The aim of this study was to examine the variation in antibiotic use and the effects of external factors on trends in antibiotic use at the herd level by using the number of daily dosages as an indicator for antibiotic use. For this purpose, antibiotic use was analyzed in 94 dairy herds in the Netherlands from 2005 to 2012. The herds were divided into 3 groups of farmers: one group was guided in their antibiotic use from 2008 to 2010 as part of the project, whereas the other 2 groups were not actively guided. The farms were located in 10 of the 12 provinces and were clients of 32 of the 300 veterinary practices that treat cattle. Sales invoices from the veterinary practices provided the antibiotic and cost data for the participating farmers. The number of animal-defined daily dosages (ADDD) indicates the number of days per year that the average cow in a herd is given antibiotic treatment. The average ADDD for all farms from 2005 to 2012 was 5.86 (standard deviation=2.14); 68% of ADDD were used for udder health, 24% for clinical mastitis and 44% for dry-cow therapy. Variation in ADDD among herds decreased during the study period. The trend in ADDD can be described as having 3 phases: (1) a period of increasing use coinciding with little public concern about antibiotic use (2005-2007), (2) a period of growing awareness and stabilization of use (2007-2010), and (3) a period of decreasing use coinciding with increasing societal concerns (2010-2012). The greatest reduction in use was for drugs other than those used to treat the udder. Drug use for mastitis treatment fell considerably in the final year of the study period, whereas farmers were reluctant to reduce use for dry-cow therapy. Almost 40% of the herds were given less than 2.5 ADDD for dry-cow therapy, which is equivalent to 2.5 tubes per average cow in the herd, and 20% used more than 3 tubes per cow. Use of third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones dropped from 18% of ADDD during 2005 to 2010 to 1% in 2012, with a shift toward penicillins and broad spectrum drugs. The ADDD was 22% lower in 2012 than 2007, the year of the highest usage. The decrease in ADDD over time varied between the 3 groups of farmers. During the second phase of the study, the guided group began to display a reduction in use, whereas the other groups only displayed a significant reduction in the third phase. The reduction in antibiotic use has resulted in lower veterinary costs per cow in recent years.

Compost-bedded pack barns (CBP) are receiving increasing attention as a housing system for dairy cows that has potential to improve animal welfare. This article reviews current scientific knowledge about CBP with the aim of providing a comprehensive tool for producers and researchers using this housing system. In CBP, cows are provided with an open bedded pack area rather than the individual stalls and concrete alleys found in freestall systems. The bedded pack, a mixture of organic bedding and cattle excreta, is cultivated frequently (1-3 times per day) to incorporate fresh manure and air into the pack, thus promoting an aerobic composting process. To function well, CBP generally require a large area per cow. Optimal animal densities over the bedded area range from 7.4 to more than 15 m2/cow depending on several factors, including climate, bedding, pack management, and cow characteristics. Studies have indicated that CBP, compared with conventional systems such as freestall barns, have the potential to improve the welfare of dairy cows. In particular, the main reported benefits include improved comfort during resting, better foot and leg health, and more natural animal behavior. Research has also indicated that adequate udder health can be achieved in CBP. However, because the bedded pack has been shown to contain high bacterial concentrations, proper management is essential to maintain adequate cow cleanliness and reduce the risk of mastitis. Controlling pack moisture is consistently indicated as the most important issue with CBP. Especially under cold and humid weather conditions, large amounts of bedding may be necessary to keep the pack adequately dry and comfortable for the cows. Nevertheless, the improvements in cow health may offset the higher costs of bedding.

The objective of this review was to describe recent changes and expected developments in housing systems for dairy cows. These new developments should create an appropriate production environment for modern high-producing dairy cows and stimulate dairy farming-related developments in management, agro-technology, and equipment. Increased labor efficiency has been an important driver of the change from tie-stall barns to cubicle barns (also known as freestall barns). In future housing systems, the natural behavior of cows, climate control, emissions of ammonia and greenhouse gases, reuse of waste, manure quality, the aesthetics of buildings in the landscape, and capital efficiency are becoming increasingly important elements. To address future requirements, new concepts beyond cubicle barns must be developed. Freewalk housing systems; that is, loose housing systems without cubicles, would meet some of these future demands. These systems operate with composting bedding material or artificial permeable floors as lying and walking areas. However, these barns are still in development. Combinations of cubicle and freewalk housing systems, together with other techniques being developed, might become a major future housing system. Other techniques and systems that are being explored according to sustainability criteria include the multi-climate shed, the CowToilet (Hanskamp AgroTech, Doetinchem, the Netherlands) to separate feces and urine, and multifunctional buildings. These buildings and techniques can be part of land-based or, less commonly, city-based farming systems, such as floating farms.

By-products like sawdust and straw are applied in compost bedded-pack barns (CBP) for cattle. These materials, which are gradually mixed with excreta and undergo a composting process, serve as a lying bed for the cattle. This study aims to assess the perception of consumers and farmers regarding the use of CBP during the grazing season of cattle for raising other animals or for growing food crops. This was examined by combining surveys with consumers from eight European countries and cattle farmers, focus groups with consumers, and in-depth interviews with individual farmers who implemented alternative uses of compost. The results showed that farmers preferred the compost bedded-pack system to the cubicle system in terms of sustainability and market aspects, although the cost of the bedding material required for CBP was seen as a significant negative aspect. Around half of all consumers indicated that the compost can be used for non-edible products and 26% indicated the compost can be used for raising other animals. Furthermore, 5% of consumers felt that compost should not be used for any other purpose. There were statistically significant differences between countries; therefore, regional specificities should be taken into account when marketing products from compost in CBP barns.

By-products from forestry, agriculture and nature areas are used in compost bedded-pack housing (CBP) systems for animals. In this communication, we discuss the application of a CBP system to animal farms and aspects related to the recycling and reuse of the materials in the context of a circular economy. This study is based on data from ongoing projects and literature. The following systems are discussed: (i) composting material applied to a specialized animal housing system; (ii) adding a horticultural component to the animal farm by reusing the compost, and (iii) a cooperative mixed cattle and crop farming system. The success of integrating a compost bedding component in the system depends largely on the skills of managing the composting process, the application of the material in the field, and the cost of acquiring the material. When materials are amply available, then a real contribution to the circular economy can be made. Cooperation between farmers in the utilization of by-products is another route to a more circular economy. Moreover, the analyzed systems can be seen as a Greenhouse Gases (GHG) mitigation practice because they store carbon in the soil and improve soil quality.

Removal of contaminants and gases from air in cattle housing systems makes a positive contribution to in-house air quality, thereby benefiting both animal and human welfare as well as reducing the environmental pressure from cattle. In this review, we aimed to combine knowledge of the capture of ammonia and methane from dairy cattle facilities by removing and oxidizing these gases from the ventilation air in one process. For cattle housing, several techniques are currently available and in various stages of development and application to capture ammonia from the air. A central component of these approaches is an air scrubber with acid to remove the ammonia from the ventilation air flow. In this review, we focused particularly on enteric methane from ruminants, because that represents the largest methane output on the dairy farm (∼80%) and remains the biggest challenge. We sought suitable physicochemical and microbiological methods and applications that absorb or oxidize methane from the air. Our literature review showed that the concentration of methane in modern, naturally ventilated, open cattle barns is relatively low (averages of 5 to 100 ppm), and at present, no cost- and climate-effective technology is available that can capture and oxidize methane at this low concentration. It was apparent that most techniques may only be able to capture or convert methane at concentrations above 500 ppm (and preferably >2,000 ppm). The limiting factor is the diffusion speed of methane and the competition with other gases in case filtering or adsorption techniques are used. Therefore, we formulated the ventilation challenge, which refers to smart ventilation techniques that would allow capturing methane from the barn air at higher concentrations. In addition, technologies that have the capacity to capture ammonia and methane from the air are described separately and in combination. Then, inventive designs are presented to picture capturing of ammonia and methane in a one-process approach. Applying selected innovations, promising results are expected in lowering methane emissions from barns and storage areas (∼one-fourth reduction at the farm level). The development of more efficient adsorbents and bio and soil filters to optimize the process of adsorption and oxidation at low concentrate levels would enhance this reduction.