The motivation-based calving facility: Social and cognitive factors influence isolation seeking behaviour of Holstein dairy cows at calving

<div><p>In order to improve animal welfare it is recommended that dairy farmers move calving cows from the herd to individual pens when calving is imminent. However, the practicality of moving cows has proven a challenge and may lead to disturbance of the cows rather than easing the process of calving. One solution may be to allow the cow to seek isolation prior to calving. This study examined whether pre-parturient dairy cows will isolate in an individual calving pen placed in a group calving setting and whether a closing gate in this individual calving pen will cause more cows to isolate prior to calving. Danish Holstein cows (n = 66) were housed in groups of six in a group pen with access to six individual calving pens connected to the group area. Cows were trained to use one of two isolation opportunities i.e. individual calving pens with functional closing gates (n = 35) allowing only one cow access at a time, or individual calving pens with permanently open gates allowing free cow traffic between group area and individual pen (n = 31). The response variables were calving site, calving behaviour and social behaviour. Unexpectedly, a functional gate did not facilitate isolation seeking, perhaps because the cows were not able to combine a learnt response with the motivation to isolate. Dominant cows had the highest chance of calving in an individual calving pen. If an alien calf was present in the group pen or any of the individual pens, cows were less likely to calve in an individual calving pen. Future studies should allow cows easy access to an individual calving pen and explore what motivates pre-parturient cows to seek isolation in order to facilitate voluntary use of individual calving pens.</p></div

Summary of the output from the final model including 4 fixed effects.

<p>Summary of the output from the final model including 4 fixed effects.</p

The levels of closing the gate.

<p>A: The view from an individual calving pen with open gate, representing the start point for all cows (initial training, <i>step 1</i>) and the treatment termed “permanently open gate”. B: The top bar of the gate being closed (corresponding to training <i>step 2</i> for cows housed with “functional gates”). C: The trainer holding the gate, half way open, in order for the cow to see the way out (corresponding to training <i>step 3</i> for cows housed with functional gates). D: The view from inside the gated individual calving pens with the gate fully closed (corresponding to training <i>step 4</i> for cows housed with “functional gates”).</p

Description of fear-related behaviour to be absent when evaluating all trained cows irrespective of treatment according to their success criterion.

<p>Description of fear-related behaviour to be absent when evaluating all trained cows irrespective of treatment according to their success criterion.</p

Personality assessment.

<p>Personality assessment.</p

Graphs of mean training level per training bout for each treatment illustrating the progress during the initial training period (divided onto treatment: “Functional gates” and “permanently open gates”).

<p>Training level: Step 0 (not able to follow the trainer), step 1 (following the trainer in and out of individual calving pen = success criterion for “permanently open gates”) and step 4 (following the trainer in and out of individual calving pen while opening the gate without any help or encouragement = success criterion for “functional gates”). Training bouts 1–9 (2 bouts per day) leading to experimental start (shown in light grey) and subsequent weekly post training checks 1.1 to 1.6 (1 bout per day) during the experiment (shown in dark grey).</p

The experimental barn.

<p>Top view of the experimental barn, including all three sections. Thick lines around individual calving pens represent covered sides, and the “window” illustrates where the mechanical gate (grey insertion in the “window”) was installed in all individual calving pens. Vertically attached brushes, drinking cups and feed tables are shown.</p

Time line.

<p>Days prior to experimental start, indicating all initial procedures and assessments. Moved to the barn (day -14), temperament test (day -12) after a settling period (day -14 to -12), initial training (day -12 to -3), entering and re-entering tests (day -3 and -2) leading to either inclusion or exclusion (day -1) and experimental start (day 0).</p

Data_Sheet_1_Piglets' acute responses to local anesthetic injection and surgical castration: Effects of the injection method and interval between injection and castration.zip

Although applied in some countries, efficacy of local anesthetics based on procaine to mitigate acute responses to piglet castration remains questioned. This paper presents results from a factorial study examining the effects of two methods of injection of a procaine-based drug (intra-funicular, IF, vs. intra-testicular, IT), and four intervals between drug injection and castration (2.5, 5, 10, and 30 min) on acute responses of 3–4 day old piglets. The study involved 597 male piglets, and 13 treatments: surgical castration without anesthesia (CC), local anesthesia followed by castration involving all combinations of injection method and interval, and sham handling separated by the same four intervals (SH). Responses of piglets to drug injection, castration and sham handling were evaluated based on quantification of intra-procedural vocalizations and leg movements, as well as saliva cortisol concentration in samples taken before and after castration. No differences were found between IF and the simpler IT injection method. Intervals of 2.5 or 30 min led to stronger piglet responses than the other intervals. Overall, treatments involving anesthesia led to significantly stronger responses than sham handling, during both injection and castration. All treatments, even sham handling, led to a significant increase in saliva cortisol, with no differences between anesthesia treatments and controls. Based on these results, castration 5–10 min after intra-testicular injection of procaine seems to be preferable as compared to the other treatments tested. However, piglets still showed measurable signs of pain and stress during both injection and castration, while handling alone (including the use of a castration bench) triggered a noticeable stress response. In light of these findings, the overall benefit of the procedure in terms of piglet welfare remains arguable.</p