The aim was to assess farmers’ knowledge of herd behaviour, grooming-related injuries, stress reduction, and familiarity with a brush device, and their attitude in adopting a low-cost stationary brush. Farmers from Southeast and Midwest of Brazil participated in an online survey. The questionnaire was organized into sections: first about the profile of farmers, second focused on the description of milk production system, and third explore farmers' knowledge and attitude towards brush devices. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and a multiple logistic regression model estimated the odds ratio. Farmers with a higher level of milking system technification were found to have 2.85 times greater odds of recognizing the need to reduce stress. Farmers interested in a low-cost brush were found to have 10.48 times greater odds of recognizing the need for stress-reducing improvements. Those who believe that the use of a brush improves milk production and cow welfare have 14.15 times higher odds of installing the low-cost brush. Most farmers reported familiarity with cow brushes. Moreover, farmers recognize the use of brushes as a beneficial strategy for reducing stress, improving milk production, and enhancing animal welfare, Consequently, they express willingness to install a low-cost stationary brush for dairy cows.
Research Article
Farmers’ knowledge and attitude towards the use of low-cost stationary brush for dairy cows
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3893618/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
Version 1
posted
You are reading this latest preprint version
animal welfare
behaviour
dairy cattle
environmental enrichment
Environmental enrichment is defined as the set of resources used to improve animals' biological functions, such as health, reproductive success, and the expression of natural behaviours (Newberry 1995), all these factors, when considered together, provides conditions that improve animal welfare (Fraser et al. 1997). In dairy production systems, an interesting environmental enrichment is the inclusion of devices that facilitate natural behaviours such as grooming (Van Os et al. 2021).
Grooming is a natural behaviour in cattle, where they use trees, fences, and other abrasive surfaces for brushing themselves (Agudelo et al. 2013). However, in many grazing systems, the presence of few trees and electrified fences restricts natural grooming behaviours. One solution to provide cattle with the opportunity to express their grooming behaviour is through the introduction of brushes (Mandel et al. 2016). Studies demonstrate that the use of brushes enhances milk production (Keeling et al. 2016) and hygiene (Reyes et al. 2022). Additionally, they can be employed to identify animals that are more susceptible to stressors (Foris et al. 2021).
A mechanical brush is an alternative to stimulate the grooming behaviour, but its installation may be limited by both its high cost and the requirement for electrical power in pasture systems. Thus, a low cost/ low-technology alternative, such as the stationary brush, could increase the use of brushes in milk production systems.
In this context, assessing the knowledge and attitude of dairy farmers regarding the use of brushes can assist extension technicians in guiding dairy farmers about low-cost stationary brushes and to improve dairy cow welfare. The aim of the study was to assess farmers’ knowledge regarding behaviours related to herd fights, injuries caused by the grooming habits, the importance of stress reduction, and their familiarity with a brushing device. Additionally, the study aimed to identify farmers’ interest in adopting a low-cost stationary brush.
Questionnaire Application
The survey was administered using the Google Forms® platform, and farmer recruitment was conducted exclusively online. Survey links were distributed via the WhatsApp® messaging platform and through an email distribution list sourced from the database of the Study, Research and Extension Group in Animal Biometeorology at the Federal University of Uberlândia.
Before proceeding to answer the survey, each farmer was required to read and confirm their agreement with the provided consent form. The consent form explicitly outlined the study’s objectives and informed farmers that all collected data would be used exclusively for technical-scientific purposes, with strict adherence to principles of confidentiality and personal data protection. Additionally, only responses from farmers aged 18 and older who were actively engaged in dairy farming with lactating cows were considered for analysis.
Study Site Description
The study area is located in Southeast and Midwest of Brazil between latitudes 15°46’48” S and 23°32’56” S and longitude 41°3’59" W and 51°54’32” W (Figure 1). The farmers were invited to answer an online survey from February 2022 to September 2022.
Survey Instrument and Methodology
The questions were classified as structured/semi-open, that is, structured by presenting questions with pre-qualified answers (closed questions), and semi-open due to the closed answers that had the item “others”, which allowed explanatory observations when necessary. The questionnaire had 16 questions (see supplementary file) divided into three sections. Section 1 addressed issues related to farmers’ profile. In Section 2, information was requested regarding the characterization milk production, categorized by farm size, whether milk is the main source of income, daily volume of milk production, number of cows in lactation, dairy breeds, type of milking, milk destination and the availability of technical assistance. In Section 3, questions were raised concerning farmers’ knowledge of cattle behaviour and attitudes toward brushes for dairy cows.
In relation to section 3, knowledge was defined as the ability to comprehend and discern the topic, and attitude as the individual’s response to this topic (De Oliveira et al. 2020). Farmers’ knowledge was considered in terms of their understanding of animal behaviour related to herd fights, injuries caused by grooming habits, the need to reduce stress, and their familiarity with a brush for dairy cows. Their interest in installing the low-cost stationary brush was used as an indicator of attitude.
Eucalyptus-sisal Low-Cost Stationary Brush
The eucalyptus-sisal low-cost stationary brush for cows was made with an 8 to 10 mm sisal rope, which is wound around eucalyptus posts with a diameter ranging from 8 to 10 cm, and a height of 2.2 m, buried at a depth of 0.70 m. The sisal rope was fixed at the pole with staples, extending from the top to a height of 50 cm above the ground (Figure 2, A and B).
Statistical Data Analysis
Out of a total of 110 farmers, two participants did not agree with the consent terms, one did not answer all the questions, and one farmer resided outside the study area; therefore, they were excluded from the analysis. As a result, a sample of 106 completed questionnaires was considered for analysis, in accordance with the guidelines provided by Bartlett et al. (2001) for determining sample adequacy.
Sample size (n) was calculated using the equation:
With the responses obtained from the questionnaires, a descriptive analysis was conducted using absolute and relative frequencies.
To identify the questions associated with farmers' knowledge and interest in brushes, the multiple logistic regression model was applied. Logistic regression is a statistical model used when the dependent variable (or response) is binary qualitative, taking on values of 0 or 1, where 0 represents the absence of the event, and 1 represents the occurrence (Bonney 1987). Considered each individual variable in Section 3 as the dependent variable for model generation, while the variables from Section 1, 2 and 3 were treated as independent variables.
This model estimates the angular coefficient of an event happening based on one or more independent variables. It is represented by the following equation:
Profile of farmers
Most farmers, 80.2% (85/106), were from Minas Gerais state, while 14.2% (15/106) were from Goiás and 5.6% (6/106) were from São Paulo. Regarding the connection with the farm, 88.7% (94/106) of participants stated to be the farm owner and 11.3% (12/106) were farm tenants.
For the farmers' education level, 38.7% (41/106) of the participants had some bachelor's degree, 23.6% (25/106) completed high school, 17.9% (19/106) had postgraduate, 10.4% (11/106) had some technical course, and 9.4% (10/106) completed only elementary school.
Description of milk production system
The majority of farmers own a farm with an area of up to 50 hectares (60.3%), 47,2% employing mechanical milking with a daily milk production of up to 206.4 kg (50,9%), featuring up to 25 lactating cows. The main breed observed was Girolando (Table 1).
For 62.3% (66/106) of the farmers, milk production is the main source of income on their farms. Regarding the destination of the milk, 81.1% (86/106) of the farmers reported selling their milk to the dairy industry, 12.3% (13/106) of farmers produce cheese from their milk production, 3.8% (4/106) sell directly to consumers, 1.9% (2/106) use the milk for their own consumption, and only 0.9% (1/106) deliver it to the cooperative. Half of the farmers reported receiving technical assistance from some institution, whether public or private.
Farmers’ knowledge of cattle behaviour and attitude toward the use of brush
Regarding knowledge of cattle behaviour within the herd, 59.4% (63/106) of farmers reported observing fights or disputes among cows at the feeder and drinker. Concerning grooming behaviour in cattle, 40.6% (43/106) of farmers stated that they have observed injuries in cows due to grooming on fences, wood, or sharp objects. Among the 75.5% (80/106) of farmers that reported to know the brushes for cows, 91.3% (73/80) believe that the brushes can improve the milk production and welfare of dairy cows. A total of 73.6% (78/106) of farmers expressed the need for improvements on their farms to reduce stress among dairy cows. Regarding their attitudes, 75.5% (80/106) of farmers expressed interest in installing a low-cost brush on their farms, with estimated costs ranging from $9.73 to $19.45.
Farmers' knowledge and attitude about the use of brush devices
The results from multiple logistic regression model indicate that farmers with a more technologically advanced milking system had 2.85 times higher odds of recognizing the need for improvements to reduce stress in their cows (Table 2). Farmers interested in installing a low-cost brush were 10.48 times more likely to recognize the need for improvements to reduce stress in their cows, 4.68 times more likely to have heard about brush for dairy cows, and 17.78 times more likely to believe that the use of brushes can enhance the production and improve dairy cow welfare. Farmers who recognized the need for improvements to reduce stress in their cows and believed that the use of brushes could enhance the production and improve dairy cow welfare were, respectively, 8.71 and 14.15 times more likely to install a low-cost brush (see supplementary file).
Variables such as educational level, farm area, whether milk is the main source of income, daily milk production volume, the number of lactation cows, cows' breeds, milk destination, technical assistance and factors related to observing fights and injuries caused by grooming habits in the herd did not significantly affect the farmer’s knowledge and attitude regarding brushes for dairy cows.
Farmers who recongnized the need to mitigate cow stress were those with a higher technological level and demonstrated an attitude to install a low-cost stationary brush for dairy cows. The odds for farmers having the attitude of installing a low-cost stationary brush is associated with their knowledge that the brush can reduce cow stress and improve milk production and welfare. Indeed, allowing cows to engage in self-grooming reduces their frustration and boredom, especially in housed cows (DeVries et al. 2007).
Cows are gregarious animals and have a social organization, with dominants and subordinates, that affects the use of the brush (Foris et al. 2021). In dairy cows, it is known that the dominants cows use the brush for longer, especially during peak feeding times, and subordinate cows use the brush less than dominant cows independent of competition or time of day (Foris et al. 2021). However, when introducing a brush to reduce social stress, but should consider animal density and the brush location, as indicated by Reyes et al. (2022) and Foris et al. (2023), who found that placing them near the water and feed troughs and in larger quantities enhances their effectiveness.
In practical conditions within dairy farming, Mandel et al. (2013) indicated that the reduction in the use of brushes may signal stress conditions in dairy cows. Keeling et al. (2016) found that each time a dairy cow used the brush, there was an increase of 0.67 kg in consumption of dry matter per day, consequently, there was an increase of 1.52 kg in daily milk production.
Contrary to the expected results, the variables educational level and technical assistance were not associated with knowledge about brushes and the willingness to install a low-cost brush. This could possibly be explained by the technical assistance models employed by participating farmers, which may not effectively explore the importance of grooming habits in dairy cows. This outcome suggests the potential for product development to be explored by both dairy industry companies and research institutions. Therefore, it is necessary to obtain information about the real conditions of dairy production systems in Brazil. Thus, it will be possible to promote action tailored to farmers to improve animal welfare (Sant'Anna et al. 2018).
It is well-known in the scientific literature that the provision of a brush for dairy cows enhances the performance of natural behaviours and animal welfare (Keeling et al. 2016; Foris et al. 2021; Foris et al. 2023). However, these results should be transferred to farmers. Also, public institutions should support projects for the development of low-cost brush. Supporting farmers to introduce brush for dairy cows can contribute to achieve the desire of general public for naturalness livestock system. We encourage further research to evaluate the efficiency and durability of low-cost stationary brush for dairy cows. Our findings emphasize that the majority of farmers were familiar with the use of brushes for dairy cows. Also, the farmers perceived the brush as a good strategy to reduce cow stress and increase milk production and animal welfare. This demonstrates the farmers are receptive to enhancing their production system. Then, collaboration among farmers, technical assistants, and public policymakers is essential to ensure the welfare of cows in the dairy sector.
It can be concluded that the majority of farmers reported familiarity with brushes for dairy cows. Farmers recognize that implementing brushes is an effective strategy to mitigate stress, enhance milk production, and promote animal welfare. They express a willingness to install an affordable stationary brush for their dairy cows, indicating an openness to improve their production system.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – Brazil (CAPES) and Federal University of Uberlândia for their support and research assistance.
Author contributions All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by F.G.O.N., A.A.B., P.P.B., P.K.M.B., A.M.S.F. and M.R.B.M.N. Statistics analysis were performed by P.P.B., P.N.F. and E.C.G. The first draft of the manuscript was written by F.G.O.N., A.M.S.F., P.P.B., K.T.D.S. and M.R.B.M.N., and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding This study was supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – Brazil (CAPES) – Financing Code 001.
Data availability The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or] its supplementary materials.
Ethics approval All the procedures carried out during the experiment were performed adhering to the ethical standards drafted by the Institutional Ethical Committee. This research received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee for Human Subjects at the Federal University of Uberlândia under protocol number 5.182.298.
Consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication All authors have consented to the publication and presentation of the data in this article.
Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.
- Agudelo, J.A.B., Quadros, S.A.F. and Machado Filho, L.C.P., 2013. Scratching, cleaning and social bonding: grooming and their biological meaning in ruminantes. CES Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, 8, 120-131. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=321430040012
- Bartlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J.W. and Higgins, C.C., 2001. Organizational Research: Determining Appropriate Sample Size in Survey Research, Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19, 43-50.
- Bonney, G.E., 1987. Logistic Regression for Dependent Binary Observations, Biometrics, 43, 951-973. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2531548
- De Oliveira, M.L.C., Gomes, L.O., Da Silva, H.S. and Chariglione, I.P.F.S., 2020. Conhecimento, atitude e prática: conceitos e desafios na área de educação e saúde, Revista Educação em Saúde, 8, 190-198. https://doi.org/10.29237/2358-9868.2020v8i1.p190-198
- DeVries, T.J., Vankova, M., Veira, D.M. and von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., 2007. Usage of mechanical brushes by lactating dairy cows, Journal of Dairy Science, 90, 2241-2245 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-648
- Foris, B., Lecorps, B., Krahn, J., Weary, D.M. and von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., 2021. The effects of cow dominance on the use of a mechanical brush, Scientific Reports, 11, 22987. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02283-2
- Foris, B., Sadrzadeh, N., Krahn, J., Weary, D.M. and von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., 2023. The effect of placement and group size on the use of an automated brush by groups of lactating dairy cattle, Animals, 13, 760. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040760
- Fraser, D., Weary, D.M., Pajor, E.A. and Milligan, B.N., 1997. A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns, Animal Welfare, 6:187-205.
- Keeling, L.J., De Oliveira, D. and Rustas, B.O., 2016. Use of mechanical rotating brushes in dairy cows – a potential proxy for performance and welfare?, Precision dairy farming. Wageningen: Wageningen Acad. Publishers, 343–347.
- Mandel, R., Whay, H.R., Nicol, C. and Klement, E., 2013. The effect of food location, heat load, and intrusive medical procedures on brushing activity in dairy cows, Journal of Dairy Science, 96, 6506–6513. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-6941
- Mandel, R., Whay, H.R., Klement, E. and Nicol, C.J., 2016. Invited review: Environmental enrichment of dairy cows and calves in indoor housing, Journal of Dairy Science, 99, 1695-1715. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9875
- Newberry, R.C., 1995. Environmental enrichment: Increasing the biological relevance of captive environments, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 44, 229-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)00616-Z
- Reyes, F.S., Gimenez, A.R., Anderson, K.M., Miller-Cushon, E.K., Dorea, J.R. and Van Os, J.M.C., 2022. Impact of Stationary Brush Quantity on Brush Use in Group-Housed Dairy Heifers, Animals, 12, 972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12080972
- Sant'Anna, A.C., Pedroza, M.G.M. and Paranhos da Costa, M.J.R., 2018. Percepção de ordenhadores sobre a interação-humano animal em fazendas leiteiras, Revista Brasileira de Zoociências, 19, 56-69. https://doi.org/10.34019/2596-3325.2018.v19.24740
- Van Os, J.M.C., Goldstein, S.A., Weary, D.M. and von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., 2021. Stationary brush use in naive dairy heifers, Journal of Dairy Science, 104, 12019–12029. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-20467
Table 1. Description of the milk production system of the 106 participants.
|
Variable |
Categories |
Participants (%) |
Participants (n) |
|
Farm area (ha) |
0 to 20 |
24.5 |
26/106 |
|
21 to 50 |
35.8 |
38/106 |
|
|
51 to 100 |
18.9 |
20/106 |
|
|
Greater than 100 |
20.8 |
22/106 |
|
|
Type of milking system |
Mechanical milking in the pit |
47.2 |
50/106 |
|
Bucket at the foot |
27.4 |
29/106 |
|
|
Manual milking |
25.5 |
27/106 |
|
|
Milk production (kg) |
0 to 51,6 |
19.8 |
21/106 |
|
51,7 to 206,4 |
31.1 |
33/106 |
|
|
206,5 to 361,2 |
14.2 |
15/106 |
|
|
361,3 to 516 |
5.7 |
6/106 |
|
|
517 to 1032 |
16.0 |
17/106 |
|
|
1033 to 2064 |
6.6 |
7/106 |
|
|
2065 to 4128 |
4.7 |
5/106 |
|
|
20640 to 41280 |
1.9 |
2/106 |
|
|
Number of lactating cows |
1 to 10 |
23.6 |
25/106 |
|
11 to 25 |
30.2 |
32/106 |
|
|
26 to 40 |
22.6 |
24/106 |
|
|
41 to 70 |
11.3 |
12/106 |
|
|
71 to 115 |
8.5 |
9/106 |
|
|
More than 115 |
3.8 |
4/106 |
|
|
Cows’ breed* |
Girolando |
78.3 |
83/106 |
|
Holstein |
32.1 |
34/106 |
|
|
Anelorado |
21.7 |
23/106 |
|
|
Jersey |
20.8 |
22/106 |
|
|
Gyr |
17.9 |
19/106 |
|
|
Crossbreed |
7.5 |
8/106 |
|
|
Simental |
0.9 |
1/106 |
*61.3% (65/106) of participants stated that they had two or more breeds on their farm.
Table 2. Association of farmers' knowledge and attitude indicators with brushes (Dependent variables) and other questions (Independent variables) using multiple logistic regression model.
|
Dependent variable |
Independent variable |
β |
SE |
Wald |
Odds Ratio |
p-value |
|
Does the farm need improvements to reduce the stress of your cows? |
Type of milking system |
1.048 |
0.385 |
7.412 |
2.853 |
0.006 |
|
Would you be interested in installing a low-cost brush on your farm? |
2.350 |
0.719 |
10.677 |
10.483 |
0.001 |
|
|
Are you acquainted with the brushes for dairy cows? |
Would you be interested in installing a low-cost brush on your farm? |
1.543 |
0.514 |
9.004 |
4.676 |
0.003 |
|
If yes, do you believe that the brush can improve milk production and the welfare of dairy cows? |
Would you be interested in installing a low-cost brush on your farm? |
2.878 |
0.909 |
10.018 |
17.778 |
0.002 |
|
Would you be interested in installing a low-cost brush on your farm? |
Does the farm need improvements to reduce the stress of your cows? |
2.164 |
0.714 |
9.178 |
8.710 |
0.002 |
|
If yes, do you believe that the brush can improve milk production and the welfare of dairy cows? |
2.650 |
1.018 |
6.774 |
14.153 |
0.009 |