Strategies to minimise the impact of climate change and weather variability on the welfare of dairy cattle in New Zealand and Australia
Jenny Jago
A * , Pierre Beukes A , Emma Cuttance B , Dawn Dalley C , J. Paul Edwards C , Wendy Griffiths A , Katie Saunders C , Liz Shackleton D and Karin Schütz E
A DairyNZ Ltd, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand.
B EpiVets, Te Awamutu, New Zealand.
C DairyNZ Ltd, Lincoln 7608, New Zealand.
D DairyNZ Ltd, Wellington 6011, New Zealand.
E AgResearch Ltd, Ruakura, Hamilton 3123, New Zealand.
Abstract
This perspective paper provides industry leaders, researchers and policy developers strategic approaches to ensure that the welfare of dairy cattle is protected at the same time as the industry increases its resilience to climate change. Farm systems and practices will evolve in response to the direct impacts of climate change and/or from responses to climate change, such as mitigation strategies to reduce dairy’s greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. The five domains framework (nutrition, physical environment, health, behaviour, mental state) was used to assess the potential impacts on animal welfare and strategies to minimise these impacts are outlined. Given that the future climate cannot be certain these approaches can be applied under a range of emissions pathways to (1) ensure that the effects of GHG mitigations on animal welfare are considered during their development, (2) engage with end users and the public to ensure solutions to the effects of climate change and weather variability are accepted by consumers and communities, (3) identify and measure the areas where improved animal health can contribute to reducing GHG emissions from dairy production, (4) ensure those supporting farmers to develop and manage their farm systems understand what constitutes a good quality of life for dairy cattle, (5) ensure effective surveillance of animal disease and monitoring of welfare outcomes and farm-system performance in response to climate change and GHG mitigations. Overall, these strategies require a multi-disciplinary co-development approach to ensure that the welfare of dairy cattle is protected at the same time as the industry increases its resilience to the wider impacts of a changing climate.
Keywords: animal welfare, climate change, consumer, dairy farming, expectations, farm systems, multi-disciplinary, public.
Introduction
Predictions for how the climate will change over the coming century have been provided in detail by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2022). The most recent analyses for Aotearoa New Zealand forecast an increase in mean air temperature, a change to total and annual rainfall patterns, an increase in river flooding, drought severity and fire incidence in most areas of the country (Bodeker et al. 2022; Hennessy et al. 2022). Similarly, Australia can expect to experience warmer than average temperatures, greater frequency of hot days, and changes to the timing of rainfall events. Cool-season rainfall is projected to decrease across many regions of the south and east, and the intensity of heavy-rainfall events is expected to increase. Australia is also predicted to experience more frequent and severe extreme climatic events, including drought and flooding, and a combination of extended droughts and high temperatures may lead to increased frequency and severity of fire events (Hennessy et al. 2022; National Climate Statement based on the 2020 State of Climate report, climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au).
While the potential future climate and weather projections are well described, the impacts of these changes on the welfare of dairy cattle are less well defined for Australia and New Zealand. In this paper we briefly summarise what is known in this field, identify research and development gaps, then focus on describing strategies that can mitigate potential negative impacts of climate variability and mitigations on dairy cattle welfare while increasing dairy farming resilience to the wider impacts of a changing climate.
This perspective paper is written for industry leaders, researchers and policy developers, as they shape the direction for dairy farming in response to unprecedented challenges.
A framework to assess the impact of changing climate on dairy cattle welfare
In this paper we use the five domains framework (Mellor 2017) alongside a literature review to assess the potential impacts of a changing climate on animal welfare. The five domains framework is designed to support a structured and comprehensive approach to assessing animal welfare, considering both positive and negative inputs and outcomes (Webster 2016). It has been used extensively to assess impacts of current and proposed changes in practice for managing animals (Mellor 2017). Given we wanted to consider future scenarios and the potential positive and negative impacts on animals, this framework was considered most appropriate for this purpose.
The relevant literature was considered under each domain, ensuring that we took into account the potential impacts of climate change on the major factors that influence animal welfare outcomes. The first four domains of the framework cover nutrition, the physical environment, health and behaviour. The last domain considers positive and negative experiences as outcomes of the four functional domains and reflects the animal’s mental state (Fig. 1).
Nutrition
The predicted changes in climate are likely to lead to reduced quantity and quality of feed and water resources in parts of New Zealand and Australia (4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change). This could lead to a change in the growth patterns or growing season and overall forage production from the current feed base (Moore and Ghahramani 2013; Kalaugher et al. 2017). The impact will be regionally dependent (Kalaugher et al. 2017; Garcia et al. 2021) and much of the work is still to be undertaken to determine predicted pasture growth profiles for New Zealand regions. In some regions, the outcome could be positive, for example Garcia et al. (2021) reported that the climate suitability for dairy production in 2050 improves for Tasmania, Manawatu and Canterbury and part of Southland. In some situations, a poorer-quality species out-competing ryegrass, such as kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum) in Northland New Zealand, could be more impactful than average effects of temperature on ryegrass productivity directly per se. Ingress of weed species, such as C4 grasses, for example, paspalum in the Waikato, will negatively affect pasture productivity and quality. Further, it may be the increase in minimum temperature, maximum temperature, days with temperature above a threshold, for example, 30°C, that is the driver, as opposed to mean temperature.
From a welfare perspective, the key nutrition consideration is ensuring that the farm system can provide access to feed of sufficient quality and appropriate quantity to meet the energy, protein, fibre, vitamin and mineral requirements of dairy cattle and that under- and over-nutrition, infectious, gastrointestinal and metabolic disease are minimised. There should be free access to water that is palatable and uncontaminated, which may become more of a challenge, particularly during extreme weather events. The demand for clean water will also likely increase as cows will drink more at warmer temperatures (Beatty et al. 2006).
The consequence of a change in pasture/forage quantity is something that farmers can plan for, albeit not without its stresses such as difficulty sourcing supplements and cost. For example, a summer crop could be grown, supplement bought or a change to feed demand by adjusting calving date or stocking rate. Researchers and farmers are already experimenting with different feed options in areas where the more traditional species of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and white clover (Trifolium repens) are challenged under summer-dry conditions (McCahon et al. 2021). For example, in Northland, New Zealand, a diversified forages project has examined the potential of alternative pasture species to provide an advantage in terms of dry-matter yield, quality and/or timing of growth (McCahon et al. 2021).
A more diverse forage base may be positive for animal welfare as cattle have the ability and desire to preferentially consume certain feeds or components of feeds (Rutter 2006). For example, when preference for legumes and grasses is tested with grazing cattle, they typically consume a mixed diet, with a preference for consuming legumes in the morning, and greater proportion of grasses over the course of the day (Rutter 2006, 2010). The biological basis for such preferences could include the desire to balance nutrient intake, maintain rumen function and avoid toxins (Rutter 2006). A more diverse pasture also affords animals choice, which can contribute to a positive mental state.
Physical environment
The climates of Australia and New Zealand enable cattle to be managed outdoors year-round. However, there are periods where weather conditions, both in winter and in summer, challenge the welfare and productivity of animals. Increasing weather variability will influence the animal’s physical environment through higher temperatures and more frequent extreme events such as droughts and heavy rainfall. One outcome is likely to be a higher risk of thermal stress and an increasing need for appropriate shade and shelter (Schütz 2019).
Heat stress occurs when an animal accumulates more heat than it can dissipate, and there is an increase in body temperature to above-normal levels (>39.3°C). Excessive heat load and heat stress can lead to decreased milk yield (Wheelock et al. 2010), fertility and embryonic survival (Collier et al. 1982; Her et al. 1988; Ealy et al. 1993; Rensis and Scaramuzzi 2003).
Currently, all regions in New Zealand are experiencing days from December to March where the temperature–humidity index (THI) exceeds a threshold where milk production is affected (Schütz 2019), demonstrating that the potential for heat stress is a concern even in the current climate. Under a low or high emission-prediction/climate-change scenario (low: Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5; and high: Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, until 2100, as described in Schütz 2019), the number of days where the THI threshold is exceeded will increase in all regions in New Zealand (Schütz 2019), thereby increasing the risk of production losses and negative animal welfare outcomes. The impacts vary by region and for different breeds. In some regions that already experience a high proportion of days where the THI exceeds a threshold that results in reduced milk production, such as the Waikato, the change is small. In other regions that currently do not experience conditions that lead to milk production losses, the change is more pronounced, particularly during December and March, which are typically the beginning and end of the summer period. For example, in Northland the number of days with decreased milk solids in Holstein-Friesian × Jersey crosses in December is predicted to more than double from a current figure of 40% of days (Schütz 2019).
Victoria, Australia, already experiences a climate that exposes dairy cattle to a high heat-stress risk, compared with Tasmania where the risk is currently moderate. An increasing risk of excessive heat load leading to production losses is forecast for Tasmania under both a low- and high-emission scenarios (Schütz 2019). In a similar analysis, Nidumolu et al. (2010) determined that by 2050 an additional 5–37 days of heat stress could be expected for the Murray Day region, depending on the emission scenario. The concept of climate analogues described by Garcia et al. (2021) for identifying regions with current climates similar to those forecast for other regions can be of value for heat stress. The strategies currently used by affected Victorian farmers to manage heat stress are likely to be a useful insight for New Zealand and Tasmanian researchers and farmers for developing climate-adaptation strategies for their farm system in the future (Schütz 2019).
Schütz (2019) argued that there are gaps in knowledge around the impact of heat stress on reproductive performance in New Zealand and Australia, specifically the effects in early gestation. A change to autumn calving may be preferable to match feed availability but may be less desirable if hot temperatures in late pregnancy elevate the risk of heat stress. Also, there is a need for an updated assessment of production impacts related to heat stress, the effectiveness of mitigations and to identify what management support is required by farmers and their advisors.
Another aspect of the physical environment that requires consideration is the design of facilities for handling or housing cattle. It is becoming more common for farms to have a means of standing cattle off pasture in different periods of the year, either to reduce pasture damage during wet conditions, to increase utilisation of supplementary feed, to capture urine to reduce the potential for nitrogen leaching or to provide shade or shelter during hot days in summer or cold and wet days in winter. It is important that these facilities provide sufficient space and shelter for animals to meet their behavioural needs, maintain suitable temperature and air exchanges and a comfortable lying surface.
Extreme events such as floods, snow events and droughts change the immediate physical environment, create conditions that cows are not well adapted to and can affect cleanliness and comfort (e.g. ability to lie down). All of which put the welfare of the animals at risk. For the pastoral systems in New Zealand and Australia, where cows are mostly outside, extreme events require planning for.
Health
Climate change can affect animal health in different ways, including as described in Vallee et al. (2021):
Improved survival conditions for endemic and exotic infective agents of the host (e.g. an increase in temperature and increased rainfall would likely increase the duration of survival and the locations in New Zealand where Leptospira survival in the environment is possible);
Modified life cycles or new distribution of organisms that transmit infectious agents (e.g. Theileria), depending on temperature and humidity, and better vector competence (Lovejoy 2008);
A change in pasture or modified land use (e.g. endophyte in more drought-resistant pasture species, leading to adverse health effects such as heat stress or grass staggers); and/or redistribution of reservoirs and intermediate hosts (e.g. wildlife reservoirs of Leptospira, water snail reservoirs of liver fluke);
Impaired welfare (e.g. lower tolerance to heat in high-producing animals, increased incidence of heat stress).
Another factor is the heightened risk of biosecurity incursions due to the changing climate enabling new entrants/emerging diseases through mechanisms such as altered survival conditions or altered phenology of common and widespread arthropod parasites (Heath 2021). Natural long-distance dispersal through increased adverse weather patterns and wind currents as potential transport mechanisms (Finlay et al. 2014) and altered vector-borne disease patterns (Caminade et al. 2019) are also mechanisms of change. Climate-change impacts on pest ecology and risks to pasture resilience are therefore a key consideration (Mansfield et al. 2021).
The effects of changing climate on risks to grazing livestock health in New Zealand have been comprehensively reviewed by Vallee et al. (2021) and, for Australia, by Black et al. (2008). The four most important diseases of concern, which are likely to be affected in terms of incidence, severity or distribution by climate change in New Zealand through to 2100 are facial eczema, leptospirosis, salmonellosis and mastitis. Others that are likely to be affected include clostridiosis, coccidiosis, Johne’s disease, neosporosis, theileriosis and exposure to heat stress (Vallee et al. 2021). The ranking was based on epidemiologic, economic, welfare and social criteria described by stakeholders.
Facial eczema is a well-recognised problem on dairy farms in the North Island, the north of the South Island of New Zealand and more recently the West Coast of New Zealand’s South Island. It is caused by the ingestion of spores of a saprophytic fungus Pithomyces chartarum containing the mycotoxin sporidesmin (Percival and Thornton 1958). The fungus grows in the dead and dying matter at the base of pasture swards and is influenced by temperature and rainfall conditions (Brook 1963). Facial eczema causes significant damage to the liver, with clinical signs including photosensitivity, skin lesions, liveweight loss, reproductive failure, decreased milk production, or deaths (Towers 1978). Models predict an increase in the peak spore counts and an earlier start of the alert-level spore counts (Vallee et al. 2021) due to an increase in the optimal temperature and rainfall conditions for the fungus. Any climate-related feed shortages will also increase the chance of ingestion, as cattle graze further into the sward.
The prevalence of subclinical or clinical mastitis is predicted to increase, particularly in areas of greater rainfall, leading to less hygienic conditions in winter/spring, as this coincides with the calving season when cows are in early lactation and at increased risk of mastitis. The inability to milk cows during power outages caused by extreme weather events, leading to udder health issues and discomfort, is another risk factor of increased climate variability (Dalley and Davis 2006). There is a drive to reduce antibiotic use in response to consumer concern as well as mitigating against antimicrobial resistance (Krömker and Leimbach 2017), which may affect potential treatment options if the disease increases with a changing climate and more variable weather.
Changes to the incidence and severity of these and other diseases have the potential to negatively affect the welfare of dairy cattle and will require additional preventative measures or breeding strategies.
Managing risk to animal health from a changing climate will require a continued focus on prevention of endemic and novel diseases, early diagnosis, treatment and care, so as to ensure welfare is not compromised.
Behaviour
The main features of a farm system that can ensure good animal welfare from a behavioural perspective include providing conditions where animals have sufficient time and opportunities for eating, lying, socialising and daily routines, ensuring social contact and an interesting environment that provides opportunity for cows to engage in behaviours they find rewarding such as foraging, exploring, grooming and playing.
In general, cattle on Australasian dairy farms are outdoors eating pasture or other forages and have space to roam and express natural behaviours such as grazing and grooming, thus providing opportunities for social contact in relatively stable groups (due to the seasonal calving patterns). As farm systems evolve in response to the direct impacts of climate change or from responses to climate change, it will be important that these behavioural needs are considered to ensure good animal welfare outcomes.
Mental state
An animal’s experiences arise from multiple overlapping factors that have been described in the key areas of the five domains model, such as access to food, water, the environment around the cow, the health status of the cow, and the opportunity (or restrictions) for the animals to perform natural behaviours they are highly motivated to do. The quality of life of an animal depends on the balance between its positive and negative experiences. A ‘good’ quality of life is achieved by minimising the negative experiences and maximising the opportunity for positive experiences. Examples of the types of experiences cows could have from a changing climate, and which will affect mental state, are detailed in Table 1 for each of the four domains.
| Domain | Examples of experiences | Example of impact of a changing climate on animal experiences | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nutrition | Having adequate feed and water can lead to the positive experiences of satiety and hydration and can avoid the negative experiences of prolonged hunger and thirst. Positive effects from grazing beyond simply the reduction in feeling hunger, including searching/foraging and the pleasures of eating and ruminating. | An increase in drought severity and higher air temperatures increase the risk that there is insufficient feed and water to meet the animal’s needs. There is likely to be more variety in the diet due to a range of forage species comprising the feed base because of diverse pastures or crops or ingress of other species. | |
| Physical environment | Environments that are thermally and physically appropriate for the cow result in the positive experience of comfort, but inadequacies in these areas will result in the negative experience of discomfort. | Higher air temperatures and radiant heat lead to increased risk of heat stress. Increased rainfall may lead to unsuitable lying surfaces, e.g. surface water pooling. Greater exposure to wet and/or hard surfaces. Less cold stress in some regions as temperatures rise. | |
| Health | Good health can lead to positive experiences such as contentment and vitality, but poor health including disease, injury and functional impairment, can lead to negative experiences such as pain, debility, weakness, malaise and breathlessness. | Heightened disease load and issues associated with increased risk of heat stress (e.g. fertility, rumen function, immune function, appetite loss). | |
| Behaviour | Providing cows the opportunity to perform natural behaviours (such as resting, exploring, foraging, grooming, bonding with herd mates) can lead to positive experiences such as calmness, bonding, playfulness and a sense of control. Restrictions on the opportunity to perform these behaviours can lead to negative experiences such as anger, frustration, boredom, loneliness, exhaustion, and fear. | Use of off-paddock facilities to mitigate the environmental footprint may limit the expression of natural behaviours or reduce cow comfort if poorly managed. |
While positive experiences can occur in all these key areas, they will often be transient in the nutrition, environment and health areas (i.e. a hungry animal eats, becomes satiated, but then becomes hungry again), whereas those outlined in the behaviour area can have longer-lasting effects and hence potentially have a greater impact on the cow’s quality of life. In each of the examples given in Table 1, farm-system design and good management can alleviate the risks.
Strategies to minimise impacts on animal welfare
It is clear that the changing climate has the potential to affect animal welfare via direct and indirect effects on animal nutrition, the physical environment, animal health and expression of behaviour and culminating in cow experience and mental state. One option is to respond to these potential impacts at a farm level through management and further changes to farming practices and systems. We propose that a more effective way to minimise the impacts of climate change is to implement approaches now that reduce the chances of these impacts occurring. In doing so, ensuring the welfare of dairy cattle is protected at the same time as the industry increases its resilience to climate change.
The five strategies described are examples of approaches that can be applied immediately and support a whole-system approach to combating the challenges that climate change presents for the welfare of dairy production animals. They have been developed via consideration of the literature and expert opinion, drawing on the experience of the authors, which spans the breadth of farm systems, animal and forage science, animal health, behaviour and sector and government policy. Some of the approaches have been suggested by others so are not novel; however, considering these as a collective upstream response to safeguard animal welfare in the face of unprecedented change is novel. The strategies and supporting examples are described below.
Ensure the effects of greenhouse-gas (GHG) mitigations on animal welfare are considered during their development
Many of the future changes to farming systems will be driven by the need to reduce dairy’s environmental footprint, specifically its impacts on water quality and GHG emissions, and its adaptation to a changing climate. As mitigation options are developed to reduce any environmental impact, consequences for animal welfare also need to be considered.
There are numerous examples of technologies and innovations being explored to address the challenges. These include feed, genetics, vaccines, methane inhibitors, cow wearables and farm-system changes, among others (Leahy et al. 2019). Taking a multidisciplinary approach to their development will reduce the likelihood of unintended welfare consequences as options are adopted by farmers.
In a recent example, fodder beet has been widely adopted in parts of New Zealand as a forage crop for winter feed (Chakwizira et al. 2016). This crop has potential environmental benefits, including reducing methane emissions and nitrate leaching relative to other winter crops (Jonker et al. 2017; Smith and Monaghan 2020); however, there are risks to animal welfare (Dalley et al. 2022). Transitioning animals onto the crop requires careful management to avoid acidosis and regular phosphorus supplementation is needed. There are potential challenges with fetal development in late gestation and growth for young stock fed high levels of fodder beet with insufficient dietary protein intake. The high yield, and therefore higher stocking density when feeding, leads to increased pugging risk and mud, which is of concern for cow comfort, an issue raised by the broader community.
Research is underway to address these issues; however, widespread adoption of the crop means that a significant practice-change campaign will be required to achieve improved management practices (D. Dalley, pers. comm.). All aspects of new technologies and systems need to be considered prior to widespread promotion and adoption.
Engage with end users and the public to ensure that the solutions to the effects of climate and weather variability are accepted by consumers and communities
The welfare of livestock animals is increasingly of concern to consumers and members of the broader community. Retailers are responding with an increase in labelling to reflect animal welfare claims (Thompson et al. 2007; Vanhonacker and Verbeke 2014; Bray and Ankeny 2017). In New Zealand, Government agencies are also responding with regulation and efforts to lift standards (MPI 2023).
There are many options under development that have the potential to reduce the environmental footprint of pastoral dairy, in particular enteric-methane emissions (Beauchemin et al. 2022), or help farmers manage more variation in the weather. It will be important that livestock producers maintain a close eye on consumer trends and expectations regarding how animals are farmed and use these insights when assessing the value of each option.
For example, in a recent study (Hendricks et al. 2022), Australian researchers sought to understand how different proposed changes to mitigate heat stress in dairy cattle influenced public perceptions toward cow welfare, confidence in the industry and trust in farmers. The options tested were a fully indoor system, a system where cows have choice to be indoors or outdoors, gene editing and cows outdoors on pasture or a pasture system with the farmer planting more trees. Participants perceived welfare to be lowest in the indoor system, followed by gene editing plus pasture, whereas choice and a pasture plus trees system rated highest. Trust in the industry was dependent on the options (lowest for the indoor system) but trust in farmers per se did not differ.
Producers want the broader community to be more educated on farming practices (Buddle et al. 2021), but there is evidence that while education and exposure to livestock farming may resolve certain concerns, others will persist, especially when practices conflict with deeply held values around animal care (Ventura et al. 2016).
These studies highlight that there is a complex relationship among livestock production, the consumer of animal products and the broader community. This relationship will become more complex as consumer views on responding to climate change will likely further influence their views on the technologies and practices adopted by farmers and their impact on animal welfare.
Identify and measure the areas where improved animal health can contribute to reducing GHG emissions from dairy production
This is a win–win–win strategy that will benefit animal welfare, the environment and farm profitability; collectively, this presents a compelling case for adoption (BERG 2018). The way in which animal health negatively affects emissions intensity is through reduced production efficiency and what is referred to as ‘unproductive emissions’ related to mortality and morbidity. Morbidity (suffering from disease or health conditions) causing the reduction in production efficiency diminishes growth rate and therefore the liveweight of animals. This can lead to lower efficiency in feed utilisation, as well as lower reproductive performance and milk yields (Özkan et al. 2022).
New Zealand studies have demonstrated that reducing involuntary culling rates (because of severe or persistent disease) from 21% to 16% can lead to about a 1–4% benefit in terms of reducing GHG emissions. (Beukes et al. 2011). Reducing the burden of subclinical diseases such as facial eczema (FE) and mastitis or heat stress, also reduces production losses, a benefit for both animal welfare and the environment and farm profitability.
Llonch et al. (2017) considered currently available GHG mitigations and their likely welfare consequences. They concluded that strategies to increase productivity in intensive systems, while promising to reduce emissions intensity, would likely be achieved at the cost of welfare. Examples given include acidosis, higher risk of bloated rumen and laminitis as well as intensive housing, leading to higher social stress, inability to express natural behaviour and a higher risk of disease spread. This highlights the importance of targeting win–win–win strategies.
The benefits of improved animal health are underused in estimating GHG emissions reduction in national commitments (Özkan et al. 2022) and more work is needed to establish standardised ways of incorporating improved animal health in national inventories. This will provide a strong incentive for action.
Ensure those supporting farmers to develop and manage their farm systems understand what constitutes a good-quality life for dairy cattle
Farm production systems and practices must achieve outcomes across several, sometimes-competing, areas, including environment, animal welfare, people/work environment and financial performance. Ensuring that those supporting farmers in farm-system design and tactical day-to-day management have a high-level understanding of what is needed to achieve good welfare outcomes will provide confidence that multiple objectives can be achieved. This includes policy makers who often work in isolation from other components of the farm system.
This strategy extends to technology that supports decision-making at farm-system design and operational management levels. For example, tools that evaluate farm-system risk for cow quality of life are needed as well as tools that provide feedback on how the animal is coping with their daily environment.
Ensure effective surveillance of animal disease, and monitoring of welfare outcomes and farm-system performance in response to climate change and GHG mitigations
An important strategy for managing risk to animal health is to ensure effective monitoring of animal disease to allow intervention when undesirable change is detected. This requires robust disease surveillance systems (Ben Jebara 2004) and up-to-date data on dairy cattle health (Vallee et al. 2021). The latter has been recognised as an important gap that needs to be addressed at least for New Zealand (Vallee et al. 2021). The ability to model the impact of climate change on certain diseases is limited by poor data not in a centralised system, often lacking finer temporal and spatial resolution over time.
Any monitoring system should include animal-outcome data that cover nutrition, the physical environment and behaviour, in addition to animal health. From this, an assessment of the physical and mental state of livestock can be made that reflects how animals are coping with their environment. This is an area where more knowledge is needed, in particular on the most relevant and easy-to-collect indicators that also offer value to farmers to support management decisions. Technology is likely to play an important role in this.
Extending the monitoring and surveillance system to broader farm performance (i.e. not just animal health) in conjunction with climate data would enable identification of which farm systems are thriving in which environments. Sharing that knowledge may aid people to adopt systems that are evidenced to work in a similar environment, rather than letting adaption happen through trial and error on each farm. Given the wide range of climates and farming systems across New Zealand and Australia, this is a potential advantage we have that can accelerate adaption and build resilience, as demonstrated by the work of Garcia et al. (2021) on climate analogues.
The changing climate has the potential to affect multiple areas that collectively contribute to animal welfare outcomes. Therefore, there needs to be a deliberate focus on ensuring that animal welfare is at least maintained as farm systems and farming practices adapt in response to the direct impacts of climate change and from responses to climate change. Several approaches are suggested that aim to (1) ensure that advances can be made in critical areas such as developing mitigations to reduce methane emissions, but not at the expense of others such as animal welfare, (2) the growing influence of the consumer is considered in responding to the challenge of a changing climate on animal welfare, (3) incentives to support change that offer win–win–win outcomes are prioritised, (4) there is an ability to act now, then respond early by developing monitoring systems that alert changes that may affect animal welfare or system performance, and (5) those that will influence ways farmers adapt their systems and practices understand the requirements for good animal welfare outcomes.
Adopting strategic approaches that safeguard the welfare of dairy cattle and, at the same time, increase the sector’s resilience to climate change offers a win–win opportunity for dairy cattle and the dairy production sector.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable as no new data were generated or analysed during the development of this perspective manuscript.
Declaration of funding
This research was funded by the dairy farmers of New Zealand through DairyNZ Inc., contract CRS6181 (Animal Centric Dairy Farming). Fonterra Cooperative Group Limited provided in-kind support and funding for the heat-stress evaluation along with AgResearch Strategic Science Investment Fund (SSIF) funding for Animal Welfare and by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Wellington, New Zealand).
References
Beatty DT, Barnes A, Taylor E, Pethick D, McCarthy M, Maloney SK (2006) Physiological responses of Bos taurus and Bos indicus cattle to prolonged, continuous heat and humidity. Journal of Animal Science 84(4), 972-985.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Beauchemin KA, Ungerfeld EM, Abdalla AL, Alvarez C, Arndt C, Becquet P, Benchaar C, Berndt A, Mauricio RM, McAllister TA, Oyhantçabal W, Salami SA, Shalloo L, Sun Y, Tricarico J, Uwizeye A, De Camillis C, Bernoux M, Robinson T, Kebreab E (2022) Invited review: current enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Dairy Science 105(12), 9297-9326.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Ben Jebara K (2004) Surveillance, detection and response: managing emerging diseases at national and internal levels. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’Office Internationale des Epizooties In ‘Emerging zoonoses and pathogens of public health concern’. (Ed. LJ King) 22(2), 709-715.
| Google Scholar |
BERG (2018) Report of the Biological Emissions Reference Group (BERG). BERG. Available at https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/32125/direct [Accessed 20 September 2022]
Beukes PC, Gregorini P, Romera AJ (2011) Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from New Zealand dairy systems using a mechanistic whole farm model and inventory methodology. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 708-720.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Black PE, Murray JG, Nunn MJ (2008) Managing animal health disease risk in Australia: the impact of climate change. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’Office Internationale des Epizooties 27, 563-580.
| Google Scholar |
Bray HJ, Ankeny RA (2017) Happy chickens lay tastier eggs: motivations for buying free-range eggs in Australia. Anthrozoös 30, 213-226.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Brook PJ (1963) Ecology of the fungus Pithomyces chartarum (Berk. & Curt.) M.B.Ellis in pasture in relation to facial eczema disease of sheep. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 6, 147-228.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Buddle EA, Bray HJ, Ankeny RA (2021) “Of course we care!“: A qualitative exploration of Australian livestock producers’ understandings of farm animal welfare issues. Journal of Rural Studies 83, 50-59.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Caminade CK, McIntyre M, Jones AE (2019) Impact of recent and future climate change on vector-borne diseases. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1436(1), 157-173.
| Google Scholar |
Chakwizira E, de Ruiter JM, Maley S (2016) Growth and nitrogen partitioning of fodder beet crops grown under varying amounts of water and nitrogen in shallow soils. Agronomy New Zealand 46, 85-97.
| Google Scholar |
Collier RJ, Beede DK, Thatcher WW, Israel LA, Wilcox CJ (1982) Influences of environment and its modification on dairy animal health and production. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 2213-2227.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Dalley DE, Davis SR (2006) Effect of an extended milking interval on recovery of milk yield and somatic cell count in dairy cows. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 66, 241-244.
| Google Scholar |
Dalley DE, Edwards JP, Masterson E, Woods R (2022) The effect of winter fodder beet or kale allocation on behaviour and blood metabolite status of non-lactating dairy cows. Journal of New Zealand Grasslands 83, 153-162.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Ealy AD, Drost M, Hansen PJ (1993) Developmental changes in embryonic resistance to adverse effects of maternal heat stress in cows. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 2899-2905.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Garcia SC, Kemp S, Clark C, Ota N, Islam M, Kriticos D (2021) What’s next for the New Zealand dairy feed-base? Learnings from climate analogues. NZGA: Research and Practice Series 17, 149-162.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Heath ACG (2021) Climate change and its potential for altering the phenology and ecology of some common and widespread arthropod parasites in New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 69, 5-19.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hendricks J, Mills KE, Sirovica LV, Sundermann L, Bolton SE, von Keyserlingk MAG (2022) Public perceptions of potential adaptations for mitigating heat stress on Australian dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 105, 5893-5908.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hennessy K, Lawrence J, Mackey B (2022) IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6): climate change 2022 – impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: regional factsheet Australasia. Available at https://policycommons.net/artifacts/2264302/ipcc_ar6_wgii_factsheet_australasia/3023355/ on 13 September 2022. CID: 20.500.12592/7f1fm4.
Her E, Wolfenson D, Flamenbaum I, Folman Y, Kaim M, Berman A (1988) Thermal, productive, and reproductive responses of high yielding cows exposed to short-term cooling in summer. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 1085-1092.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2022) IPCC, 2022: summary for policymakers [Eds H-O Pörtner, DC Roberts, ES Poloczanska, K Mintenbeck, M Tignor, A Alegría, M Craig, S Langsdorf, S Löschke, V Möller, A Okem]. In ‘Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability’. Contribution of Working Group II to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. (Eds H-O Pörtner, DC Roberts, M Tignor, ES Poloczanska, K Mintenbeck, A Alegría, M Craig, S Langsdorf, S Löschke, V Möller, A Okem, B Rama) pp. 3–33. (Cambridge University Press)
Jonker A, Scobie D, Dynes R, Edwards G, De Klein C, Hague H, McAuliffe R, Taylor A, Knight T, Waghorn G (2017) Feeding diets with fodder beet decreased methane emissions from dry and lactating dairy cows in grazing systems. Animal Production Science 57(7), 1445-1450.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kalaugher E, Beukes P, Bornman JF, Clark A, Campbell DI (2017) Modelling farm-level adaptation of temperate, pasture-based dairy farms to climate change. Agricultural Systems 153, 53-68.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Krömker V, Leimbach S (2017) Mastitis treatment – reduction in antibiotic usage in dairy cows. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 52, 21-29.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Leahy SC, Kearney L, Reisinger A, Clark H (2019) Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from New Zealand pasture-based livestock farm systems. Journal of New Zealand Grasslands 81, 101-110.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Llonch P, Haskell MJ, Dewhurst RJ, Turner SP (2017) Current available strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in livestock systems: an animal welfare perspective. Animal 11, 274-284.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Lovejoy T (2008) Climate change and biodiversity. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’Office Internationale des Epizooties 27, 331-338.
| Google Scholar |
Mansfield S, Ferguson C, Gerard P, Hodges D, Kean J, Phillips C, Hardwick S, Zydenbos S (2021) Climate change impacts on pest ecology and risks to pasture resilience. NZGA: Research and Practice Series 17, 123-138.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
McCahon K, McCahon A, Ussher G (2021) Diversified pastures at the front line of climate change in Northland: farmers experiences, new directions and wider implications for other parts of the country. NZGA: Research and Practice Series 17, 213-224.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Mellor DJ (2017) Operational details of the five domains model and its key applications to the assessment and management of animal welfare. Animals 7(12), 60.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Moore AD, Ghahramani A (2013) Climate change and broadacre livestock production across southern Australia. 1. Impacts of climate change on pasture and livestock productivity, and on sustainable levels of profitability. Global Change Biology 19(5), 1440-1455.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
MPI (2023) Animal welfare. Available at https://www.mpi.govt.nz/animals/animal-welfare/
Nidumolu U, Crimp S, Gobbett D, Laing A, Howden M, Little S (2010) Heat stress in dairy cattle in northern Victoria: responses to a changing climate. CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship Working paper No. 10.http://www.csiro.au/resources/CAF-workingpapers.html
Özkan Ş, Teillard F, Lindsay B, Montgomery H, Rota A, Gerber P, Dhingra M, Mottet A (2022) The role of animal health in national climate commitments. FAO, Rome, Italy. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0431en
Percival JC, Thornton RH (1958) Relationship between the presence of fungal spores and a test for hepatotoxic grass. Nature 182, 1095-1096.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Rensis FD, Scaramuzzi RJ (2003) Heat stress and seasonal effects on reproduction in the dairy cow – a review. Theriogenology 60, 1139-1151.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Rutter SM (2006) Diet preference for grass and legumes in free-ranging domestic sheep and cattle: current theory and future application. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 97, 17-35.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Rutter SM (2010) Review: grazing preferences in sheep and cattle: implications for production, the environment and animal welfare. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 90, 285-293.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Smith LC, Monaghan RM (2020) Nitrogen leaching losses from fodder beet and kale crops grazed by dairy cows in southern Southland. Journal of New Zealand Grasslands 82, 61-71.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Thompson P, Harris C, Holt D, Pajor EA (2007) Livestock welfare product claims: the emerging social context. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2354-2360.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Timmer-Arends P (2022) Animal welfare and climate change in Aotearoa: opportunities to improve animal welfare through climate change action. [2022 Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme Report]. (Rural Leaders). Available at https://ruralleaders.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Animal-Welfare-and-Climate-Change-in-Aotearoa-Penny-Timmer-Arends.pdf
Towers NR (1978) The incidence of sub-clinical facial eczema in selected Waikato dairy herds. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 26, 142-145.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Vallee E, Wada M, Cogger N, Kelly V, Marshall J, Benschop J, Macara G, Tait A (2021) Effects of climate change on grazing livestock health in New Zealand (MPI Technical Paper). (MPI). Available at https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/45574-Effects-of-climate-change-on-grazing-livestock-health-inNew-Zealand
Vanhonacker F, Verbeke W (2014) Public and consumer policies for higher welfare food products: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27, 153-171.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Ventura BA, Von Keyserlingk MAG, Wittman H, Weary DM (2016) What difference does a visit make? Changes in animal welfare perceptions after interested citizens tour a dairy farm. PLoS ONE 11, e0154733.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Webster J (2016) Animal welfare: freedoms, dominions and ‘a life worth living’. Animals 6(6), 35.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wheelock JB, Rhoads RP, VanBaale MJ, Sanders SR, Baumgard LH (2010) Effects of heat stress on energetic metabolism in lactating Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 644-655.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
