Management Factors Influence Animal Welfare and the Correlation to Infectious Diseases in Dairy Cows

SIMPLE SUMMARY: To investigate the relationship between some infectious diseases (Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis, Chlamydiophila abortus, Neospora caninum, bovine viral diarrhea virus, and the bovine herpesvirus) and the dairy farms’ welfare scores, 36 dairy farms were monitored using the Italian National Animal Welfare Reference Center (CreNBA) checklist. Farms and their animals were scored in five different areas, namely: Area A, “Farm management and personnel”; Area B, “Facilities and equipment”; Area C, “Animal-based measures”; Area D, “Inspection of microclimatic environmental conditions and alarm systems”; and Area E, “Biosecurity”. The recorded scores were compared between two farming conditions (access to pasture and indoor housing) and correlated with the serum data. Our results indicated that an accurate application of the checklist could be an instrument to prevent and control the spread of infections in dairy farms. ABSTRACT: The present study assessed dairy cow welfare through the application of the Italian National Animal Welfare Reference Center (CReNBA) checklist in 36 dairy farms located in Ragusa (Italy) subjected to two different management conditions, housing with free access to pasture (Group 1, farms n = 17) and indoor housing (Group 2, farms n = 19). Five areas of investigation were considered: Area A, “Farm management and personnel”; Area B, “Facilities and equipment”; Area C, “Animal-based measures”; Area D, “Inspection of microclimatic environmental conditions and alarm systems”; and Area E, “Biosecurity”. Blood samples were collected by coccygeal venipuncture from all animals (4081 cows). The specific antibodies against Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis, Chlamydiophila abortus, Neospora caninum, bovine viral diarrhea virus, and the bovine herpesvirus were assessed by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) serological test. Group 1 (access to pasture) showed a lower value of percentage score recorded in Area A (p = 0.02) and E (p = 0.01) than Group 2 (indoor housing). Herpesvirus (Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis - IBR - detection of gB antibodies/IBR-gB) blood concentrations were higher in the cows housed indoor versus those with access to pasture (p = 0.01). Farm management and personnel (score A) was correlated with the level of bovine viral diarrhea virus (τ = 0.3754) and bovine-herpesvirus-specific antibodies (IBR-gB) (τ = 0.4159). “Biosecurity” percentage score showed a significant correlation with Chlamydiophila abortus (τ = −0.4621) in the cows with access to pasture and IBR-gB (τ = 0.3435) in the cows housed fully indoors. Group 2 showed a significantly reduced level of antibodies against Neospora caninum. In conclusion, differences in the welfare assessment score were observed in the “Farm management and personnel” and “Biosecurity” between the two management conditions. It had an effect on the prevalence of herpesvirus, which occurred more in cattle with access to pasture. Therefore, an accurate application of the checklist could be an instrument to prevent and control the spread of infections in farms.