Production and Health Management from Grazing to Confinement Systems of Largest Dairy Bovine Farms in Azores: A Farmers’ Perspective

Simple Summary This study aimed to evaluate differences and critical factors in production and health management between dairy cattle farms with fixed milk parlours (FMP), and mobile milk systems (MMS) from Azorean grasslands. According to the farmers’ perspective, calf diarrhea, calf pneumonia, infertility/poor reproductive management, and mastitis were the main problems that farms faced in 2020. FMP was associated with more advanced and mechanized production systems, with a higher adherence to preventive and biosecurity control programs, than traditional MMS farms. MMS farms also showed a greater vocation for dual-purpose farming (beef and milk), smaller herd sizes and more grazing time for cows. In conclusion, inherent and non-inherent differences in production and health management between FMP and MMS were quantified by authors. These results indicate that a greater adoption of preventive veterinary medicine and biosecurity measures should be taken, especially among MMS farms. The education of farmers should also be improved and stimulated. Abstract The intensification of bovine milk production in the Azores has led farmers to increase farm size and specialization in grasslands, implementing confined and semi-confined production systems. Fixed milking parlours (FMP) have progressively gained more popularity, at the expense of conventional mobile milking systems (MMS). The present study aimed to evaluate the associations between production and health management in dairy cattle farms, with FMP or MMS, in grasslands (São Miguel, Azores), according to the farmers’ perspective. A total of 102 questions about production and health management were surveyed in 105 farms with >30 dairy cows each. Farms with FMP were associated (p ≤ 0.05) with larger herd size, better facilities, and specialized management, however, the adoption of preventive and biosecurity measures should be improved by these farmers. MMS farms implemented a lower level of disease prevention or control programs, less frequent transhumance, and showed a wider vocation to dual-purpose (milk and cross beef) than FMP farms. In conclusion, MMS and FMP farms tried to optimize yield and economic viability in different ways using grasslands. Several biosecurity and health prevention constraints were identified for improvement.


Introduction
The termination of milk quotas in the European Union has led to a more liberal and competitive market, with a more volatile and uncertain milk price [1]. As such, farms have identifying critical factors that should be improved, in order to increase Azorean dairy industry competitiveness.

Local, Sample Size and Selection of Farms
The survey addressed dairy farmers of São Miguel Island (Azores). Located in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the Azores is an archipelago with 9 islands, with mild temperatures (minimum and maximum temperature: 12.0-18.4 • C, respectively), humidity (minimum and maximal relative humidity: 89.0-97.4%) [26,27], and an abundant rainfall climate with precipitation of 960.6 ± 201 mm per year, with 75% of the precipitation falling between October and March [26,27].
Considering the mean size of Azorean farms (26 ± 3.9 cows; ±SD), only dairy and dualpurpose (from crossbreeding calves) farms with ≥30 adult cows were selected to obtain the largest ones due to their potential economies of scale. A total of 110 questionnaires were personally distributed by the first author from February to April 2021. Farmers were interviewed face to face (15 interviews were performed by the first author), or online via Google Forms [28] (90 respondents), after having personally contacted the farmer or having talked to them over the telephone.
Intensive or semi-intensive production systems were defined according to the time that the cows stayed indoors (confined), with availability of a milking parlor or fixed fixed milking parlors (FMP), or outdoors (grazing) using mobile milking systems (MMS), respectively, during the whole or greater part of the day. Cows from semi-intensive production systems grazed for at least 8 h per day [29]. All the farms used cattle with a genetic merit for milk-yield production.

Survey
The questionnaire addressed herd health management issues and major health problems observed during 2020 by farmers, as a modified version of the questionnaire used in a previous study [30]. Our questionnaire was completed by a preliminary assessment of management practices occurring in Azorean farms. The structured questionnaire consisted of eleven topics: characterization of the farm; biosecurity; calving and fertility; rearing management (up to 12 months of age); lameness; nutrition; reproduction; milking practices and mastitis; disease prevention; dry cow management; and major problems.

Statistical Analysis
All data were recorded and statistically analyzed under the regulations of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), in accordance with European regulation [31].
The minimum sample size of questionnaires (n = 99) was calculated according to Thrusfield, by considering the 95% confidence level, a 5% margin of error (Z = 1.96) and a 93% expected response rate, and adjusted for finite populations (3247 farms) [32].
All information was coded numerically, in order to assist analysis and guarantee anonymity. Uncategorized data were recoded into ordinal level data. Categorical data were entered into a database. Surveys not fully answered contributed partially to the responding topics, with a univariate model applied to maximize the number of answers per question. Two groups were formed to compare differences, depending on the type of milking systems used: FMP versus MMS farmers ( Figure 1). Differences between percentages were evaluated with the Pearson chi-square test. A non-normal distribution of all continuous variables, including all five-point scales from categories of intensity/prevalence, was confirmed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Therefore, a non-parametric one-way ANOVA model, followed by Van der Waerden post hoc analysis to test significance, was used [33]. The results are described as the mean percentage, or mean score and variation, as ±SEM for a significance level of 0.05. JMP ® 14 software for Windows (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) was used. expected response rate, and adjusted for finite populations (3247 farms) [32].
All information was coded numerically, in order to assist analysis and guarant nymity. Uncategorized data were recoded into ordinal level data. Categorical data w tered into a database. Surveys not fully answered contributed partially to the respondi ics, with a univariate model applied to maximize the number of answers per questio groups were formed to compare differences, depending on the type of milking system FMP versus MMS farmers ( Figure 1). Differences between percentages were evaluate the Pearson chi-square test. A non-normal distribution of all continuous variables, in all five-point scales from categories of intensity/prevalence, was confirmed using the Sh Wilk test. Therefore, a non-parametric one-way ANOVA model, followed by V Waerden post hoc analysis to test significance, was used [33]. The results are describe mean percentage, or mean score and variation, as ±SEM for a significance level of 0.0 14 software for Windows (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) was used.
A higher proportion of FMP farms (58.6%; 50/87) had isolated sick pens/bays for sick animals than in MMS farms (27.8%; 5/18; p < 0.05). Animal transhumance is a common practice in the Azores, and it is defined as the movement of animals using public roads, so the animals can move from one pasture to another. This practice was less frequently practiced in FMP (42.5%; 37/87) compared with MMS (83.3%; 15/18; p < 0.01) farms.

Reproductive Management
No differences in breeding methods were found between farms (Table 1), with artificial insemination being mainly and almost exclusively implemented in adult cows, while in the heifers, the choice fell mostly to natural mating. The estimated mean number of services per pregnant (P) adult cow was very similar between FMP (2.3 ± 0.2 AI/P) and MMS (2.1 ± 0.1 AI/P; p = 0.99) farms.  Reproductive management included reproductive examination up to pregnancy (p = 0.002), estrus or ovulation induction/synchronization protocols (p < 0.001) and routine pregnancy diagnosis (p = 0.002), which was more frequently implemented in FMP farms.
In FMP farms, most of the abortions were in the middle of gestation (3-6 months of pregnancy), while in MMS farms, the majority of abortion tended to occur up to six months into gestation (p < 0.01). The laboratory diagnosis of abortive agents at abortion occurrence during 2020 was low (10.5%; 15/105), with no significant differences (p = 0.49) between types of farms. Nevertheless, and according to the history of the farms, in 76.2% (32/42) of the cases, an infectious/toxic etiology was identified in FMP farms (p < 0.001).
Forage nutritional analyses (p < 0.001), as well as diet adjustments (p < 0.01), were more frequent in FMP farms than in MMS farms. Additionally, the total mixed ration Animals 2021, 11, 3394 7 of 16 (TMR) system, also named the "unifeed" system, was more frequently found in FMP farms (p < 0.001), with forages coming from their own production in all MMS farms (p = 0.02).
Water was administered ad libitum in all farms. Mostly, the water of both groups of farms came from the municipal water supply (72.4%; 76/105).

Milking and Mastitis
Differences were observed in the milking procedures of farms. Pre-dipping (p < 0.001) and paper towels (p < 0.001) but not post-dipping (p = 0.30) were more frequently implemented in FMP farms (Table 3).  Mastitis incidence and mortality did not differ among farms (18.1%; 19/105; p = 0.62), but the estimated somatic cell count tended to be higher in MMS farms (p = 0.07).

Drying-Off and Prepartum Care
No significant differences in cow management between groups were observed at dry off, including the length of the dry period (45-60 d; Table S4). Drying-off anti-biotherapy was administered in 94.3% (99/105) of the farms. The mean percentages of the main procedures during the dry period and prepartum are reported in Figure 2.
The dry cows joined lactating cows in the prepartum period in 90.5% (95/105) of the farms without differences between groups (p = 0.26). FMP farms (95.3%; 82/86) tended to include a higher percentage of pregnant heifers in the lactating herd during the prepartum period, compared with MMS farms (83.3%; 15/18; p = 0.06). performed as treatment after the detection of lameness, without differences between groups.

Drying-Off and Prepartum Care
No significant differences in cow management between groups were observed at dry off, including the length of the dry period (45-60 d; Table S4). Drying-off anti-biotherapy was administered in 94.3% (99/105) of the farms. The mean percentages of the main procedures during the dry period and prepartum are reported in Figure 2. 15 Figure 2. Main practices, micronutrient, and calcium administrations at dry-off and prepartum periods.

Disease Prevention and Major Problems
In general, a low to moderate level of preventive measures was implemented in farms, with some differences between FMP and MMS groups ( Table 4). The frequency of blood sampling for disease diagnosis was higher in MMS (11.1%; 2/18) than in FMP (1.2%; 1/87; p < 0.05) farms. Conversely, the use of insecticide during the hot season/periods was more frequent in FMP farms (86.2%; 75/87; p = 0.05). Vaccination for clostridial diseases, bovine rhinotracheitis virus/bovine viral diarrhea, mastitis and/or respiratory complex disease was implemented in 42.9% (45/105) of the farms, with no differences between FMP and MMS (p = 0.50) groups.
Blood sampling for mineral quantification and fecal sampling for parasitic disease diagnosis were not performed by any of the farms questioned.
According to the farmers surveyed, no natal differences were observed regarding the problems that affected FMP and MMS dairy farms in 2020 ( Figure 3). However, neonatal diarrhea (score point = 4.0 ± 0.2 vs. 3.6 ± 0.1; p = 0.04) and infertility/reproductive problems (score point = 3.3 ± 0.2 vs. 2.9 ± 0.1; p = 0.05) were slightly more problematic for MMS farms, as opposed to FMP farms.  Neonatal diarrhea, calf pneumonia, mastitis, retained placenta, metritis, lameness and infertility/reproductive problems were the most problematic diseases/issues indicated by farmers from both groups of farms.

Discussion
Overall, larger herds, better facilities, greater focus on prevention, and constant nutritional and reproductive assessments were more frequently observed in FMP farms than in MMS farms. In contrast, a higher proportion of dual-purpose farms (milk and beef production) was found among the MMS farms trying to increase income. Therefore, the single purpose to produce milk, observed more often in Azorean FMP farms than in MMS farms, seems to be in line with the new reality of the European market, which has been without milk quotas since 2015, requiring a more efficient and specialized milk production. The (semi)intensification level of dairy milk production systems (>70%), was similar in both farm groups in our study. In fact, supplementation to grazing dairy animals is required to maintain an adequate level of milk yield [34], together with an improvement in the stocking rate in the Azores, e.g., 3.2 cows/ha, as reported by Morais et al. (2018) [35]. Despite this last issue, important management differences were observed between the types of farms.
Regarding reproductive management, differences were observed between the types of farmers surveyed (see Table 1), with FMP farmers more frequently implementing complete reproductive management protocols and appropriate tools. This is to say, reproductive examination during open days, to select cows for breeding, and to treat diagnosed pathologies, induction and synchronization of estrus and ovulation, pregnancy diagnosis, and ultrasonography. All these interventions are crucial to optimize the reproductive output of dairy farms [4]. Further research is required to quantify differences between production systems. Neonatal diarrhea, calf pneumonia, mastitis, retained placenta, metritis, lameness and infertility/reproductive problems were the most problematic diseases/issues indicated by farmers from both groups of farms.

Discussion
Overall, larger herds, better facilities, greater focus on prevention, and constant nutritional and reproductive assessments were more frequently observed in FMP farms than in MMS farms. In contrast, a higher proportion of dual-purpose farms (milk and beef production) was found among the MMS farms trying to increase income. Therefore, the single purpose to produce milk, observed more often in Azorean FMP farms than in MMS farms, seems to be in line with the new reality of the European market, which has been without milk quotas since 2015, requiring a more efficient and specialized milk production. The (semi)intensification level of dairy milk production systems (>70%), was similar in both farm groups in our study. In fact, supplementation to grazing dairy animals is required to maintain an adequate level of milk yield [34], together with an improvement in the stocking rate in the Azores, e.g., 3.2 cows/ha, as reported by Morais et al. (2018) [35]. Despite this last issue, important management differences were observed between the types of farms.
Regarding reproductive management, differences were observed between the types of farmers surveyed (see Table 1), with FMP farmers more frequently implementing complete reproductive management protocols and appropriate tools. This is to say, reproductive examination during open days, to select cows for breeding, and to treat diagnosed pathologies, induction and synchronization of estrus and ovulation, pregnancy diagnosis, and ultrasonography. All these interventions are crucial to optimize the reproductive output of dairy farms [4]. Further research is required to quantify differences between production systems.
In our study, a total of 39% of the farmers, independent of farm group, used at least one ancillary device to detect estrous. This result denotes the progressive adoption of technologies to improve fertility. In a similar survey of Canadian dairy farms [36], 89% of farmers used visual detection of estrous as their only method (3.5 observation times per day), i.e., only a low proportion of farms used ancillary devices. Nevertheless, in this last study, fixed-time artificial insemination was mainly implemented [36]. However, it is well known that several devices to detect estrus have been largely and efficiently implemented worldwide [37,38].
Failure in heat detection and low conception rates are major reproductive problems [39], with infertility and poor production being the main causes for culling dairy cows in the USA [40]. In fact, poor reproductive management represents losses of up to 231€ per cow per year, due to a decrease in milk yield and a high calving interval [39]. Therefore, the implementation of adequate reproductive strategies [41] is essential in dairy farms and should be enhanced in Azorean farms, especially among MMS farms. Pregnancy diagnosis (p = 0.01), protocols for estrus/ovulation induction (p < 0.001) and reproductive examination during open days (p = 0.002), were performed less often in MMS farms than in FMP farms. All these results were expected, since indoor systems allow better reproductive control and management [42].
In the present study, the number of calves born on the farms (2020) was, as expected, higher in FMP farms, since these farms had larger herd sizes (213.1 ± 11.7 and 157.8 ± 21.9 total animals for FMP and MMS, respectively; p < 0.05), and the trade of pregnant heifers or adult cows remained low. Appropriate calving pens were more commonly found in FMP farms, which are essential to control the vitality of the newborns, adequate immunity transference, and the mothers' health [43]. Nevertheless, the advantages and limitations of calving indoors or outdoors are still up for debate [44].
In MMS farms, we observed a higher tendency towards seasonal calving according to grass availability (p = 0.07). This is due to the importance of grass in the production system of these farms. This practice is in line with what is very common in Ireland and New Zealand, where seasonal calving is largely adopted, so local farms can take advantage of their animal production potential at the time of grass growing [45]. Additionally, in our study, only 30% of farms minimized calving during summer. This calving seasonality has the potential advantage of mitigating calving heat stress [46], and initiating new lactation in more developed grass periods, even if forages are stored. It has been observed that calving in late winter is most profitable in grazing systems, independent of milk premium price [47].
Rearing the animals is a very sensitive part of the production system, with correct hygiene, general management, and appropriate colostrum administration being essential to prevent the main health problems for young cattle: enteric and respiratory diseases being responsible for the highest mortality and morbidity rates [48][49][50].
It is essential to provide a sufficient volume of high-quality colostrum in the first hours of life [51]. Very few farms in our study (17.2% FMP and 11.1% MMS farms) had colostrum storage banks, and even fewer had an appropriate instrument to evaluate the quality of the colostrum prior to storage. All these aspects, as well as cleanliness of the pens and colostrum quality assessment, have been associated with pneumonia or diarrhea in calves [52]. Therefore, if these practices improved, the incidence of neonatal diseases would possibly decrease on São Miguel dairy farms (see Figure 2). Indeed, diarrhea and pneumonia in calves were the main problems faced by Azorean farmers, which is another issue to be addressed. In addition to direct losses [49], it is known that calves raised without diarrhea and/or pneumonia achieve greater longevity, yield, and profitability; furthermore, they are healthier cows [53]. In our study, FMP farms more frequently had calf sheds, administered colostrum for more days, and utilized more preventive measures in rearing than MMS farms did, evidencing poorer rearing management on these MMS farms.
Additionally, a tendency of FMP farms to use vaccination protocols more frequently, to prevent pneumonia and diarrhea in calves, was observed (see Table S2). Vaccination of dams and calves up to 12 months probably contributed to approximately half of the FPM farmers considering pneumonia as the main problem in their calves (34.5%; 30/87) when compared to that reported by MMS farmers (72.2%; 13/18; p < 0.01). Nevertheless, calf density can also contribute to pneumonia in MMS, and is higher in that type of farm due to its dual-purpose production. Moreover, calves exposed to extreme weather may not be able to regulate their body temperature with their own thermoregulation mechanisms, leading to significant losses in performance, and average daily gain [54]. This circumstance is more frequently observed in MMS farms than in FPM farms.
In terms of biosecurity, FMP farms adopted more measures, such as the existence of spaces to isolate sick animals, and less movement of animals using public roads. However, biosecurity measures were scarcely implemented by the dairy farms surveyed on São Miguel Island, which is an important observation of the study. In MMS farms, there was a tendency for more frequent movement of animals (transhumance), and of purchases and sales of living animals (p = 0.10). Despite this, only 38.5% of the respondent farmers (see Table S1) implemented quarantine measures when introducing animals. The movement of animals is the main cause of the spread of disease, and the introduction of new animals is a farm's highest risk of being infected with new diseases [55,56]. Moreover, important biosecurity practices, such as providing their own clothing to visitors or the use of footbaths, were not implemented at all in the farms surveyed on São Miguel Island. For example, in Belgium, between 66% and 61% carry out such methods [55]. The different kinds of production systems found in the Azores probably contribute to these differences. Finally, all Azorean farms bury dead animals on pastures, a practice almost abandoned in the rest of the world. In the USA, only 27.3% of farms bury their dead cows, while 29.2% add carcasses to compost, and 27.2% put them to render [40]. In fact, the burial of dead animals in the EU is forbidden, preventing contamination of soils and water by pathogenic and zoonotic microbials [57]. Nevertheless, some exceptions [58] are made in remote areas and specific conditions, such as Azores.
More frequent forage nutritional analysis, mainly when a new diet is available, and diet adjustment, according to lactational curve of dairy cattle, should be improved by farmers to optimize milk yield [59]. Cows on FMP farms spent more time indoors, making it easier to control the diets and intake rate, and to provide adequate feed quality, as demonstrated in previous studies [10]. Adequate nutritional management is essential for cattle health, welfare, reproductive performance, and milk yield [42], thus also being essential for farm productivity and economic sustainability [42,60]. In the present study, MMS farms, when compared to FMP farms, received nutritional assessments less frequently (see Table 2). As a result, fewer forage nutritional analyses were conducted (p < 0.001), and fewer scoring body conditions were performed (p = 0.002) on MMS farms. Consistent with this, the TMR system was more commonly observed in FMP farms (p < 0.001), with this technology allowing better nutritional management, and the possibility of giving animals homogeneous feed and a balanced diet [10,61,62].
Nutrition is also fundamental at the peri-and postpartum periods, during which cows undergo several metabolic and hormonal changes, which compromise their immune functions [63]. Negative energy balance is common in postpartum dairy cows, due to low feed intake and the inability to reach cow energetic requirements for milk yield [64]. Appropriate nutritional management of the peripartum cow is essential to avoid such problems [65], together with other practices [66], reducing the incidence of postpartum problems such as retained placenta, mastitis, metritis, and endometritis. These issues can all lead to several economic losses, and early culling rates [66,67]. Certain nutritional supplements, such as vitamin D, lysine, methionine, and others can be considered, in order to increase performance after calving [68,69]. In our study, monensin supplementation was the most common practice (27.6%).
In addition to the type of machine used to milk (used to classify the type of farms), relevant differences were found in the milking routines and hygiene practices during milking (see Table 3), with FMP farms implementing indicated routines more frequently [70], such as pre-and post-dipping and the use of paper towels. It is easier to implement adequate milking routines in fixed milking parlors than with mobile milking systems [71,72]. However, even when observing only FMP farms, we detected a huge difference in the pos-sibilities of receiving specialized technical advice on the island, compared to that of other regions in Europe and Portugal; this clearly limits the implementation of new technologies, and the possibility of adequate evolution in the Azores [5], despite it being one of the main milk-producing regions in Portugal. Adequate milking practices, new technologies, and udder health control programs are key points to control mastitis. Although mastitis was not one of the top three most important diseases affecting São Miguel dairy farms, according to farmers' perceptions, it induces large economic losses which is in in agreement with the literature [73][74][75].
After rearing, reproductive problems, mastitis, and placenta retention were the challenges highlighted by our farmers as their major problems (see Figure 3). Similarly, infertility, clinical mastitis and lameness were the principal diseases that affected American dairy farms in 2014 [40].
In our study, 41% of the farmers considered lameness as a major problem, which can be considered a high prevalence for grazing systems. There are several causes that can justify this evidence, for example, the influence of (hard) floors found in public roads (transhumance); the high, steady humidity, mainly in winter season; scarcity of trimming programs and footbath use. Lameness negatively influences productive and reproductive traits [76], causing significant economic impact to farms [77].
There is a low to moderate adherence/application of preventive measures to combat these and other diseases on São Miguel Island. Only 42.9% of the surveyed farms carry out at least one vaccination. There was a large discrepancy when compared to data from previous studies, such as on Irish dairy farms, where only 13% did not apply any vaccinations [78]. The low vaccination rate observed in our study probably relates to the cost of vaccination, lack of immediate health improvement, previous experience of failure to control the disease by the farmers, and a general lack of education of farmers. However, vaccination by itself is not enough. Proactive co-operation between veterinarians and farmers is essential to optimize health and sustainability in dairy farms [79].
All these needs detected in the present study indicate an urgent necessity for improvement in farmer education, as previously seen in other regions [49]. Assuring that the farmers have the knowledge and equipment to record their own data, and are then able to calculate and interpret basic indicators, is essential to the early detection of diseases and problems [2]. In fact, the greater part of the health information reported in this study came from farmers' perception. A health data record is important to objectively evaluate the herd health and take appropriate decisions, and can contribute to a low degree of health program implementation. Nevertheless, farmer education is only a part of the equation to drive behavioral change. According to Michie et al. [80] individual behavior changes are related to capability (knowledge and skills, via education), motivation (brain stimulating process) and opportunity (outside events). The dairy industry is a business which provides incomes to farmers, and is the strongest motivation for farmers. The production efficiency and herd health management improvements, and new opportunities coming from social demands, including consumer perspectives on animal welfare and environmental impact, seem to be crucial keys for behavioral changes.
Consumers have a general opinion that grazing cattle are in a better condition in terms of health and welfare [81]. This is important and may change the markets. In fact, consumers have increasingly higher interest in animal production conditions, animal welfare, sustainability of the systems, and environmental protection [82], which are the main drivers of changes in legislation, especially in the European Union [83]. All of these drivers of change can be considered an opportunity for areas that produce mainly based on pasture.
This evolution also must be compatible with preserving the particular aspects of the Azorean Islands, and production systems closely linked to the natural environment and to agrarian populations [5,81,82]. The environmental impact of the dairy industry should be attenuated, ensuring economic viability of the farms with dairy added-value programs such as "happy cows" [5].
Our study reveals that both FMP and MMS have the potential for progress, improving their efficiency and preserving animal welfare, in extensive and intensive production systems.

Conclusions
There is a clear difference in health management between these two types of farms; MMS farms are associated with a more traditional production approach, while FMP farms have transitioned to more specialized dairy systems. However, all farms on São Miguel Island would benefit from animal welfare, productivity, resource efficiency, and sustainability. This would be further improved by the implementation of preventive and structured control programs, assessed by professional advisors, and thus enhance health, welfare efficiency and profitability. However, São Miguel Island dairy farms must continue taking advantage of their idiosyncrasy, benefiting from the natural resources available, stressing the production of "green milk".
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/ 10.3390/ani11123394/s1, Table S1. Characterization of farms and main biosecurity measures in dairy farms with fixed (FMP) versus mobile (MMS) milking machines. Table S2. Calving, rearing management and facilities in dairy farms with fixed (FMP) versus mobile (MMS) milking systems. Table S3. Lameness and lameness control in dairy farms with fixed (FMP) versus mobile (MMS) milking systems. Table S4. Dry-off time and prepartum measures adopted in dairy farms with fixed (FMP) versus mobile (MMS) milking systems.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, data curation, writingoriginal draft preparation, and writing-review and editing were equally performed by I.M., A.F.-N., J.S. and S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD) with protocol code request n. 2020111053000832 on 10 November 2020.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all respondents.

Data Availability Statement:
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author (J.S.).