presented with 12 brief videos depicting a range of realistic cow-handling situations and responded to measures designed to assess their attitudes and beliefs about each scenario, their perception of the emotional response of the cows depicted in each scenario, as well as their own personal emotional response. Preexisting beliefs about cow treatment on US dairy farms and demographic data, including self-reported dairy consumption, were also collected and analyzed. Before viewing the videos, 52.9% of PUB (vs. 79.0% of IND) believed cows were treated well while 27.2% (vs. 9.0% of IND) believed cows were treated badly. Within IND, believing cows were treated badly was more common among nonwhites, those with greater formal education, more liberal politics, or from urban or suburban environments. In PUB, female and younger participants were more likely to believe cows were treated badly before viewing the videos. In both samples, participants with more positive preexisting beliefs about dairy cow treatment in the US reported consuming dairy products more frequently. In both PUB and IND, scenarios which were rated more positively for attitudes or for the cows' or respondents' emotional experiences were also perceived as more common. Within a given cow-handling scenario, qualitative attitudes (i.e., a positive, negative, or neutral valence) did not differ between the samples. In both samples, at the participant level, overall attitudes toward cow-handling scenarios were highly correlated with both their personal emotional response to the scenario and their perception of the cows' emotional responses. Although the participants' overall personal emotional responses did not differ between the samples, IND rated cows as experiencing more negative emotions overall. The consensus between industry and public stakeholders around dairy cow-handling practices observed in this study could provide a common starting point for addressing other, more contentious animal welfare issues.

Principles of practice from the European expert panel on the contemporary treatment of schizophrenia

Providing optimal treatment for people with schizophrenia is a difficult long-term problem for clinicians and healthcare providers. Over the years a variety of approaches to treatment have evolved and, until now, there have been no widely accepted standards for care. To determine the principles underpinning the best practice for schizophrenia treatment, an Expert Panel of European psychiatrists and psychologists has worked to distil current theory, collective practical experiences and published literature into 17 basic Principles of Practice . These are not intended to duplicate or replace local treatment policies or guidelines. Instead, they describe best practice in diagnosis, patient assessment and long-term treatment of schizophrenia as it exists at the beginning of the 21st century and is likely to exist in the near future. The Principles of Practice broadly fall into four main categories: (1) assessment, diagnosis and care provision; (2) treatment in day-to-day practice; (3) building a positive therapeutic alliance; and (4) a long-term clinical commitment. Running through all the Principles are several common threads - the fundamental importance of the therapeutic alliance between the clinician and the patient, the need to plan both for treatment efficacy and avoidance of side-effects and the importance of long-term treatment planning. It is intended that psychiatrists and other healthcare professionals can use the Principles as a benchmark for optimum patient management, and as a tool when negotiating the future of local and national schizophrenia management services. Furthermore, the Principles of Practice represent a first step in the development of a new patient-centred philosophy for the care of people with schizophrenia.

From first episode to long-term care: The need for sustained clinical commitment

There is considerable evidence to suggest that many patients experience difficulties in gaining access to treatment after the onset of significant symptoms and social disability. Delay in obtaining appropriate support and treatment can have profound effects on both the patient and their family and may also be associated with a poorer long-term outcome. As stated in the Principles of Practice, prompt and comprehensive clinical assessment, by a clinician experienced in the recognition and treatment of severe mental illness, is therefore important for achieving the best possible outcome for the patient. The primary objectives of early-stage treatment for schizophrenia are to achieve a full improvement in psychopathological symptoms and a recovery of premorbid levels of function. However, even with optimal treatment, the reality for many patients is that their symptoms and impairment continue. Many patients can therefore be regarded as only partially responsive, or even resistant, to treatment. When assessing the utility of an antipsychotic treatment regimen for such patients, clinicians should not just consider the objective manifestations of the disorder but also the subjective experience of the patient. Relapse of illness is also a common and serious problem for many patients with schizophrenia, despite continual treatment. Prevention and management of relapse are two of the main challenges in the effective treatment of schizophrenia. The optimal use of antipsychotic treatment and the adherence by patients to that treatment offer valuable protection against relapse. Symptoms of depression or low mood affect a high proportion of patients with schizophrenia at some point in their illness and are also associated with an increased risk of relapse. Treatment objectives in the early stages may need to be modified if a pattern of partial response or resistance to treatment, a cycle of relapse of the illness or the presence of depressive symptoms, develops. Clinicians should continue to offer a sustained and positive clinical commitment to all.