335 research outputs found
Lying behavior: Assessing within- and betweenherd variation in free-stall-housed dairy cows
One of the most important design criteria for dairy cow housing is access to a comfortable lying area. Behaviors such as the time cows spend lying down and how often they lie down can be used to evaluate the quality of stalls; however, assessing lying behavior on farms can be challenging. Indices such as the cow comfort index (CCI) and stall use index (SUI) have been widely used in on-farm assessments. The aims were to establish reliable sampling and recording methods for measuring lying behavior, to evaluate the adequacy of the CCI and SUI as estimates of lying behavior, and to describe variation in the lying behaviors of free-stall-housed dairy cows. The time spent lying down and the number of lying bouts for 2,033 cows on 43 farms were recorded for 5 d using electronic data loggers sampling at 1-min intervals. The CCI and SUI were calculated based on a single observation taken 2 h before the afternoon milking on each farm. Subsets of data were created, including 4, 3, 2, or 1 d per cow and 40, 30, 20, 10, 5, or 1 cow(s) per farm. The estimates derived from each sample size were compared with the overall means (based on 5 d and 44 cows per farm) for lying time and number of lying bouts, and the CCI and SUI were compared with the farm means of lying time, number of lying bouts, and bout duration using linear regression. Recording 30 or more cows for 3 d or more represented the overall means with high accuracy (R2 \u3e 0.9), but using fewer cows or fewer days per cow resulted in poorer estimates of the farm mean. The CCI and SUI showed no association with the daily lying time (h/d; R2 \u3c 0.01), and CCI was only weakly associated with the number of lying bouts per day (R2 = 0.16) and bout duration (min/bout; R2 = 0.09). Cows lay down 11.0 ± 2.1 h/d in 9 ± 3 bouts/d, with a bout duration of 88 ± 30 min/bout. These values ranged from 9.5 to 12.9 h/d, 7 to 10 bouts/d, and 65 to 112 min/bout across farm means, and 4.2 to 19.5 h/d, 1 to 28 bouts/d, and 22 to 342 min/bout across individuals, showing that variation in lying behavior among individual cows within farm was greater than differences among farms
Lying behavior: Assessing within- and betweenherd variation in free-stall-housed dairy cows
One of the most important design criteria for dairy cow housing is access to a comfortable lying area. Behaviors such as the time cows spend lying down and how often they lie down can be used to evaluate the quality of stalls; however, assessing lying behavior on farms can be challenging. Indices such as the cow comfort index (CCI) and stall use index (SUI) have been widely used in on-farm assessments. The aims were to establish reliable sampling and recording methods for measuring lying behavior, to evaluate the adequacy of the CCI and SUI as estimates of lying behavior, and to describe variation in the lying behaviors of free-stall-housed dairy cows. The time spent lying down and the number of lying bouts for 2,033 cows on 43 farms were recorded for 5 d using electronic data loggers sampling at 1-min intervals. The CCI and SUI were calculated based on a single observation taken 2 h before the afternoon milking on each farm. Subsets of data were created, including 4, 3, 2, or 1 d per cow and 40, 30, 20, 10, 5, or 1 cow(s) per farm. The estimates derived from each sample size were compared with the overall means (based on 5 d and 44 cows per farm) for lying time and number of lying bouts, and the CCI and SUI were compared with the farm means of lying time, number of lying bouts, and bout duration using linear regression. Recording 30 or more cows for 3 d or more represented the overall means with high accuracy (R2 \u3e 0.9), but using fewer cows or fewer days per cow resulted in poorer estimates of the farm mean. The CCI and SUI showed no association with the daily lying time (h/d; R2 \u3c 0.01), and CCI was only weakly associated with the number of lying bouts per day (R2 = 0.16) and bout duration (min/bout; R2 = 0.09). Cows lay down 11.0 ± 2.1 h/d in 9 ± 3 bouts/d, with a bout duration of 88 ± 30 min/bout. These values ranged from 9.5 to 12.9 h/d, 7 to 10 bouts/d, and 65 to 112 min/bout across farm means, and 4.2 to 19.5 h/d, 1 to 28 bouts/d, and 22 to 342 min/bout across individuals, showing that variation in lying behavior among individual cows within farm was greater than differences among farms
Preference and usage of pasture versus free-stall housing by lactating dairy cattle
The aim of the current study was to assess if cows preferred pasture or indoor housing, and how diurnal and environmental factors affected this preference. Lactating dairy cows (n = 5 groups, each containing 5 cows) were sequentially housed either in a free-stall barn on pasture, or given the choice between the 2 environments. Each group was tested 3 times under each condition, for a total of 21 d, to assess the effects of varying climatic conditions (outdoor temperature ranged from 9.9 to 28.2°C and daily rainfall from 0 to 65 mm/d over the course of the experiment). When provided the choice, cows spent on average (± SD) 13.0 ± 0.6 h/d on pasture, mainly at night. The time cows spent on pasture during the day decreased with the temperature-humidity index (R2 = 0.55); time on pasture at night decreased with rainfall (R2 = 0.12). When provided a choice, cows spent more of their lying time on pasture (69.4 ± 0.02% of the total lying time/d) than indoors in the free-stalls. Cows also spent more time in total lying down when provided a choice than when confined to pasture [0.6 h/d more lying time; standard error of the difference (SED) = 0.21 h/d] and spent even more time lying down when confined indoors (1.1 h/d more time; SED = 0.21 h/d). Cows used the indoor housing especially for feeding; feeder use peaked when cows returned from morning and afternoon milkings. However, cows with free access to pasture spent 1.0 h/d (SED = 0.09 h/d) less time eating the TMR available indoors, resulting in a decline in intake of 2.9 kg of dry matter/d (SED = 0.36 kg of dry matter/d). How cows used the indoor housing differed when cows were provided a choice; for example, cows spent a greater percentage of their time indoors at the feed alley both during the day (47% of the total time spent indoors, versus 41% for cows confined indoors, SED = 0.02%) and at night (22 vs. 5%, SED = 0.04%). In conclusion, under the housing and environmental conditions tested, cows showed a strong preference for access to pasture at night and for access to indoor housing during the day when temperature and humidity increased
Cow preference and usage of free stalls compared with an open pack area
Free-stall housing systems are designed to provide a comfortable and hygienic lying area, but some aspects of stall design may restrict usage by cows. The aim of this study was to compare free-stall housing with a comparable lying area (open pack) without stall partitions. We predicted that cows would spend more time lying down and standing in the bedded area when provided access to an open pack than when in free stalls. We also predicted that cows would spend less time standing outside of the lying area and less time perching with the front 2 hooves in the lying area when using the open pack. Groups (n = 8) of 12 cows each were provided access to either the open pack or stalls. After a 7-d adaptation period, each group was tested sequentially in the 2 treatments for 3 d each. This no-choice phase was followed by an 8-d choice phase during which cows had simultaneous access to both treatments. During the no-choice phase, cows spent more time lying down (13.03 ± 0.24 vs. 12.48 ± 0.24 h/d) and standing with all 4 hooves in the bedded area (0.96 ± 0.12 vs. 0.41 ± 0.12 h/d) of the open pack than in the stalls. During the choice phase, cows spent more time lying down (7.20 ± 0.29 vs. 5.86 ± 0.29 h/d) and standing with all 4 hooves in the bedded area (0.58 ± 0.07 vs. 0.12 ± 0.07 h/d) of the open pack than in the stalls. In both the no-choice (1.66 ± 0.24 vs. 0.55 ± 0.24 h/d) and choice (0.55 ± 0.07 vs. 0.29 ± 0.07 h/d) phases, cows spent more time standing with just 2 hooves in the stalls than in the open pack. In conclusion, cows spent more time lying and standing with all 4 hooves in the bedded open pack than in the stalls. Additionally, cows spent more time standing in the alley and standing with just the front 2 hooves on the bedding in the stalls than in the bedded open pack; increased standing time on wet concrete is a known risk factor for lameness
Cow preference and usage of free stalls compared with an open pack area
Free-stall housing systems are designed to provide a comfortable and hygienic lying area, but some aspects of stall design may restrict usage by cows. The aim of this study was to compare free-stall housing with a comparable lying area (open pack) without stall partitions. We predicted that cows would spend more time lying down and standing in the bedded area when provided access to an open pack than when in free stalls. We also predicted that cows would spend less time standing outside of the lying area and less time perching with the front 2 hooves in the lying area when using the open pack. Groups (n = 8) of 12 cows each were provided access to either the open pack or stalls. After a 7-d adaptation period, each group was tested sequentially in the 2 treatments for 3 d each. This no-choice phase was followed by an 8-d choice phase during which cows had simultaneous access to both treatments. During the no-choice phase, cows spent more time lying down (13.03 ± 0.24 vs. 12.48 ± 0.24 h/d) and standing with all 4 hooves in the bedded area (0.96 ± 0.12 vs. 0.41 ± 0.12 h/d) of the open pack than in the stalls. During the choice phase, cows spent more time lying down (7.20 ± 0.29 vs. 5.86 ± 0.29 h/d) and standing with all 4 hooves in the bedded area (0.58 ± 0.07 vs. 0.12 ± 0.07 h/d) of the open pack than in the stalls. In both the no-choice (1.66 ± 0.24 vs. 0.55 ± 0.24 h/d) and choice (0.55 ± 0.07 vs. 0.29 ± 0.07 h/d) phases, cows spent more time standing with just 2 hooves in the stalls than in the open pack. In conclusion, cows spent more time lying and standing with all 4 hooves in the bedded open pack than in the stalls. Additionally, cows spent more time standing in the alley and standing with just the front 2 hooves on the bedding in the stalls than in the bedded open pack; increased standing time on wet concrete is a known risk factor for lameness
Recommended from our members
Some like it varied: individual differences in preference for feed variety in dairy heifers
Motivation to explore is believed to be widespread among animals, but exploratory behaviour varies within populations. Offering variety in feed is one simple way of allowing intensively housed dairy cattle to express exploratory foraging behaviour. Individuals’ exploration of different feed types, as with other new stimuli, likely reflects a balance between exploratory motivation and fear of novelty. We tested the degree to which Holstein heifers (n=10) preferred variety in feed vs. a constant, high quality mixed ration, by first providing varying types of forages and then varying flavours of mixed feed. We also investigated individual differences in exploratory behaviour by measuring switching between feed bins. Individual consistency in preferences was assessed between tests, and longer-term consistency was evaluated by comparing these results with behaviour in novel object and novel feed tests before weaning. On average, the heifers preferred the constant, familiar feed (spending on average just 20% of their time at varied feed bins), but this preference varied among individuals (from 0 to 46% of time eating in the forage trial, and 0 to 93% in the flavour trial). Preference for varied forages correlated positively with intake of novel feed as calves (rs=0.72, n=9). Preference for varied flavours showed a negative correlation with latency to approach a novel object (rs=-0.65). It thus appears that preference for variety and exploratory foraging behaviour reflect consistent personality traits. These results suggest that offering novel feeds on a rotating schedule as a supplement to the regular diet may be an effective form of enrichment for at least some individuals within a herd
Preference for pasture versus freestall housing by dairy cattle when stall availability indoors is reduced
Providing cattle with access to pasture has been shown to yield benefits, including access to more space, fewer agonistic interactions, better air quality, and the ability to perform a greater range of normal behaviors. Preference for pasture appears to depend on several parameters, including weather conditions and availability of shade. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the preference for pasture versus inside a freestall barn with variable stocking densities at the stalls. We also investigated the effect of temperature-humidity index (THI) and precipitation on this preference. Overall, cows spent on average 13.7 ± 2.6 h/d (mean ± SD) on pasture (ranging from 7.2 to 18.0 h/d across days); at night (between 2000 and 0600 h) cows spent the majority of their time (78.5 ± 27.8%) on pasture. Stall availability had no effect on time spent outside, but time spent on pasture decreased with increasing THI during the day and declined during nights with more rainfall. Stall usage changed depending on stall availability; standing with 2 and 4 feet in the stall and lying time indoors decreased with decreasing stall availability. Indoor lying time also increased with higher THI and more precipitation. In conclusion, cows preferred to be outside at night; they were much more likely to remain indoors during the day, even when overstocked
Recommended from our members
Inconsistency in dairy calves’ responses to tests of fearfulness
Fear is an important welfare problem for farm animals, including cattle. A variety of methods of assessing fear have been proposed, but the reliability and validity of these methods, and ways of improving these characteristics, have received little study. We conducted a series of experiments to assess the consistency of dairy calves’ responses of novel objects and to humans, and to investigate factors that might improve reliability. In the first experiment, latency to touch a novel object had moderate reliability (rs = 0.54), and latency to touch a stationary, familiar human had negligible reliability (rs = 0.26). Experiment 2a used the same test protocols, but with a shorter interval between repeat testing and using different stimuli in the two novel object tests; this change did not improve reliability (e.g. rs = 0.29 for the novel-object test). Reliability for this test was improved (rs = 0.58) in Experiment 2b, when the same object was used in both tests rather than a truly novel object being used the second time. Experiment 2a found ceiling effects in the response to human test associated with the short period during which approach responses were recorded. High reliability was found in Experiment 2b, where the maximum test duration was doubled, but this effect not due to the extended duration. Experiment 3 assessed reliability of a response to human approach at the farm rather than individual level, in this case assessing responses to an unfamiliar person. The proportion of calves making contact with the person was not reliable (rs = 0.22), but the proportion retreating from the person had moderate reliability (rs = 0.52). Reliability was improved by excluding data from calves that had coughs on the day of testing. Conducting multiple tests per individual using different stimuli and reporting health status of the animals are recommended for future research and animal welfare assessment schemes that include measures of fear
Rumination and its relationship to feeding and lying behavior in Holstein dairy cows
The objective of this study was to describe the relationship between
rumination and feeding and lying behavior in dairy cows. Rumination time was
monitored electronically using HR-Tags (SCR Engineers Ltd., Netanya, Israel).
Feeding time and dry matter intake (DMI) were monitored using Insentec feed
bins (Insentec BV, Marknesse, the Netherlands). All measures were collected in
2-h periods for 42 mature Holstein cows for a minimum of 9 d in the early dry
period. Pearson correlation was used to describe associations, among 2-h
periods within cow, first examining the relationship within a single period,
and then modeling how this relationship changes when a lag of 2, 4, or 6h was
imposed. Periods when cows spent more time ruminating were associated with
lower feeding times and lower DMI (r = -0.71 and r = -0.72, respectively),
likely because cows were unable to feed and ruminate simultaneously. The
correlations with rumination time changed from negative to positive when lags
of 2, 4, and 6h were modeled (r = -0.09, 0.24, and 0.15, and r = -0.16, 0.23,
and 0.17 for feeding time and DMI at lags of 2, 4, and 6h, respectively).
These results indicate that following periods of high feeding times and
intakes, cows spent more time ruminating. This relationship peaks at
approximately 4h after feeding. Periods of rumination were also associated
with time spent lying down. Cows that spent more time ruminating per day,
spent less time feeding (r = -0.34) and rumination times did not relate to DMI
(r = 0.11). These data indicate that rumination time can be used to estimate
within-cow variation in feeding behavior and intake, but daily summaries of
rumination behavior are a poor indicator of DMI
Effect of pen size, group size, and stocking density on activity in freestall-housed dairy cows
The purpose was to determine the effects of the physical dimensions of the pen and group size and stocking density on cow activity. Cows (randomly assigned to 4 groups of 6 animals each) were tested in pens with 24 or 12 lying places and in groups with 12 or 6 cows. All groups were tested in each of the 4 treatments with treatment order allocated using a 4 × 4 Latin square. The distance moved and the number of movements were calculated using 5-min scan sampling of video recordings over a 48-h period. Time spent lying down, number of lying bouts, and the duration of each lying bout were recorded using activity sensors. Displacements at the feed bunk were assessed by continuous analysis of video for 3 h after the delivery of the fresh feed in the afternoon. Cows moved greater distances when kept in a large versus small pens (330.2 vs. 270.1 ± 11.6 m/d; mean ± SE), irrespective of group size. Cows moved more often when kept in the larger pen (21.3 vs. 19.2 ± 0.63% of scans). The time spent lying down decreased when density increased (59.1 vs. 55.8 ± 2.3% of scans at 25% and 100% stocking, respectively). Treatment had no effect on the number of displacements at the feed bunk. Physical dimensions of the pen play an important role in how much cows move, and stocking density affects lying time.The purpose was to determine the effects of the physical dimensions of the pen and group size and stocking density on cow activity. Cows (randomly assigned to 4 groups of 6 animals each) were tested in pens with 24 or 12 lying places and in groups with 12 or 6 cows. All groups were tested in each of the 4 treatments with treatment order allocated using a 4 × 4 Latin square. The distance moved and the number of movements were calculated using 5-min scan sampling of video recordings over a 48-h period. Time spent lying down, number of lying bouts, and the duration of each lying bout were recorded using activity sensors. Displacements at the feed bunk were assessed by continuous analysis of video for 3 h after the delivery of the fresh feed in the afternoon. Cows moved greater distances when kept in a large versus small pens (330.2 vs. 270.1 ± 11.6 m/d; mean ± SE), irrespective of group size. Cows moved more often when kept in the larger pen (21.3 vs. 19.2 ± 0.63% of scans). The time spent lying down decreased when density increased (59.1 vs. 55.8 ± 2.3% of scans at 25% and 100% stocking, respectively). Treatment had no effect on the number of displacements at the feed bunk. Physical dimensions of the pen play an important role in how much cows move, and stocking density affects lying time
- …