Sampling cows to assess lying time for on-farm animal welfare assessment
- 1 September 2012
- journal article
- Published by American Dairy Science Association in Journal of Dairy Science
- Vol. 95 (9), 4968-4977
- https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-5176
Abstract
The time that dairy cows spend lying down is an important measure of their welfare, and data loggers can be used to automatically monitor lying time on commercial farms. To determine how the number of days of sampling, parity, stage of lactation, and production level affect lying time, electronic data loggers were used to record lying time for 10 d consecutively, at 3 stages of lactation [early: when cows were at 10-40 d in milk (DIM), mid: 100-140 DIM, late: 200-240 DIM] of 96 Holstein cows in tiestalls (TS) and 127 in freestalls (FS). We calculated daily duration of lying, bout frequency, and mean bout duration. We observed complex interactions between parity and stage of lactation, which differed somewhat between tiestalls and freestalls. First-parity cows had higher bout frequency and shorter lying bouts than older cows but bout frequency decreased and mean bout duration increased as DIM increased. We found that individual cows were not consistent in time spent lying between early and mid lactation (Pearson coefficient, TS: r = 0.1, FS: r = 0.2), whereas cows seemed to be more consistent in time spent lying between mid and late lactation (TS: r = 0.7, FS: r = 0.3). For both TS and FS cows, daily milk production was significantly, but slightly negatively, correlated with lying time across the lactation (range, r: -0.2 to -0.4), whereas parity was slightly to moderately positively correlated with mean bout duration across the lactation (r: +0.2 to +0.6) and negatively with bout frequency (r: -0.2 to -0.5). To estimate how the duration of the time sample affected the estimates of lying time subsets of data subsets consisting of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 d per cow were created, and the relationship between the overall mean (based on 10 d) and the mean of each subset was tested by regression. For both TS and FS, lying time based on 4 d of sampling provided good estimates of the average 10-d estimate (90% of accuracy). Automated monitoring of lying time has potential as a measure of dairy cow welfare on commercial farms but cows differ greatly in lying time. To obtain a representative measure for the herd, it is necessary to sample cows based on their parity and stage of lactation but probably not milk production level.Keywords
This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- ANIMAL BEHAVIOR AND WELL-BEING SYMPOSIUM: Farm animal welfare assurance: Science and application1Journal of Animal Science, 2011
- Hoof disorders, locomotion ability and lying times of cubicle-housed compared to pasture-based dairy cowsLivestock Science, 2009
- A brief note on the validation of a system for recording lying behaviour in dairy cowsApplied Animal Behaviour Science, 2008
- Effect of milking frequency and nutritional level on aspects of the health and welfare of dairy cowsAnimal, 2007
- The effect of reward duration on demand functions for rest in dairy heifers and lying requirements as measured by demand functionsApplied Animal Behaviour Science, 2005
- Influence of space allowance and milk yield level on behaviour, performance and health of dairy cows housed in strawyard and cubicle systemsLivestock Production Science, 2002
- The effects of feed restriction and lying deprivation on pituitary–adrenal axis regulation in lactating cowsLivestock Production Science, 2002
- Behaviour, performance and health indicators of welfare for dairy cows housed in strawyard or cubicle systemsLivestock Production Science, 2001
- Behavioural indicators of cow comfort: activity and resting behaviour of dairy cows in two types of housingCanadian Journal of Animal Science, 2000
- Behaviour of first lactation and adult dairy cows while housed and at pasture and its relationship with sole lesionsVeterinary Record, 1993