research journal on dairy

• Remember Login
• Reset Password
• Retrieve password
• Retrieve Password
• Benefits of Membership
• e-Product Portal
• Join / Renew
• Membership Directory
• Graduate Student Division
• Undergraduate Student Division
• Membership Certificate
• All Publications
• Journal of Dairy Science
• JDS Communications
• Dairy Science Weekly
• Large Dairy Herd Management
• Guide for the Care and Use of Animals
• Dairy Digressions Podcast
• Journal Rewards
• 2024 Annual Meeting
• 2025 Annual Meeting
• 2021 Webinar Series
• COVID-19 Response
• 45th Discover Conference
• 46th Discover Conference
• Discover Conference Series
• Past Meetings
• Future Meetings
• Corporate Documents
• ADSA Science Director Application

Journal of Dairy Science ®

Journal Impact Factor: 3.7

© 2024 Journal Citation Reports®, Clarivate Analytics

Ranked 7th out of 80 journals in Agriculture, Dairy, and Animal Science category JDS is ranked 5th for the 5-year Impact Factor (4.354), 1st by Eigenfactor (which removes self-citations), and 1st by total citations in this category.-->

Ranked 57th out of 173 journals in Food Science and Technology category JDS is ranked 40th for Impact Factor, 5th by Eigenfactor (which removes self-citations), and 3rd by total citations.-->

An official journal of the American Dairy Science Association, the  Journal of Dairy Science (JDS) is the leading general dairy research journal in the world. JDS readers represent education, industry, and government agencies in more than 70 countries with interests in biochemistry, breeding, economics, engineering, environment, food science, genetics, microbiology and food safety, nutrition, pathology, physiology, processing, public health, quality assurance, and sanitation.

There is no better way to remain up to date on important advances in the dairy industry than having electronic access to JDS. The journal publishes original research, technical notes, current news items, and articles of general interest to leaders in the dairy industry. Every issue of JDS, starting with the first issue published in 1917 and continuing up to the present, is available as part of the ADSA membership package. ADSA members also receive discounted author publication costs. 

Important Links

• Submit a Manuscript to JDS
• Standard Abbreviations for JDS and JDS Communications
• JDS Open Access FAQ
• JDS Editorial Board Page
• JDS Reviewers Volunteer Form Page
• JDS Invited Papers/Invited Reviews Form Page
• Sign Up for New Issue Alerts
• Create a Reporting Checklist

Journal of Dairy Science Launches Loyalty Program  

Curious about the academic publishing process in general, or looking for tips to help improve your publishing experience? Explore the American Dairy Science Association’s webinar series for authors and reviewers, including:

• Choosing a peer-reviewed journal and highlighting your scholarly and creative activity
• How to review a scientific paper
• Graphical abstracts to enhance your paper’s visibility

ACCELERATED PUBLISHING TIMES FOR JDS AND JDS COMMUNICATIONS  

Get all the details on the update— including a detailed FAQ —in a letter from JDS Editor in Chief Paul Kononoff.  Read more

The Journal of Dairy Science Editor’s Choice features articles selected by the Editor in Chief as especially notable regarding their contribution to dairy science, specifically in dairy foods and dairy production (physiology, management, nutrition, and genetics). Scroll through some of the recent selections:

• Use of high-pressure processing and low-temperature storage to extend the performance shelf life of 2 types of string cheese
• A comparison of free amino nitrogen and yeast-assimilable nitrogen measurement methods for use in alcoholic fermentation of whey
• Effects of extending dairy cow longevity by adjusted reproduction management decisions on partial net return and greenhouse gas emissions: A dynamic stochastic herd simulation study
• Effect of oxytocin use during colostrum harvest and the association of cow characteristics with colostrum yield and immunoglobulin G concentration in Holstein dairy cows

Follow us on social media

https://twitter.com/jdairyscience https://www.facebook.com/journaldairyscience/

JDS Top 100 Papers

• JDS Top 100 Papers for 2023
• JDS Top 100 Papers for 2022
• JDS Top 100 Papers for 2021
• JDS Top 100 Papers for 2020

Member-Author Loyalty Rewards Program (2014–2018)

To provide page charge relief to loyal ADSA members who are core contributing authors to the Journal of Dairy Science ®, ADSA has created a Member-Author Loyalty Rewards Program, effective immediately.

Corresponding authors who have been members of ADSA for at least 5 consecutive years, have published at least 4 articles in the 3 most recent complete volumes, and are active reviewers for the journal qualify automatically. The recipients listed below are acknowledged for having published papers in the Journal of Dairy Science .

The Reward: One article published or accepted in the year following the qualifying period will be free of page charges (up to 10 pages; an $850 value). The qualifying corresponding author must be a professional member in good standing in the year in which the free pages are redeemed. The free pages must be used for one article, even if it is shorter than 10 pages, and cannot be transferred to another author or carried over to the following year. Free papers do not count toward qualifying papers for subsequent rewards. Qualifying authors will receive a separate e-mail with information on how to redeem their free pages.

ADSA recognizes and thanks the following ADSA members for their significant contributions to, and support of, the Journal of Dairy Science , ADSA, and the global dairy industry.

2018 Recipients

• Adegbola Adesogan
• Michael Allen
• Jayendra Amamcharla
• Divakar Ambrose
• Jill Anderson
• Louis Armentano
• Kayanush Aryana
• David Barbano
• Herman Barkema
• Jeffrey Bewley
• Rodrigo Bicalho
• Barry Bradford
• Andre Brito
• Rupert Bruckmaier
• Victor Cabrera
• Zhi-Jun Cao
• Ronaldo Cerri
• Stephanie Clark
• Wayne Coblentz
• Robert Collier
• David Combs
• Milena Corredig
• Albert De Vries
• Trevor DeVries
• Shawn Donkin
• James Drackley
• MaryAnne Drake
• Jocelyn Dubuc
• Todd Duffield
• Marcia Endres
• Richard Erdman
• Peter Erickson
• Jeffrey Firkins
• Paul Fricke
• Julio Giordano
• Christiane Girard
• Sandra Godden
• Mary Beth Hall
• Harald Hammon
• Kevin Harvatine
• Arlyn Heinrichs
• Wolfgang Heuwieser
• Alexander Hristov
• Pekka Huhtanen
• Margit Jensen
• Ermias Kebreab
• David Kelton
• Paul Kononoff
• Peter Krawczel
• Pierre Lacasse
• Matthew Lucy
• Marcos Marcondes
• Jessica McArt
• Joseph McFadden
• Donald McMahon
• John McNamara
• Michael Miller
• Carmen Moraru
• Paolo Moroni
• Kasey Moyes
• Timothy Mutsvangwa
• Daryl Nydam
• Masahito Oba
• Thomas Overton
• Pablo Pinedo
• Yves Pouliot
• Pamela Ruegg
• Jose Eduardo Santos
• Marcos Santos
• Gustavo Schuenemann
• Nagendra Shah
• Randy Shaver
• Lorraine Sordillo
• Michael Steele
• Jeffrey Stevenson
• Cassandra Tucker
• Michael Van Amburgh
• Jose Luiz Vasconcelos
• Elsa Vasseur
• Marina von Keyserlingk
• Michel Wattiaux
• Daniel Weary
• William Weiss
• Joel Weller
• Martin Wiedmann
• George Wiggans
• Qendrim Zebeli

2017 Recipients

• Adegbola T. Adesogan
• R. M. Akers
• Michael S. Allen
• J. K. Amamcharla
• Sanjeev Anand
• David M. Barbano
• Jeffrey M. Bewley
• R. C. Bicalho
• Rupert M. Bruckmaier
• Victor E. Cabrera
• R. L. A. Cerri
• Wayne K. Coblentz
• M. Corredig
• Geoffrey Dahl
• Albert de Vries
• S. S. Donkin
• J. K. Drackley
• Mary Anne Drake
• Todd F. Duffield
• M. I. Endres
• P. S. Erickson
• J. L. Firkins
• P. M. Fricke
• K. N. Galvao
• J. O. Giordano
• C. L. Girard
• S. Govindasamy-Lucey
• H. M. Hammon
• M. D. Hanigan
• Kevin J. Harvatine
• Arlyn (Jud) Heinrichs
• W. Heuwieser
• A. N. Hristov
• P. Huhtanen
• Margit Bak Jensen
• P. J. Kononoff
• Limin Kung Jr.
• Juan J Loor
• J. A. Lucey
• T. Mutsvangwa
• Thomas R. Overton
• Jennie Pryce
• Chris K. Reynolds
• J. R. Roche
• Pamela L. Ruegg
• J. E. P. Santos
• Randy D. Shaver
• Lorraine M. Sordillo
• D. M. Spurlock
• Judith R. Stabel
• Charles Staples
• J. S. Stevenson
• P. M. Tomasula
• Cassandra B. Tucker
• Marcos Veiga dos Santos
• D. M. Weary
• W. P. Weiss
• Joel I. Weller
• M. Wiedmann
• George R. Wiggans
• Milo C. Wiltbank

2016 Recipients

• M. Albenzio
• Chaouki Benchaar
• R. C. Chebel
• Rodolfo Luzbel de la Sota
• Sandra M. Godden
• Jud (Arlyn) Heinrichs
• Hasan Khatib
• Bjorn Kuhla
• Helene Lapierre
• Noah B. Litherland
• Matt C. Lucy
• Peiqiang Yu

2015 Recipients

• Michael Ballou
• David Beede
• Stephen Butler
• Gerardo Caja
• Ricardo Chebel
• Yves Chilliard
• Peter Constable
• Benjamin Corl
• Klibs Neblan Galvao
• Phil Garnsworthy
• Mark Hanigan
• Peter Hansen
• Bradley Heins
• Noah Litherland
• Jian-Xin Liu
• Brian McBride
• Scott Rankin
• Tonya Schoenfuss
• Kathy Soder
• Milo Wiltbank

2014 Recipients

• Dale E. Bauman
• David K. Beede
• Glen Broderick
• V. E. Cabrera
• Chad Dechow
• Lorraine Doepel
• Peter S. Erickson
• Paul M. Fricke
• Federico Harte
• Jud Heinrichs
• Bradley J. Heins
• Alex Hristov
• Helen Lapierre
• Juan J. Loor
• John A. Lucey
• Lloyd E. Metzger
• Filippo Miglior
• C. I. Moraru
• H. D. Norman
• Scott A. Rankin
• Robert F. Roberts
• John R. Roche
• Ynte H. Schukken
• Jeff Stevenson
• H. H. Swalve
• William Thatcher
• Paul VanRaden

Dairy Science Delivered to Your Inbox

Be the first to know about the latest global dairy news, educational industry events, and the newest publications and resources via Dairy Science Weekly , ADSA's weekly newsletter. See an example before you sign up.

Journal of Dairy Research

Subject Area and Category

• Animal Science and Zoology
• Food Science
• Medicine (miscellaneous)

Cambridge University Press

Publication type

00220299, 14697629

Information

How to publish in this journal

[email protected]

The set of journals have been ranked according to their SJR and divided into four equal groups, four quartiles. Q1 (green) comprises the quarter of the journals with the highest values, Q2 (yellow) the second highest values, Q3 (orange) the third highest values and Q4 (red) the lowest values.

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.

Evolution of the number of published documents. All types of documents are considered, including citable and non citable documents.

This indicator counts the number of citations received by documents from a journal and divides them by the total number of documents published in that journal. The chart shows the evolution of the average number of times documents published in a journal in the past two, three and four years have been cited in the current year. The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor ™ (Thomson Reuters) metric.

Evolution of the total number of citations and journal's self-citations received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. Journal Self-citation is defined as the number of citation from a journal citing article to articles published by the same journal.

Evolution of the number of total citation per document and external citation per document (i.e. journal self-citations removed) received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. External citations are calculated by subtracting the number of self-citations from the total number of citations received by the journal’s documents.

International Collaboration accounts for the articles that have been produced by researchers from several countries. The chart shows the ratio of a journal's documents signed by researchers from more than one country; that is including more than one country address.

Not every article in a journal is considered primary research and therefore "citable", this chart shows the ratio of a journal's articles including substantial research (research articles, conference papers and reviews) in three year windows vs. those documents other than research articles, reviews and conference papers.

Ratio of a journal's items, grouped in three years windows, that have been cited at least once vs. those not cited during the following year.

Evolution of the percentage of female authors.

Evolution of the number of documents cited by public policy documents according to Overton database.

Evoution of the number of documents related to Sustainable Development Goals defined by United Nations. Available from 2018 onwards.

Leave a comment

Name * Required

Email (will not be published) * Required

* Required Cancel

The users of Scimago Journal & Country Rank have the possibility to dialogue through comments linked to a specific journal. The purpose is to have a forum in which general doubts about the processes of publication in the journal, experiences and other issues derived from the publication of papers are resolved. For topics on particular articles, maintain the dialogue through the usual channels with your editor.

Follow us on @ScimagoJR Scimago Lab , Copyright 2007-2024. Data Source: Scopus®

Cookie settings

Cookie Policy

Legal Notice

Privacy Policy

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Advances in dairy cattle reproduction—a foreword.

Conflicts of Interest

• Zeuner, F.E. The history of the domestication of cattle. In Man and Cattle ; Mourant, A.E., Zeuner, E.F., Eds.; Royal Antropo-logical Institute: London, UK, 1963; pp. 9–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Curry, A. Archaeology: The milk revolution. Nature 2013 , 500 , 20–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Smith, K.A. Edward Jenner and the small pox vaccine. Front. Immunol. 2011 , 2 , 21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hunter, R.H.F.; López-Gatius, F. From sperm to embryos; lessons learnt from Tim Rowson’s career. Theriogenology 2021 , 172 , 255–260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Moor, R.M.; Booth, W.D.; Allen, W.R. A History of the Cambridge Animal Research Station, 1933–1986 ; R. & W. Communications: Newmarket, UK, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bello, N.M.; Stevenson, J.S.; Tempelman, R.J. Invited review: Milk production and reproductive performance: Modern interdisciplinary insights into an enduring axiom. J. Dairy Sci. 2012 , 95 , 5461–5475. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• De Vries, A. Symposium review: Why revisit dairy cattle productive lifespan? J. Dairy Sci. 2020 , 103 , 3838–3845. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Knapp, J.R.; Laur, G.L.; Vadas, P.A.; Weiss, W.P.; Tricarico, J.M. Invited review: Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: Quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. J. Dairy Sci. 2014 , 97 , 3231–3261. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ozlu, E.; Arriaga, F.J.; Bilen, S.; Gozukara, G.; Babur, E. Carbon footprint management by agricultural practices. Biology 2022 , 11 , 1453. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bedere, N.; Cutullic, E.; Delaby, L.; Garcia-Launay, F.; Disenhaus, C. Meta-analysis of the relationships between reproduction, milk yield and body condition score in dairy cows. Liv. Sci. 2018 , 210 , 73–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• LeBlanc, S. Assessing the association of the level of milk production with reproductive performance in dairy cattle. J. Reprod. Dev. 2020 , 56 , S1–S7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Capper, J.L.; Bauman, D.E. The role of productivity in improving the environmental sustainability of ruminant production systems. Ann. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 2013 , 1 , 469–489. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baruselli, P.S.; de Abreu, L.Â.; de Paula, V.R.; Carvalho, B.; Gricio, E.A.; Mori, F.K.; Rebeis, L.M.; Albertini, S.; de Souza, A.H.; D’Occhio, M. Applying assisted reproductive technology and reproductive management to reduce CO 2 -equivalent emission in dairy and beef cattle: A review. Anim. Reprod. 2023 , 20 , e20230060. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wolf, C.A.; Tonsor, G.T.; McKendree, M.G.S.; Thomson, D.U.; Swanson, J.C. Public and farmer perceptions of dairy cattle welfare in the United States. J. Dairy Sci. 2016 , 99 , 5892–5903. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lucy, M.C. Symposium review: Selection for fertility in the modern dairy cow-Current status and future direction for genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 2019 , 102 , 3706–3721. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ealy, A.D.; Seekford, Z.K. Symposium review: Predicting pregnancy loss in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2019 , 102 , 11798–11804. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pérez-Marín, C.C.; Quintela, L.A. Current Insights in the repeat breeder cow syndrome. Animals 2023 , 13 , 2187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Szenci, O. Accuracy to predict the onset of calving in dairy farms by using different precision livestock farming devices. Animals 2022 , 12 , 2006. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bors, S.-I.; Bors, A. Economics of rebreeding nonpregnant dairy cows diagnosed by transrectal ultrasonography on day 25 after artificial insemination. Animals 2022 , 12 , 761. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Szelényi, Z.; Kovács, L.; Szenci, O.; Lopez-Gatius, F. The uterus as an influencing factor for late embryo/early fetal loss—A clinical update. Animals 2022 , 12 , 1873. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Young, C.D.; Schrick, F.N.; Pohler, K.G.; Saxton, A.M.; Di Croce, F.A.; Roper, D.A.; Wilkerson, J.B.; Edwards, J.L. Short communication: A reproductive tract scoring system to manage fertility in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2017 , 100 , 5922–5927. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Madureira, A.; Poole, R.K.; Burnett, T.A.; Guida, T.G.; Edwards, J.L.; Schrick, F.N.; Vasconcelos, J.; Cerri, R.; Pohler, K.G. Size and position of the reproductive tract impacts fertility outcomes and pregnancy losses in lactating dairy cows. Theriogenology 2020 , 158 , 66–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Palacín-Chauri, R.J.; Garcia-Ispierto, I. Cow and management factors and their association with estimates of uterine size and position at the time of insemination of dairy cattle. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2023 , 58 , 1338–1341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Szelényi, Z.; Szenci, O.; Bodó, S.; Kovács, L. Noninfectious causes of pregnancy loss at the late embryonic/early fetal stage in dairy cattle. Animals 2023 , 13 , 3390. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• López-Gatius, F.; Szenci, O. Clinical management of pregnancy-related problems between days 28 and 60 in the dairy cow. Theriogenology 2023 , 206 , 140–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• López-Gatius, F. Response to therapeutic abortion in lactating dairy cows carrying dead twins during the late embryo/early fetal period. Animals 2021 , 11 , 2508. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• López-Gatius, F. Ovarian response to prostaglandin F 2α in lactating dairy cows: A clinical update. J. Reprod. Dev. 2022 , 68 , 104–109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vishwanath, R.; Moreno, J.F. Review: Semen sexing—Current state of the art with emphasis on bovine species. Animal 2018 , 12 , s85–s96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reese, S.; Pirez, M.C.; Steele, H.; Kölle, S. The reproductive success of bovine sperm after sex-sorting: A meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2021 , 11 , 17366. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seidel, G.E., Jr.; DeJarnette, J.M. Applications and world-wide use of sexed semen in cattle. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2021 , 246 , 106841. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• López-Gatius, F. Revisiting the timing of insemination at spontaneous estrus in dairy cattle. Animals 2022 , 12 , 3565. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barbato, O.; Menchetti, L.; Brecchia, G.; Barile, V.L. Using pregnancy-associated glycoproteins (PAGs) to improve reproductive management: From dairy cows to other dairy livestock. Animals 2022 , 12 , 2033. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boni, R. Heat stress, a serious threat to reproductive function in animals and humans. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2019 , 86 , 1307–1323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sampath, V.; Shalakhti, O.; Veidis, E.; Efobi, J.A.I.; Shamji, M.H.; Agache, I.; Skevaki, C.; Renz, H.; Nadeau, K.C. Acute and chronic impacts of heat stress on planetary health. Allergy 2023 , 78 , 2109–2120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• De Rensis, F.; Saleri, R.; Garcia-Ispierto, I.; Scaramuzzi, R.; López-Gatius, F. Effects of heat stress on follicular physiology in dairy cows. Animals 2021 , 11 , 3406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Roth, Z. Symposium review: Reduction in oocyte developmental competence by stress is associated with alterations in mitochondrial function. J. Dairy Sci. 2018 , 101 , 3642–3654. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eppig, J.J. Oocyte control of ovarian follicular development and function in mammals. Reproduction 2001 , 122 , 829–838. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eppig, J.J.; Wigglesworth, K.; Pendola, F.L. The mammalian oocyte orchestrates the rate of ovarian follicular development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002 , 99 , 2890–2894. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• International Embryo Transfer Society. 2017 statistics of embryo production and transfer in domestic farm animals. Embryo Technol. Newsl. 2018 , 34 , 8–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hansen, P.J. The incompletely fulfilled promise of embryo transfer in cattle—Why aren’t pregnancy rates greater and what can we do about it? J. Anim. Sci. 2020 , 98 , skaa288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baruselli, P.S.; Ferreira, R.M.; Vieira, L.M.; Souza, A.H.; Bó, G.A.; Rodrigues, C.A. Use of embryo transfer to alleviate infertility caused by heat stress. Theriogenology. 2020 , 155 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seneda, M.M.; Costa, C.B.; Zangirolamo, A.F.; Dos Anjos, M.M.; de Paula, G.R.; Morotti, F. From the laboratory to the field: How to mitigate pregnancy losses in embryo transfer programs? Anim. Reprod. 2024 , 21 , e20240032. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pawlinski, B.; Petrajtis-Gołobów, M.; Trela, M.; Witkowska-Piłaszewicz, O. Acid–base, gas, ions, and glucose analysis in follicular fluid in Holstein-Friesian dairy cows is associated with the follicle size in Poland. Animals 2023 , 13 , 1636. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bittner-Schwerda, L.; Herrera, C.; Wyck, S.; Malama, E.; Wrenzycki, C.; Bollwein, H. Brilliant Cresyl Blue negative oocytes show a reduced competence for embryo development after in vitro fertilisation with sperm exposed to oxidative stress. Animals 2023 , 13 , 2621. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Humblot, P. From clinics to (cow)mics: A reproductive journey. Anim. Reprod. 2018 , 15 , 278–291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jones, G.S. The luteal phase defect. Fertil. Steril. 1976 , 27 , 351–356. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. Diagnosis and treatment of luteal phase deficiency: A committee opinion. Fertil. Steril. 2021 , 115 , 1416–1423. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mizrachi, Y.; Horowitz, E.; Ganer Herman, H.; Farhi, J.; Raziel, A.; Weissman, A. Should women receive luteal support following natural cycle frozen embryo transfer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum. Reprod. Update 2021 , 27 , 643–650. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thaqi, G.; Berisha, B.; Pfaffl, M.W. Expression of locally produced adipokines and their receptors during different physiological and reproductive stages in the bovine corpus luteum. Animals 2023 , 13 , 1782. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lewis, N.M.; Canedo-Ribeiro, C.; Rathje, C.C.; Jennings, R.L.; Danihel, M.; Bosman, L.M.; Silvestri, G.; Griffin, D.K. The economic burden of chromosome translocations and the benefits of enhanced screening for cattle breeding. Animals 2022 , 12 , 1982. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wijma, R.; Weigel, D.J.; Vukasinovic, N.; Gonzalez-Peña, D.; McGovern, S.P.; Fessenden, B.C.; McNeel, A.K.; Di Croce, F.A. Ge-nomic prediction for abortion in lactating Holstein dairy cows. Animals 2022 , 12 , 2079. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Share and Cite

López-Gatius, F. Advances in Dairy Cattle Reproduction—A Foreword. Animals 2024 , 14 , 2650. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182650

López-Gatius F. Advances in Dairy Cattle Reproduction—A Foreword. Animals . 2024; 14(18):2650. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182650

López-Gatius, Fernando. 2024. "Advances in Dairy Cattle Reproduction—A Foreword" Animals 14, no. 18: 2650. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182650

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Login to your account

If you don't remember your password, you can reset it by entering your email address and clicking the Reset Password button. You will then receive an email that contains a secure link for resetting your password

If the address matches a valid account an email will be sent to __email__ with instructions for resetting your password

Access provided by

A 100-Year Review: Advances in goat milk research

Download started

• Download PDF Download PDF
• Add to Mendeley
• adulteration
• composition
• somatic cells

INTRODUCTION

Advances in goat milk research from 1917 to 2017, goat milk and human nutrition, goats serve as surrogates to cows, advances in goat milk composition research.

• Open table in a new tab

Studies with Somatic Cells

Findings with fatty acids.

EVOLUTION OF GOAT MILK ENZYME RESEARCH

Variation of the BoLA-DRB3 gene in dairy cattle and its effect on the viability parameters

• Animal Genetics
• Published: 15 August 2012
• Volume 48 , pages 819–822, ( 2012 )

Cite this article

• N. V. Kovalyuk 1 ,
• V. F. Satsuk 2 &
• A. E. Volchenko 1  

100 Accesses

4 Citations

Explore all metrics

Genotyping of the BoLA-DRB3 alleles was performed in dairy cattle of Krasnodar krai and Holstein stud bulls. Loss of heterozygosity, which decreased the reproductive parameters, was observed. It was proposed that stud bulls be selected on the basis of their genotyping at the BoLA-DRB3 gene to prevent further decay of cattle viability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Genetic Polymorphism of BoLA-DRB3.2 Locus in Ukrainian Cattle Breeds

Gdf9 gene polymorphism and its association with litter size in two russian sheep breeds.

Variability in the PRDM9 gene in Sindhi cattle

Groenen, M.A., et al., The Nucleotide Sequence of Bovine MHC Class II DQB and DRB Genes, Immunogenetics , 1990, no. 31, p. 37.

Miretti, M.M. and Ferro, J.A., Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RLFP) in Exon 2 of the BoLA-DRB 3 Gene in South American Cattle, Biochem. Genet. , 2001, no. 39, pp. 311–324.

Sulimova, G.E., Udina, I.G., Shaikhaev, G.O, and Zakharov, I.A., DNA-Polymorphism of the BoLA-DRB 3 Gene in Cattle in Relation to Resistance or Susceptibility to Leucosis, Russ. J. Genet. , 1995, no. 9, pp. 1294–1299.

Xu, A., Van Eijk, V.J.T., and Park, Ch., Polymorphism in BoLA-DRB3 Exon 2 Correlates with Resistance to Persistent Lymphocytosis Caused by Bovine Leukemia Virus, J. Immunol. , 1993, vol. 151, no. 12, pp. 6977–6985.

PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kulberg, S., Heringstad B., Guttersrud, O.A., and Olsaker, I., Study on the Association of BoLA-DRB3.2 Alleles with Clinical Mastitis in Norwegian Red Cows, J. Anim. Breed. Genet. , 2007, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 201–207.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Sharif, S., Mallard, B.A., Wilkie, B.N.,et al., Associations of the Bovine Major Histocompatibility Complex DRB3 (BoLA DRB3) Wish Production Traits in Canadian Dairy Cattle, Anim. Genet. , 1999, vol. 30, pp. 157–160.

Rupp, R., et al., Association of Bovine Leukocyte Antigen (BoLA) DRB3.2 with Immune Response, Mastitis, and Production and Type Traits in Canadian Holsteins, J. Dairy Sci. , 2007, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 1029–1038.

Kovalyuk, N.V., Satsuk, V.F., and Machul’skaya, E.V., The Usage of Genetic Markers for Livestock Milk Productivity Improvement, Zootekhniya , 2007, no. 8, pp. 2–4.

Kovalyuk, N.V. and Satsuk, V.F., The Usage of BoLA-DRB3 Genetic Marker for Optimization of Selection Process during Breeding, Molochn. Myasn. Skotovod. (Moscow), 2010, no. 2, pp. 10–12.

Van Eijk, M.J.T., Stewart-Haynes, J.A., and Lewin, H.A., Extensive Polymorphism of the BoLA-DRB3 Gene Distinguished PCR-RFLP, Anim. Genet. , 1992, vol. 23, pp. 483–496.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kovalyuk, N.V., Kovalyuk, A.A., and Sivogrivov, D.E., RF Patent no. 2287587, Byull. Izobret. , 2006.

Satsuk, V.F., Kovalyuk, N.V., and Matviets, A.V., RF Patent no. 2429598, Byull. Izobret. , 2010, no. 27.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

North-Caucasian Institute of Animal Breeding, Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Krasnodar, 350055, Russia

N. V. Kovalyuk & A. E. Volchenko

ASTER Research-and-Production Agricultural Enterprise, Krasnodar, 350055, Russia

V. F. Satsuk

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. V. Kovalyuk .

Additional information

Original Russian Text © N.V. Kovalyuk, V.F. Satsuk, A.E. Volchenko, 2012, published in Genetika, 2012, Vol. 48, No. 8, pp. 962–965.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kovalyuk, N.V., Satsuk, V.F. & Volchenko, A.E. Variation of the BoLA-DRB3 gene in dairy cattle and its effect on the viability parameters. Russ J Genet 48 , 819–822 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1022795412070083

Download citation

Received : 12 October 2011

Published : 15 August 2012

Issue Date : August 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1134/S1022795412070083

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Dairy Cattle
• Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism Pattern
• Polymerase Chain Reaction Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism
• Krasnodar Krai
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Telecommunications Engineering

Soil and Eco-Economic Substantiation of the Need for Switching to the Adaptive-Landscape Systems of Agriculture in the Krasnodar Krai

• Journal of Ecological Engineering 21(4):94-102
• 21(4):94-102
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Galina Nikolaevna Barsukova
• D. K. Derevenets

• Dastan Janteliyev
• Tair Julamanov
• Bekzat A. RSYMBETOV
• Yulduz Allaberganova
• Aida Vasiljevna Kormishova
• Vitaly V. Goncharov
• Andrey Baybarin
• Liudmila Eduardovna Gorlevskaya
• A.N. Troshin
• A.N. Turchenko
• P.D. Onischuk
• O.V. Koshchaeva
• A.G. Koshchaev
• A.S. Krivonogova
• L.N. Skvortsova
• V.I. Shcherbatov
• S.F. Sukhanova
• E.I. Anisimova

• T.V. Kalashnikova
• A.N. Ratoshny
• A.A. Soldatov
• S.I. Kononenko
• A. G. Koshchaev
• V.G. Ryadchikov
• A.N. Ratoshniy
• N.I. Kryukov
• V.O. Yurchenko
• Aleksandr A. Lysenko
• S.V. Shabunin
• Yury Lysenko
• Albina Vladimirovna Luneva
• I.P. Saleeva
• A.A. Bakharev
• O.M. Sheveleva
• K.A. Fomintsev
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Accessibility Links

• Skip to content
• Skip to search IOPscience
• Skip to Journals list
• Accessibility help

Purpose-led Publishing is a coalition of three not-for-profit publishers in the field of physical sciences: AIP Publishing, the American Physical Society and IOP Publishing.

Together, as publishers that will always put purpose above profit, we have defined a set of industry standards that underpin high-quality, ethical scholarly communications.

We are proudly declaring that science is our only shareholder.

Environmental Research: Water is a multidisciplinary, open access journal devoted to addressing important challenges associated with water in a way that bridges efforts relating to global change, nexus, resilience, mitigation, adaptation, security, and solutions in the broadest sense. For detailed information about subject coverage see the About the journal section.

Free for readers. All article publication charges are currently paid by IOP Publishing. Why not volunteer to be a reviewer for this journal?

"Freshwater is a vital resource, playing a pivotal role in human well-being and biodiversity. However, the quantity and quality of our freshwater resources have undergone significant modifications as a consequence of human activity and climate change. This has resulted in water scarcity and deterioration in water quality, which ultimately poses risks to human and ecosystem health. In the face of climate change, population growth and anticipated food and water insecurity, innovative transdisciplinary solutions are needed to adapt to and prevent the occurrence of catastrophic events. Environmental Research: Water serves as an outlet for the dissemination of scientific findings and the promotion of novel and impactful developments within the water sector, society, and policy circles." Martina Flörke, Co-Editor-in-Chief, Ruhr University Bochum, Germany Michelle van Vliet, Co-Editor-in-Chief, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Why should you publish in Environmental Research: Water ?

Broad multidisciplinary scope : A broad scope that brings together all communities working towards providing sufficient water of suitable quality to all.

Visibility : Maximise the reach of your research by publishing your paper fully open access. IOP Publishing is currently covering all open access charges meaning the journal is free for authors and readers.

Home for every publishable paper : Submit your manuscript to your journal of choice and our team will endeavour to find the most suitable home for your paper in our Environmental Research series.

Personal touch : Our publishing experts are always on hand to provide guidance and advice on where best to publish.

Editorial board : Our Environmental Research series journals are all led by a globally diverse community of engaged and active board members.

Leadership in peer review : IOP Publishing won the 2023 Association of Learned and Professional Society Publisher's (ALPSP) Impact Award for the introduction of double-anonymous and transparent peer review across all our peer reviewed journals including the Environmental Research series.

Strengthening research integrity : Our research integrity team applies best practice in integrity and ethics.

Purpose-Led Publishing : Science is our only shareholder. We are committed to:

• Investing 100% of our funds back into science
• Publishing only content that genuinely adds to scientific knowledge
• Ensuring our terms are reasonable
• Putting research integrity ahead of profit
• Admitting our errors and set them right; 100% of APC income collected from retracted papers is donated to Research4Life

Journal links

• Submit an article
• About the journal
• Editorial Board
• Author guidelines
• Review for this journal
• Publication charges
• Journal collections

Journal information

• 2025-present Environmental Research: Water Online ISSN: 3033-4942

• Time & Money
• Home & Garden

'Excited to have us back': Fast food business to open in Morton next year

Dairy Queen is on its way back to Morton.

Peoria Ice Cream Company Inc. , which operates the central Illinois storefronts, is working to open the new Grill & Chill location next year.

Brooke McClaskey, director of marketing and cakes, said the company was drawn to the Morton community and its “hometown feel.”

The news comes just over a year and a half after the Carius family announced it would no longer be a part of the Dairy Queen brand. The longtime family business reopened as Carius Creamery in 2024.

"We've heard a lot of customers say that they're so excited to have us back," McClaskey said. "So, that's really cool."

Here’s what to know about the new Morton Dairy Queen .

Where will the Morton Dairy Queen be located?

The new building will be situated at 127 E. Ashland St. in Morton. The location was previously home to Ruby Tuesday, which closed in 2016 .

When will the business open?

Operations manager Roger Cox said work began Sept. 9 with the demolition of the former Ruby Tuesday. He said the lot will be cleared of debris, a new foundation will go in and work on the building will begin.

While progress on the site will be weather dependent, Cox said the goal is to open in April 2025.

Previously: This popular fast food business is preparing to open in East Peoria

‘Everything finally came together’

Getting to this point has been over a year in the making, according to Cox. He said they initially selected a different location for the new Dairy Queen but said plans fell through after they learned the lot “wasn't stable enough to build on.”

Cox said the former Ruby Tuesday, which is highly visible for drivers exiting the highway, stood out as another ideal option. He described the lot as “a main focus in the Morton community.”

Yet, purchasing the location was not easy. From finding the former owner to purchasing the property, Cox said there were moments when they weren’t sure how things would turn out.

“Luckily, everything finally came together for us,” Cox said.

When asked what it was like to finally break ground on the project, Cox turned to operations manager Scott Buffington, a Morton native who still lives in the area with his family.

"It's my hometown, and being back there and having a restaurant there's gonna be very special to our entire family," Buffington said.

What is a Dairy Queen Grill & Chill?

Although the chain may be best known for its Blizzards and dessert options, Cox said new storefronts are designed to house Dairy Queen Grill & Chill restaurants. He said the concept, which began in 2002, has allowed the business to expand "into the food market."

The restaurant's menu will feature a variety of meals, along with Dairy Queen's staple treats. McClaskey said the four-piece chicken strip basket is the "number one seller always," but Cox added the Stackburgers are a good option, as well.

"They are excellent," Cox said. "I think they're probably underrated a little bit."

More: This popular late-night cookie business is now open in Peoria

'A great fit for the Morton community'

Once open, Cox expects the location will provide plenty of first-time job opportunities for the community.

McClaskey said staff from other locations will come to help operations run smoothly, as well. Cox said this will likely include Megan Boland, who works at the Grand Prairie location. Both Cox and McClaskey said Boland is always coming up with new ways to interact and engage with the community.  

"One of the reasons why we chose Megan for that role is because of all the community events and fun activities she's been doing here," Cox said. "I think that would be a great fit for the Morton community."

Hungry for more food news? Sign up for PJStar Dining

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > Journal of Dairy Research
• > Volume 87 Special Issue S1: DairyCare: Husbandry f...
• > Systems for evaluation of welfare on dairy farms

Article contents

Introduction, major programs for welfare evaluation on dairy farms, comparisons across welfare evaluation systems for dairy cattle, concluding remarks, systems for evaluation of welfare on dairy farms.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2020

Animal welfare is an essential component of dairy production and several systems exist to evaluate the welfare of dairy cows. Here, we review and compare three well-known systems that operate at farm level from around the world (FARM, Welfare Quality ® , and The Code of Welfare) and discuss their advantages and limitations. Despite having some commonalities, the programs evaluate different elements. We also briefly review an emerging system (Integrated Diagnostic Welfare System) that might address some of the shortcomings of the existing systems, especially the possibility of automating the evaluation of animal well-being and identifying any cause of poor welfare. None of the aforementioned systems has been fully validated for their ability to assess animal welfare using independent measurements. The future holds increased attention around the well-being of dairy cows and increased use of sensing technologies. There is an urgent need for dairy welfare evaluation systems that are scientifically validated, holistic, and that can take advantage of the use of sensing technologies to continuously monitor animal welfare.

Animal welfare is an essential component of dairy production. As a scientific field, animal welfare originated around 1990 after decades of ethical and scientific debate that really got started after the Brambell report of 1965 (Dawkins, Reference Dawkins 1980 ) and subsequent work in animal-based sciences such as behavior, nutrition, anatomy, and veterinary medicine (Brown and Winnicker, Reference Brown, Winnicker, Fox, Anderson, Otto, Pritchett-Corning and Whary 2015 ). Scientific interest was not the only reason this field developed. The public's concern about how animals were being treated and raised also influenced the formation of animal welfare sciences (Fraser, Reference Fraser 1995 ).

Sectors of animal agriculture, including the dairy industry, have developed systems to evaluate animal welfare. However, global standardization is limited because dairy welfare evaluation programs have been independently created around the world. The programs evaluate dairy farms differently and place unique weights on different components of animal welfare. Despite these differences, evaluation programs have been created to establish a baseline for dairy cattle welfare and to help assure consumers that farmers are being held to a high standard.

To help identify the similarities and differences, we have provided a review of some of the commonly used dairy welfare programs around the world that operate at farm level. These three programs are summarized and compared and are also compared to a new welfare assessment tool. We also offer some commentary on the types of measures that should be included in a dairy farm animal welfare evaluation.

Although hundreds of welfare evaluation programs exist around the world today, here we consider the European Welfare Quality ® Assessment Protocol dairy cattle ( WQ ), the U.S. National Dairy Farmers Assuring Responsible Management Program ( FARM ), and the New Zealand Code of Welfare: Dairy Cattle ( The Code ). Each of these programs is currently being used in its country of origin to evaluate welfare on dairy farms. Along with these three programs, a fourth and upcoming program, the Integrated Diagnostic System Welfare ( IDSW ), is also considered.

Welfare quality ® assessment protocol for cattle (European Union)

Before 2006, the various states of the EU had their own national standards under the supervision of national veterinary systems, with a focus of helping to improve health and hygienic conditions of animals and barns. In 2006, the EU adopted the Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals. The main objectives included defining the direction of animal welfare and promoting welfare principles and animal welfare research (European Commission, 2006 ). This action plan led the way for the WQ animal research project, which was completed in 2009 with the release of animal welfare assessment protocols. WQ was designed by a team of senior scientists in animal welfare, who were interested in bettering animal well-being on farms across the EU. Taking into account public concerns and market demands, the developers of WQ created on-farm monitoring programs (Blokhuis et al ., Reference Blokhuis, Veissier, Miele and Jones 2010 ).

Forty-four universities and institutions were involved in the WQ research project in 20 European countries. From 2004 to 2010, scientists traveled to different farms and tested out possible protocols. The standards of the program were based on the retail requirements of agricultural product sellers, consumer demands, and the rigorous scientific evaluation of the WQ program that occurred before the official release of all animal protocols in 2009 (Blokhuis et al ., Reference Blokhuis, Veissier, Miele and Jones 2010 ). The WQ was created with the intention of being used as an assessment tool for third-party verification.

The WQ program has four welfare principles: good feeding, good housing, good health, and appropriate behavior. Within these principles are 12 welfare criteria, and within the criteria are ~30 welfare measures. Each measure is scored on a 0–100 scale. Each criterion is then scored on a 0–100 scale based on the relevant measure scores. The criteria scores are combined to generate a score for each of the four principles, which are again combined to create the final overall assessment score. A farm is then given the classification of excellent, enhanced, acceptable, or not classified based on the final 0–100 score (Welfare Quality®, 2009 ).

Currently, the WQ is a volunteer program. Dairy processors can choose to use the program and require their producers to become WQ certified. Farms selling their milk to such dairy processors must comply with the WQ standards or sell their milk elsewhere. The WQ program is currently being used on over 270 farms in Spain and Finland. The frequency of audits is defined by the dairy processor that requires the WQ protocol. The dairy processor also makes the final decision on what to do with farms that do not pass, on a case-by-case basis (Blokhuis HJ, personal communication). All costs associated with evaluations are covered by the processor. Milk certified using the WQ protocol remains a niche market, although the potential growth for this program is enormous, with the EU being home to around 23 million dairy cows. WQ could end up being one of the world's largest animal welfare programs.

The WQ project was initially funded by the EU, but since its completion, the project has not received any additional support. The Welfare Quality Network (the group that oversees the WQ program) is working to further develop the parameters of evaluation within the current program, despite the challenge of the high costs of further research. The WQ Network hosts annual day-long seminars in connection to the General Assembly of the WQ Network that are open to anyone who would like to learn more about the WQ program (Blokhuis HJ, personal communication).

Farmers assuring responsible management (FARM) animal care program (U.S.A.)

The first version of the FARM Animal Care program was released in the United States in 2009. It was created as a joint effort between the National Milk Producers Federation (organizer) and Dairy Management Inc. (program initiator). A technical writing group was and is accountable for writing and revising the FARM manual. This group comprises animal scientists, veterinarians, dairy farmers, and industry representatives (FARM, 2019 ). The wide diversity of the group helps the program evolve alongside the latest research (Jordan et al ., Reference Jordan, Cook, Darr, DeCoite, Doak, Endres, Humphrey, Keyserlingk, Maddox, Mahoney, Mickelson, Olson, Raasch, Retallick, Riddell, Treichler, Tucker and White 2016 ). The goal of the FARM Animal Care program is to provide assurance to consumers and customers that dairy farms raise and care for animals in a humane and ethical way.

FARM Animal Care was initiated as a voluntary program to help farmers establish best management practices. Even though the FARM Animal Care program is not mandatory, most dairy processors now require their supplying farms to be certified (Jordan et al ., Reference Jordan, Cook, Darr, DeCoite, Doak, Endres, Humphrey, Keyserlingk, Maddox, Mahoney, Mickelson, Olson, Raasch, Retallick, Riddell, Treichler, Tucker and White 2016 ). Today, 98% of the U.S. domestic milk supply comes from FARM Animal Care program-participating farms (FARM, 2020 ). All costs associated with evaluations are paid by the coops/processors. Farmers may accumulate indirect costs if there are changes required following an evaluation (Phifer BH, personal communication).

One of the most important aspects of this program is that it is based on continuous improvement; farms do not pass or fail. Producers follow an Animal Care Manual that dictates the required minimum standards as well as the recommended best practices (Jordan et al ., Reference Jordan, Cook, Darr, DeCoite, Doak, Endres, Humphrey, Keyserlingk, Maddox, Mahoney, Mickelson, Olson, Raasch, Retallick, Riddell, Treichler, Tucker and White 2016 ). Every three years, dairy farms participate in an official second-party evaluation. The second-party evaluation assesses the farmers' execution of the guidelines provided in the manual (Jordan et al ., Reference Jordan, Cook, Darr, DeCoite, Doak, Endres, Humphrey, Keyserlingk, Maddox, Mahoney, Mickelson, Olson, Raasch, Retallick, Riddell, Treichler, Tucker and White 2016 ). Evaluations are conducted by personnel trained by certified FARM trainers; evaluators must have a dairy background and take an annual exam to remain certified (FARM, 2020 ). The FARM program also coordinates third-party verifications, which are conducted by the personnel of an International Organization for Standardization (ISO)-certified third-party verification company. The number of farms selected for third-party verification is determined through statistical sampling and exactly which farms are visited is randomly determined.

Every three years, the Animal Care Manual standards are reviewed and revised by the technical writing group; the most current FARM Manual (Version 4) is in effect for the years 2020–2022. The technical writing group reviews the scientific literature, data from past evaluations and input from a farmer advisory council, then it revises the manual and finally sends it to the National Health and Well-being Committee. From there, it goes to the National Milk Producers Federation Board for a final review before being released to the public.

In the FARM Program Animal Care Version 4.0, failure to meet standards results in particular disciplinary actions depending on the weight of the standard. For example, at the time of evaluation, if a farm does not have a written Veterinarian Client Patient Relationship form annually signed by the farm owner and the veterinarian, that prompts a ‘Mandatory Corrective Action Plan (MCAP)’, where the deficiency must be remedied within nine months. When other standards, such as a benchmark of 99% of all age classes of animals having a body condition score ≥2, go unmet, that precipitates a ‘Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP)’, where the farm has to rectify the issue(s) within three years. Failure to meet the requirements of an MCAP or CIP results in a farm being classified with ‘Conditional Certification’ for 60 d. Failure to comply within the 60 d results in a farm being classified with ‘Conditional Decertification’. Co-ops or processors that are FARM participants may not procure milk from farms that have been decertified. In FARM version 4.0, there is one standard for which a failure results in ‘Immediate Action’: complying with the ban on routine tail docking. Failure to meet this standard results in immediate classification with Conditional Certification. If tail docking continues for more than 48 h beyond the day of evaluation, the farm becomes Conditionally Decertified.

Code of welfare: dairy cattle (New Zealand)

Animal welfare legislation in New Zealand began in 1840 when the country started following the Protection of Animals Act that originated in the United Kingdom in 1835. In 1960, New Zealand passed the Animal Protection Act, which included provisions for the treatment of farm animals. The New Zealand Animal Welfare Act of 1999 (known as ‘ The Act ’) replaced the Animal Protection Act.

The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) created 18 different ‘Codes’ for different animal groups/types, in accordance with The Act (New Zealand, 2010 ). Under The Act , individuals and organizations could help draft any of the codes of welfare. A combination of public proposals and relevant scientific literature were used to draft the various codes. In New Zealand, owners and managers of animals must comply with both the Animal Welfare Act of 1999 and the current written codes of welfare, which detail the minimum standards of animal management and care that must be followed and provide recommended best practices (New Zealand, 2010 ).

The ‘Code of Welfare: Dairy Cattle’ (‘ The Code ’) was originally drafted by an industry group assembled by Dairy Insight (the forerunner of DairyNZ) and submitted to the NAWAC, who reviewed the Code, assured its compliance with the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act of 1999, and submitted it to the Minister of Agriculture for approval (Harding N, personal communication). The Code was ultimately created to help dairy cattle owners and managers understand the requirements they must follow under the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act of 1999 and to protect the reputation of the industry. The Code applies to all dairy cattle: dairy calves until weaning (if headed to beef production), ‘house cows’ (a cow kept to provide for the home kitchen), bulls used for breeding, dairy heifers, and dry and lactating cows (New Zealand, 2019 ).

All New Zealand dairy farmers are required by law to follow The Code (New Zealand, 2019 ). In New Zealand, there is no official government-managed auditing program. Instead, dairy processors require farmers to complete annual on-farm audits that focus somewhat heavily on food safety and market access requirements. These annual audits are completed by a third party, who reports the results to the dairy processors. If any animal welfare concerns arise during these audits, inspectors from the Animal Welfare Compliance Division of the Ministry for Primary Industries follow up. Depending on the seriousness of the offence, the response might range from farmer education to prosecution. Because The Code is legally binding, New Zealand primarily focuses on ensuring that their farmers are aware of and understand the requirements of the law. The goal is to encourage compliance with The Code rather than waiting until things have gone wrong and prosecuting farmers. The Code itself provides dairy cattle owners with the information needed to remain compliant under The Act (New Zealand, 2019 ).

Integrated diagnostic system welfare (IDSW; in development)

The computerized Integrated Diagnostic System Welfare (IDSW) was developed based on an original Integrated Diagnostic System created in 1990 and is described in detail by Calamari and Bertoni ( Reference Calamari and Bertoni 2009 ). The IDSW was developed with the aim of assisting farmers in evaluating animal welfare using direct and indirect measurements and in contextually obtaining useful information to improve farm productivity.

The overall IDSW score is a weighted mean of the score for each group of animals that contains the weighted average of three clusters: Environment cluster (information collected about where the animals live, namely housing, equipment and general organization within the housing); Feeding cluster (covering feeding safety, feed quality, feed delivery, daily intake, diet composition and the satisfaction of nutritional requirement for each group of animals) and Animal cluster (which encompasses the evaluation of the behavioral, physiological, performance level and health indices of the animals).

The various indicators were originally developed in the IDSW to successfully fulfill all the requirements for an integrated welfare assessment (Sorensen et al ., Reference Sorensen, Sandoe and Halberg 2001 ; Waiblinger et al ., Reference Waiblinger, Knierim and Winckler 2001 ) and to better assess the animals' current welfare state. The IDSW model evaluates both factors that affect an animal's welfare (such as management) and factors that provide a direct assessment of an animal's welfare (such as body condition score) (Calamari and Bertoni, Reference Calamari and Bertoni 2009 ). The indirect indicators provide information on risk factors for welfare problems. The direct measures provide information on an animal's response to the environment.

In the IDSW all the indicators, including the qualitative ones, are transformed into a unified score that goes from 0 to 10 (worst to best). The scale is designed to quickly provide an intuitive interpretation of the welfare status of the animals. A specific feature of this program is the identification of welfare scores for each group of animals (such as dry cows, fresh pen, etc.) on the farm. The score for each indicator was developed using scientific literature, when available, and approximation using common sense and practicality when data were not available. At the end of assessment, an overall score is generated, as well as individual scores for each cluster and indicator.

A preliminary evaluation of the IDSW was performed on a commercial dairy farm where it was used to determine the primary causes of poor animal welfare and to direct corrective actions to improve the welfare of the animals (Trevisi et al ., Reference Trevisi, Bionaz, Piccioli-Cappelli and Bertoni 2006 ). However, the lack of a stand-alone, user-friendly software and a need for further validation have delayed its implementation by dairy farmers.

The dairy welfare evaluation systems described here – WQ, FARM, and The Code – are used to evaluate dairy cattle welfare in different parts of the world. All programs, including the IDSW, were created with the goals of helping farmers keep up with current animal welfare standards and providing assurance to consumers that animals on dairy farms are treated humanely.

Similarities and differences of the four animal welfare programs examined above are presented in Table 1 . Other than the IDSW, which is still under construction, all the programs have similar start dates, suggesting that demand for animal welfare programs increased in the early 2000s. The Code is unlike the other welfare evaluation programs because it is required by law, however, the audits are still managed by farmer co-ops just like in the FARM and WQ programs. In contrast, the IDSW was not designed for auditors, the computer program was created to be used by producers, as a tool to evaluate a farmer's own operation.

Table 1. Summary comparison of the four examined animal welfare evaluation programs

a The year construction started for the IDSW programme, programme is not yet available for public release.

b The goal of the IDSW is to have 24/7 monitoring of animal welfare, currently the program is structured like an audit.

c A visit is when an evaluation or an audit occurs.

d No action/continuous improvement plan/mandatory corrective action plan.

e Number as of May 2019.

f IDSW has been tested on 31 farms in Italy and Oregon (US) (Krueger, Reference Krueger 2019 ; Premi, Reference Premi 2019 ).

g The check symbol denotes the presence of the parameter in the dairy evaluation system.

The most distinct differences across the evaluation programs are among the specific evaluation components. The WQ assessment protocol is largely centered on the animal: of the indicators assessed, 60% are animal-based (de Vries et al ., Reference de Vries, Bokkers, van Schaik, Engel, Dijkstra and de Boer 2016 ), reflecting the belief of the WQ creators that input-based measurements at the animal level are more reliable than environmental measurements. The assessment in the WQ also includes some resource- and management-based measures. The FARM evaluation differs from the WQ program in this sense. Rather than focusing primarily on the animals to determine welfare status, the FARM evaluation consists of a series of assessments that include evaluation of the physical environment and facilities, farm management, recordkeeping, nutrition, and animal health in addition to some direct animal measures (FARM, 2019 ). The structure of The Code is more similar to FARM, where most of the same components are evaluated. The Code only has three direct animal measurements and is, therefore, quite different to WQ and the IDSW.

The other major difference among the programs is the output of the audit or evaluation. The WQ program is scored on a 0–100 scale. The FARM program and The Code are geared more toward continuous improvement of animal welfare. Even though The Code is law, New Zealand focuses on helping the farmer before a major problem occurs by providing resources such as workshops and employee training. An evaluation under The Code does not provide a farmer with a score. Likewise, a FARM program evaluation does not generate a final score but rather a status report, and where there are deficiencies, an improvement plan is developed to address them. The IDSW program produces an overall farm score, on a 0–10 scale. Within that score, a farmer can look at group and individual indicator scores to determine specifically where in the operation there might be room for improvement.

Of the four programs, WQ is the only one that evaluates just adult dairy cattle; young heifers and calves are excluded (Larsson, Reference Larsson 2014 ). This is one of the biggest flaws in this program as managing young livestock is at least as important as managing adult animals. In addition, the WQ program is largely structured on animal-based evaluations, while the other programs – The Code, FARM and IDSW – account for other factors, such as an animal's environment. An unfit environment might lead to animal welfare problems. For an animal welfare assessment to be truly comprehensive, the program should include evaluations for every stage of an animal's life and evaluate aspects including environment, management, and direct animal measurements. Aspects of an animal's environment are integral to its welfare. Areas where cattle live need to be clean, comfortable, safe, and allow cows to perform their daily routines with minimal stress. This means welfare programs also need to assess the farmer's ability to manage the animal's environment and provide an environment that fits the type of cow on the facility. To be truly comprehensive, welfare programs need to be able to evaluate the types of environments a cow might live in, from a tie stall to a pasture to a pack barn and be able to evaluate the different types of equipment that might be found in those environments.

Animal welfare is the combination of multiple characteristics (Fraser, Reference Fraser 1995 ). It is sensible to consider animal measurements as a way to directly assess an animal's actual welfare state (Capdeville and Veissier, Reference Capdeville and Veissier 2001 ; Whay et al ., Reference Whay, Main, Green and Webster 2003 ), which provides a snapshot of the cow's health at the time of appraisal. Body condition scoring (BCS) and locomotion/lameness scoring are the two animal measures that are similar in all four programs. FARM, WQ, and IDSW include evaluations for animal cleanliness, feces, hock and knee lesion scoring, and herd comfort. Herd comfort evaluates the standing and lying behavior of cows in stalls (assessed in IDSW) and requires that cows are provided with a suitable place to lie and rest that is not concrete (assessed in FARM and The Code). However, WQ and IDWS have the most complete animal evaluations. Six animal-based parameters are only found in WQ and IDSW: lying time/behavior and standing time, nasal/ocular discharge, vulvar discharge, animal behavior tests/stereotype behaviors, and grooming.

Among assessments related to animal management, the only evaluation that is included in all four programs is herd health/veterinary visit. Nutrition plays a vital role in determining the overall well-being of an animal; FARM, The Code, and IDSW all evaluate nutrition. WQ, the only program without a nutrition component, would benefit from adding this evaluation. Disbudding, dehorning, castration, and tail docking are all practices that threaten animal welfare if performed incorrectly. Evaluations of these practices are found in FARM, WQ, and The Code. On-farm milking practices are assessed in FARM, The Code, and IDSW. Eight evaluations, including animal identification, euthanasia, mortality, dystocia, animal handling/moving, social hierarchies, production data/SCC, and bull breeding are found in only two of the four welfare evaluation programs ( Table 1 ).

Evaluating the aspects of animal management on a dairy can be a helpful way to assess the overall health of a herd. Improving the procedures of animal-related tasks on a farm (castration, human–animal interaction, etc.) will help to ensure that animal productivity is maintained and that animals do not experience unnecessary pain and distress. Like direct animal measures, it is important that the evaluation of animal management covers managerial decisions made for all ages and all sexes of animals on a farm.

The complexity of the welfare assessment in dairy animals has led to the development of several evaluation systems with their own strength and weaknesses. Our overview of three relevant animal welfare programs and IDSW has led us to the conclusion that it is important to consider certain aspects of the environment in which animals live, direct animal measurements and animal management decisions. Animal welfare programs should include evaluations for animals of all ages. All programs should help to identify ways to minimize pain and distress and to assess farmers' ability to provide a safe, clean environment. It seems that IDSW covers the majority of potential evaluations, giving it a possible advantage over the other programs. FARM and The Code include a complete assessment of the environment and animal management related measures. However, they are lacking many direct animal measurements, while most measurements within WQ are directly from the animal. WQ might benefit from increasing the range of environmental measurements to help determine what environmental aspects affect welfare outcomes seen in cows.

The availability of systems to evaluate welfare of dairy cows is important to ensure the general public of a high standard of well-being of the animals. It seems useful to set a minimal threshold of acceptable welfare condition under which the farm is required to intervene urgently to address the issues. Systems to evaluate welfare for dairy cows are also good for producers considering that the wellbeing of the animals directly affects performance. Thus, assessment of animal welfare is also a good tool for the producers, revealing critical points of their management that need improvement and can be used to prioritize future investments.

Several limitations of the various dairy welfare evaluation systems need to be improved. None of the available welfare programs have been fully validated with independent measurements (e.g. blood indexes) to ascertain if they accurately capture and measure animal well-being. For the sake of practicality, and because of the independent scientific validation, the number of indicators could be revised and reduced by focusing on the indicators that best represent the level of welfare. Except for the IDSW, the lack of a standalone software for most of the welfare evaluation systems is an important limitation. Lack of such a feature can limit future application, including the inability for dairy producers to self-evaluate. Furthermore, as of now, none of the welfare assessment systems integrate with automated data gathering systems that are in development and are already in use on many farms. This deficiency limits the potential ability of welfare evaluations to become more precise and more automated and to implement some degree of direct on-farm validation. As the trend moves increasingly toward ‘smart’ dairy farms, welfare assessment programs should do likewise.

Acknowledgments

This article is based upon work from COST Action FA1308 DairyCare, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology, http://www.cost.eu ). COST is a funding agency for research and innovation networks. COST Actions help connect research initiatives across Europe and enable scientists to grow their ideas by sharing them with their peers. This boosts their research, career and innovation.

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

• Volume 87, Special Issue S1
• Angela Krueger (a1) , Jenifer Cruickshank (a1) , Erminio Trevisi (a2) and Massimo Bionaz (a1)
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000461

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

Journal Article Investigates Explosion Hazards from Lithium-Ion Battery Thermal Runaway Gas

The new peer-reviewed journal article, Experimental Investigation of Explosion Hazard from Lithium-Ion Battery Thermal Runaway has been published in FUEL . The paper was authored by Nate Sauer and Adam Barowy from the Fire Safety Research Institute (FSRI), part of UL Research Institutes, as well as Benjamin Gaudet from UL Solutions . As part FSRI’s Impact of Batteries on Fire Dynamics research project, the paper investigates the explosion hazards of lithium-ion battery thermal runaway gas.

Investigating the Explosion Hazards from Lithium-Ion Battery Thermal Runaway Effluent Gas 

As adoption of lithium-ion battery technology increases worldwide, safety hazards from fire and explosions present a real concern to the fire service. To better understand the hazards,  21 experiments were conducted within a full-scale garage structure designed based on demographic data and modern North American construction. The experiments included  two flammable gas mixtures derived from commercial testing of nickel cobalt aluminum oxide and lithium iron phosphate cathode cells with the UL 9540A methodology including gas chromatography to determine gas composition. Experiments were designed to simulate:

• prompt-ignition of flammable off-gas emanating from an energy storage system (ESS) lithium-ion battery experiencing propagating thermal runaway; and
• delayed-ignition deflagration occurring after ESS lithium-ion battery off-gas accumulates and mixes within the garage volume

During tests, pressure rise within the enclosed garage was measured using high-speed piezoelectric pressure transducers. Overpressure data was compared to known ranges for structural damage and bodily injury thresholds while time-resolved overpressure was compared to vented explosion models. Correlations were developed between gas volume and measured impulse and overpressure.

“As we see more incidents related to explosions of lithium-ion batteries, there is a clear need for concrete data to characterize the associated hazards. This data can facilitate conversations about how to mitigate the risks associated with thermal runaway.” — Nate Sauer , post-doctoral researcher, FSRI

The Impact of Explosions Resulting from Lithium-Ion Battery Thermal Runaway Gas

Data shows that when lithium-ion batteries fail and go into thermal runaway, the accumulation of thermal runaway gas poses an explosion hazard. This study finds that battery sizes such as those found in electric lawn mowers, electric vehicles, and e-mobility devices may produce enough gas during thermal runaway to damage a residential structure and risk injury to first responders or occupants. Report findings summarize the relationship between battery size and potential explosion severity. The data   is freely available to the public through an online repository .

About FUEL : 

Research into energy sources is a critical area of study. For nearly 90 years, FUEL has been the leading source of research in fuel science. The research scope is broad and includes many topics of increasing interest such as environmental aspects and pollution.

Experiments Investigate Lithium-Ion Battery Explosion Hazards

Read about the experiments investigating explosion hazards from lithium-ion battery thermal runaways in residential garages.

Near Miss Incident Involving Energy Storage System

Technical Report

Read FSRI’s report investigating this near miss incident in Surprise, AZ.

• Social Media Hub
• Apply for a Job