Aim: This study was aimed at describing calf comfort and determining the individual and pen level factors that affect comfort status (in particular, calf leg hygiene scores) of smallholder dairy farms in Meru County, Kenya.

Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out on 52 calves that were up to 1 year old in 38 dairy farms (mean±standard deviation: Herd size=1.71±0.7 milking cows and milk production=6.7±3.1 L/day) in Meru, Kenya, in 2017, with the intention to describe their comfort and determine the factors associated with leg hygiene as a critical parameter for calf comfort assessment. Calves' biodata, health status, and leg hygiene were assessed, along with pen characteristics such as area, hygiene, and knee impact and knee wetness scores, while a questionnaire was administered to the farmers to gather information regarding calf housing management practices in the farm.

Results: The calves had a mean body weight of 85.2±32.8 kg and average daily weight gain of 0.50±0.45 kg per day. 71% of calves had a good body condition score (≥2.5), and the mean space allowance per calf was 2.52±1.56 m². Approximately 75% of the calves (39/52) were kept in pens, and the rest were reared outdoors. For 39 calves kept indoors, 26% (10/39) of them had wooden or concrete floors while 74% (29/39) had dirt floors. Nearly two-thirds (62%) of indoor calves (26/39) were reared in pens with bedding, and 23% (9/39) and 33% (13/39) of the calves reared indoors were kept in pens displaying a failed knee impact test and failed knee wetness test. Indoor housed calves had an increased probability of having dirty calf legs (cleanliness score of >2.5) by 8.6 times (p=0.031), compared to outdoor-housed calves. In the final multivariable logistic regression model of 39 calves in pens, concrete or wood floors (odds ratio [OR]=7.9, p=0.047), poor body condition (OR=17.1, p=0.020) and use of bedding (OR=12.5, p=0.046) appeared to be positively correlated with dirtiness of calf legs, compared to dirt floors, good body condition, and no bedding, respectively.

Conclusion: Overall, some calf comfort aspects were covered for the majority of calves examined, but 69% of the pens were categorized as dirty, especially those with wooden or concrete floors and poor bedding management. Smallholder dairy farmers in Kenya should be trained on calf housing management to improve calf comfort and productivity.

Keywords: calf comfort, calf hygiene, dairy calves, Kenya.

1. Rollin, B.E. (2004) Animal agriculture and emerging social ethics for animals. Large Animal Proceedings of the North American Veterinary Conference. Vol. 18. Orlando, Florida, USA. p17-21.

2. Algers, B.B, Broom, D.M., Canali, E., Hartung, J., Smulders, F., Van Reenen, C.J. and Veissier, I. (2006) Scientific opinion on the risk of poor welfare in intensive calf farming systems - An update of the scientific veterinary committee report on the welfare of calves. EFSA J., 366: 1-36.

3. Kunz, P. and Leimbacher, A. (1983) How to rear healthy calves over the first few months. Landtech. Zeitschrift., 34(3): 370-375.

4. Raussi, S., Lensink, B.J., Boissy, A., Pyykkonen, M. and Veissier, I. (2003) The effect of contact with conspecifics and humans on calves' behaviour and stress responses. Anim. Welf., 12: 191-203.

5. De Paula Vieira, A., Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. and Weary, D.M. (2010) Effects of pair versus single housing on performance and behavior of dairy calves before and after weaning from milk. J. Dairy Sci., 93: 3079-3085. [Crossref]

6. Vasseur, E., Borderas, F., Cue, R.I., Lefebvre, D., Pellerin, D., Rushen, J., Wade, K.M. and de Passille, A.M. (2010) A survey of dairy calf management practices in Canada that affect animal welfare. J. Dairy Sci., 93: 1307-1316. [Crossref] [PubMed]

7. National Animal Health Monitoring System, Dairy. (2007) Part IV, Reference of dairy cattle health and management practices in the United States, 2007, APHIS, Fort Collins, CO.

8. EU Monitor. (1996) Council Directive 97/2/EC of 20 January 1997 Amending Directive 91/629/EEC Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Calves (Presented by the Commission). COM (96) 21 Final, 24 January 1996.

9. Costa, J.H.C., Meagher, R.K., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. and Weary, D.M. (2015) Early pair housing increases solid feed intake and weight gains in dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci., 98: 6381. [Crossref] [PubMed]

10. Faerevik, G., Jensen, M.B. and Boe, K.E. (2006) Dairy calves social preferences and the significance of a companion animal during separation from the group. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 99: 205-221. [Crossref]

11. Duve, L.R. and Jensen, M.B. (2012) Social behavior of young dairy calves housed with limited or full social contact with a peer. J. Dairy Sci., 95: 5936-5945. [Crossref] [PubMed]

12. Costa, J.H.C., Daros, R.R., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. and Weary, D.M. (2014) Complex social housing reduces food neophobia in dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci., 97: 7804-7810. [Crossref] [PubMed]

13. Chua, B., Coenen, E., van Delen, J. and Weary, D.M. (2002) Effects of pair versus individual housing on the behavior and performance of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci., 85: 360-364. [Crossref]

14. Xiccato, G., Trocino, A., Queaque, P.I., Sartori, A. and Carazzolo, A. (2002) Rearing veal calves with respect to animal welfare: Effects of group housing and solid feed supplementation on growth performance and meat quality. Livest. Prod. Sci., 75: 269-280. [Crossref]

15. Tapk, I. (2007) Effects of individual or combined housing systems on behavioural and growth responses of dairy calves. Acta Agric. Scand. A - Anim. Sci. J., 57: 55-60.

16. Maatje, K. and Verhoeff, J. (1991) Automated feeding of milk replacer and health control of group-housed veal calves. In: Metz, J.H.M., Groenestein, C.M., editors. New Trends in Veal Calf Production. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Veal Calf Production, Wageningen, Netherlands. p14-16.

17. Tomkins, T. (1991) Loose-housing experience in North America. In: Metz, J.H.M., Groenestein, C.M., editors. New Trends in Veal Calf Production. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Veal Calf Production, Wageningen, Netherlands. p14-16.

18. Van Putten, G. (1982) Welfare in veal calf units. Vet. Rec., 111(19): 437-440. [Crossref]

19. Wilson, L.L., Terosky, T.L, Stull, C.L. and Stricklin, W.R. (1999) Effects of individual housing design and size on behavior and stress indicators of special-fed Holstein veal calves. J. Anim. Sci., 77: 1341-1347. [Crossref] [PubMed]

20. Panivivat, R., Kegley, E.B., Pennington, J.A., Kellogg, D.W. and Krumpelman, S.L. (2004) Article: Growth performance and health of dairy calves bedded with different types of materials. J. Dairy Sci., 87: 3736-3745. [Crossref]

21. Camiloti, T.V., Fregonesi, J.A., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. and Weary, D.M. (2012) Short communication: Effects of bedding quality on the lying behavior of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci., 95: 3380-3383. [Crossref]

22. von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Cunha, G.E., Fregonesi, J.A. and Weary, D.M. (2011) Introducing heifers to freestall housing. J. Dairy Sci., 94: 1900-1907. [Crossref] [PubMed]

23. Le Neindre, P. (1993) Evaluating housing systems for veal calves. J. Anim. Sci., 71(5): 1345-1354. [Crossref]

24. Hanninen, L., De Passille, A.M. and Rushen, J. (2005) The effect of flooring type and social grouping on the rest and growth of dairy calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 91: 193-204. [Crossref]

25. Lago, A., McGuirk, S.M., Bennett, T.B., Cook, N.B. and Nordlund, K.V. (2006) Calf respiratory disease and pen microenvironments in naturally ventilated calf barns in winter. J. Dairy Sci., 89: 4014-4025. [Crossref]

26. Ninomiya, S. and Sato, S. (2009) Effects of 'five freedoms' environmental enrichment on the welfare of calves reared indoors. Anim. Sci. J., 80: 347. [Crossref] [PubMed]

27. Behnke, R., Centre, O., Wolford, G. and Muthami, D. (2013) A Living from Livestock IGAD Livestock Policy Initiative. The Contribution of Livestock to the Kenyan Economy, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

28. Peter, G.S., Gitau, G.K., Mulei, C.M., Vanleeuwen, J., Richards, S., Wichtel, J., Uehlinger, F. and Mainga, O. (2015) Prevalence of cryptosporidia, Eimeria, Giardia, and Strongyloides in pre-weaned calves on smallholder dairy farms in Mukurwe-ini District, Kenya. Vet World, 8: 1118-1125. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]

29. Peter, S.G., Gitau, G.K., Richards, S., Vanleeuwen, J.A., Uehlinger, F., Mulei, C.M. and Kibet, R.R. (2016) Risk factors associated with Cryptosporidia, Eimeria, and diarrhea in smallholder dairy farms in Mukurwe-ini Sub-County, Nyeri County, Kenya. Vet World, 9(8): 811-819. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]

30. Wildman, E.E., Jones, G.M., Wagner, P.E., Boman, R.L., Troutt, H.F. Jr. and Lesch, T.N. (1982) A dairy cow body condition scoring system and its relationship to selected production characteristics. J. Dairy Sci., 65: 495-501. [Crossref]

31. Reneau, J.K., Seykora, A.J., Heins, B.J., Endres, M.I., Farnsworth, R.J. and Bey, R.F. (2005) Association between hygiene scores and somatic cell scores in dairy cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 227: 1297-1301. [Crossref] [PubMed]

32. Sprecher, D.J., Hostetler, D.E. and Kaneene, J.B. (1997) A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, 47(6): 1179. [Crossref]

33. Barrientos, A.K., Chapinal, N., Weary, D.M., Galo, E. and von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. (2013) Herd-level risk factors for hock injuries in freestall-housed dairy cows in the Northeastern United States and California. J. Dairy Sci., 96: 3758-3765. [Crossref]

34. Lombard, J.E., Tucker, C.B., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Kopral, C.A and Weary, D.M. (2010) Associations between cow hygiene, hock injuries, and free stall usage on US dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci., 93: 4668-4676. [Crossref] [PubMed]

35. McFarland, D.F. and Graves, R.E. (1995) A Case Study with Dairy Cattle: Freestalls. Conference Proceedings; Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service Ithaca, in April 1995.

36. Akdag, F., Arslan, S., Caynak, A. and Teke, B. (2011) The relationships of phenotype, genotype and some environmental factors with birth weight in Jersey calves. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 10: 7308-7313.

37. Oddoye, E.O.K., Okantah, S.A., Obese, F.Y. and Gyawu, P. (1999) Growth performance, body condition score and milk yield of Sanga cattle in smallholder peri-urban dairy herds in the Accra Plains of Ghana. Bull. Anim. Health Prod. Afr., 47: 143-148.

38. Negash, M. (2005) Birth weight and gestation length in Holstein-Friesians. Bull. Anim. Health Prod. Afr., 53: 135-137. [Crossref]

39. Mellor, D.J. (2017) Operational details of the five domains model and its key applications to the assessment and management of animal welfare. Animals, 7(60): 1-20. [Crossref]

40. Roche, J.R., Friggens, N.C., Kay, J.K., Fisher, M.W., Stafford, K.J. and Berry, D.P. (2009) Invited review: Body condition score and its association with dairy cow productivity, health, and welfare. J. Dairy Sci., 92: 5769-5801. [Crossref]

41. Gitau, G.K., McDermott, J.J., Adams, J.E., Lissemore, K.D. and Waltner-Toews, D (1994) Factors influencing calf growth and daily weight gain on smallholder dairy farms in Kiambu District, Kenya. Prev. Vet. Med., 21: 179-190. [Crossref]

42. Sreedhar, S. (2015) Growth performance of indigenous and crossbred calves in coastal region of Andhra Pradesh. Livest. Res. Int., 3(4): 99-102.

43. Wakchaure, R.S. and Meena, R. (2010) Factors Affecting, birth weight, age and weight at first calving in Sahiwal cattle. Indian J. Anim. Res., 44(3): 173-177.

---