Kariuki E N, VanLeeuwen J A, Gitau G K, Heider L C, McKenna S L, Muasya D W
Department of Health Management, Atlantic Veterinary College, UPEI, Canada.
Department of Clinical Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Nairobi, Kenya.
Res Vet Sci. 2023 Sep;162:104954. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2023.104954. Epub 2023 Jul 9.
Smallholder dairy farmers (SDF) in developing countries often have limited understanding on the importance of cow comfort. We conducted a randomized controlled trial with 124 cows on 114 Kenyan SDF to determine the status of cow comfort, to assess compliance to farm-specific cow comfort recommendations, and to evaluate the impacts of the farm-specific interventions on cow comfort. On the first farm visit, stall dimensions and characteristics (e.g. stall base hardness and hygiene) were measured and categorized as adequate, marginal or inadequate/absent based on cow size. Where measurements were not adequate, farm-specific cow comfort recommendations were provided in written and oral form to the randomly allocated intervention group of farms (n = 74). On the second farm visit two months later, the same measurements were taken, and percent compliance to the recommendations was evaluated. A discomfort index was arithmetically calculated based on the stall base hardness (scale was 1-3 for soft to hard) and hygiene (scale was 1-5 for clean to dirty). Multivariable linear regression models were used to determine specific associations with the discomfort index. On the first visit, the mean stall base hardness and stall hygiene scores were 1.7 and 2.3, respectively, for a mean discomfort index of 4.0. Intervention farmers were given 3.9 comfort recommendations, on average, and complied with 2.1 recommendations, significantly improving the discomfort index at visit two to 3.3. The overall compliance to the recommendations was 49.0%. In a final model, the interaction between intervention group and visit number was significantly associated with discomfort index, indicating that after adjusting for baseline discomfort indices, the intervention led to better cow comfort. Specifically, bedding type and neck rail positioning were significantly associated with discomfort index. We concluded that farmers can substantially improve cow comfort on SDF by providing recommendations to them. Farm advisors should include cow comfort recommendations to SDF.
发展中国家的小农户奶农(SDF)通常对奶牛舒适度的重要性了解有限。我们对114位肯尼亚小农户奶农的124头奶牛进行了一项随机对照试验,以确定奶牛舒适度状况,评估对农场特定奶牛舒适度建议的遵守情况,并评估农场特定干预措施对奶牛舒适度的影响。在首次农场访问时,测量了牛栏尺寸和特征(如牛栏底部硬度和卫生状况),并根据奶牛大小将其分类为充足、边缘或不足/缺失。在测量不充分的情况下,以书面和口头形式向随机分配的干预组农场(n = 74)提供农场特定的奶牛舒适度建议。两个月后的第二次农场访问时,进行了相同的测量,并评估了对建议的遵守百分比。根据牛栏底部硬度(软到硬的等级为1 - 3)和卫生状况(干净到脏的等级为1 - 5)算术计算出不适指数。使用多变量线性回归模型来确定与不适指数的具体关联。首次访问时,牛栏底部硬度和牛栏卫生评分的平均值分别为1.7和2.3,平均不适指数为4.0。干预组农民平均收到3.9条舒适度建议,遵守了2.1条建议,在第二次访问时显著将不适指数提高到3.3。对建议的总体遵守率为49.0%。在最终模型中,干预组与访问次数之间的相互作用与不适指数显著相关,表明在调整基线不适指数后,干预措施使奶牛舒适度得到了改善。具体而言,垫料类型和颈栏位置与不适指数显著相关。我们得出结论,通过向农民提供建议,他们可以大幅提高小农户奶农养殖奶牛的舒适度。农场顾问应将奶牛舒适度建议纳入向小农户奶农提供的建议中。