Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T02:00:05.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diurnal behaviors and herd characteristics of dairy cows housed in a compost-bedded pack barn system under hot and humid conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2018

J. A. Pilatti ,
F. M. C. Vieira Open the ORCID record for F. M. C. Vieira [Opens in a new window] ,
F. Rankrape  and
E. S. Vismara
J. A. Pilatti
Affiliation:
Biometeorology Study Group (GEBIOMET), Federal University of Technology-Paraná, Estrada para Boa Esperança, km 04, Comunidade São Cristóvão Dois Vizinhos, PR 85660-000, Brazil
F. M. C. Vieira*
Affiliation:
Biometeorology Study Group (GEBIOMET), Federal University of Technology-Paraná, Estrada para Boa Esperança, km 04, Comunidade São Cristóvão Dois Vizinhos, PR 85660-000, Brazil
F. Rankrape
Affiliation:
Biometeorology Study Group (GEBIOMET), Federal University of Technology-Paraná, Estrada para Boa Esperança, km 04, Comunidade São Cristóvão Dois Vizinhos, PR 85660-000, Brazil
E. S. Vismara
Affiliation:
Forest Engineering Course Coordination, Federal University of Technology-Paraná, Estrada para Boa Esperança, km 04, Comunidade São Cristóvão Dois Vizinhos, PR 85660-000, Brazil
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

With international demand for production systems aimed at thermal comfort and animal welfare, milk producers have become increasingly interested in compost barns. However, doubts about the behavioral aspects of cows in tropical and subtropical climates remain, because the compost barn system offers a larger bed area per animal at a lower stocking rate. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the diurnal behaviors, hygiene and lameness of crossbred dairy cows are influenced by different number of lactations when housed in a compost-bedded pack barn system under hot and humid conditions. Crossbred cows (Holstein and Jersey), which were divided into two treatments based on number of lactations (primiparous and multiparous cows), were evaluated during lactation (n=12). The study was conducted from September 2015 to February 2016 in a compost barn in the southwest region of the state of Paraná, Brazil. Daytime behavior was observed between milking schedules using focal observations with 0/1 sampling. Cow hygiene and lameness were evaluated using subjective scores ranging from 1 to 4 and 1 to 5, respectively. Animal behavior and welfare was analyzed using Bayesian inference with a mixed effects model. The probabilities of dyspnea and pushing behaviors were higher (P<0.05) in multiparous cows, and the probability increased during the hottest hours of the day. For both multiparous and primiparous cows, the agonistic behaviors of pushing, butting and chasing peaked during the afternoon. Eating behaviors had the highest likelihood values (0.8 at 0800 h). The cows preferred to remain lying down in the morning, while rest and standing rumination were preferred in the afternoon. Primiparous cows were cleaner than multiparous cows, and the hygiene score for this group was significantly lower (P<0.05). The hygiene and lameness scores for all animals were low, and the highest scores were 1 and 2. In conclusion, multiparous cows exhibited more frequent agonistic behaviors during the hottest hours of the day. Regarding hygiene and lameness scores, multiparous cows exhibited a higher degree of dirtiness compared with the primiparous cows.

Keywords

confinementcrossbred cowssocial hierarchythermal stresshygiene and lameness scores
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , February 2019 , pp. 399 - 406
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agresti, A 1993. Distribution-free fitting of logit models with random effects of repeated categorical responses. Statistics in Medicine 12, 1969–1987.Google Scholar
Aguilar, J, Rumiatto, MA, Kruker, JM, da Silva, CA and de Calheiros, RO 1986. Sistema de programas, em linguagem basic, para cálculo da evapotranspiração potencial por meio de métodos indiretos e do balanço hídrico-climático. EMBRAPA-UEPAE Dourados, Dourados, BR. Retrieved 21 March 2018, from https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br /handle/doc/233679 (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
Alvares, CA, Stape, JL, Sentelhas, PC, Moraes, JLDG and Sparovek, G 2013. Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 22, 711–728.Google Scholar
Barberg, AE, Endres, MI, Salfer, JA and Reneau, JK 2007. Performance and welfare of dairy cows in an alternative housing system in Minnesota. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1575–1583.Google Scholar
Broom, DM and Fraser, AF 2007. Domestic animal behaviour and welfare, 4th edition. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Burgstaller, J, Raith, J, Kuchling, S, Mandl, V, Hund, A and Kofler, J 2016. Claw health and prevalence of lameness in cows from compost bedded and cubicle freestall dairy barns in Austria. The Veterinary Journal 216, 81–86.Google Scholar
Coimbra, PAD, Machado Filho, LCP and Hötzel, MJ 2012. Effects of social dominance, water trough location and shade availability on drinking behaviour of cows on pasture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 139, 175–182.Google Scholar
Eckelkamp, EA, Taraba, JL, Akers, KA, Harmon, RJ and Bewley, JM 2016. Sand bedded freestall and compost bedded pack effects on cow hygiene, locomotion, and mastitis indicators. Livestock Science 190, 48–57.Google Scholar
Endres, MI 2009. Compost bedded pack barns – can they work for you? WCDS Advances in Dairy Technology 21, 271–279.Google Scholar
Endres, MI and Barberg, AE 2007. Behavior of dairy cows in an alternative bedded-pack housing system. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 4192–4200.Google Scholar
Galindo, F and Broom, DM 2000. The relationships between social behaviour of dairy cows and the occurrence of lameness in three herds. Research in Veterinary Science 69, 75–79.Google Scholar
Gelman, A and Rubin, D B 1992. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science 7, 457–511.Google Scholar
Hahn, GL 1999. Dynamic responses of cattle to thermal heat loads. Journal of Animal Science 77, 10–20.Google Scholar
Hox, JJ 2010. Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications. Routledge, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Janni, KA, Endres, MI, Reneau, JK and Schoper, WW 2007. Compost dairy barn layout and management recommendations. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 23, 97–102.Google Scholar
Kadzere, CT, Murphy, MR, Silanikove, N and Maltz, E 2002. Heat stress in lactating dairy cows: a review. Livestock Production Science 77, 59–91.Google Scholar
Krawczel, PD, Mooney, CS, Dann, HM, Carter, MP, Butzler, RE, Ballard, CS and Grant, RJ 2012. Effect of alternative models for increasing stocking density on the short-term behavior and hygiene of Holstein dairy cow. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 2467–2475.Google Scholar
Lobeck, KM, Endres, MI, Shane, EM, Godden, SM and Fetrow, J 2011. Animal welfare in cross-ventilated, compost-bedded pack, and naturally ventilated dairy barns in the upper Midwest. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 5469–5479.Google Scholar
McCullagh, P 1980. Regression models for ordinal data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 42, 109–142.Google Scholar
McCullagh, P and Nelder, J 1989. Generalized linear models, 2nd edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC, London, UK.Google Scholar
Munksgaard, L, Jensen, MB, Pedersen, LJ, Hansen, SW and Matthews, L 2005. Quantifying behavioural priorities – effects of time constraints on behaviour of dairy cows, Bos taurus . Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 3–14.Google Scholar
Nielsen, BH, Thomsen, PT and Sørensen, JT 2011. Identifying risk factors for poor hind limb cleanliness in Danish loose-housed dairy cows. Animal 5, 1613–1619.Google Scholar
Plummer, M, Best, N, Cowles, K and Vines, K 2006. CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News 6, 7–11.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2016. A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna. Retrieved 15 July 2016, from http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Reece, WO 2015. Overview of the respiratory system. In Dukes’ physiology of domestic animals (ed. WO Reece, HH Erickson, JP Goff and EE Uemura), pp. 149–154. Comstock Publishing Associates, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Sárová, R, Spinka, M, Stehulová, I, Ceacero, F, Simecková, M and Kotrba, R 2013. Pay respect to the elders: age, more than body mass, determines dominance in female beef cattle. Animal Behaviour 86, 1315–1323.Google Scholar
Schreiner, DA and Ruegg, PL 2002. Effects of tail docking on milk quality and cow cleanliness. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2503–2511.Google Scholar
Schreiner, DA and Ruegg, PL 2003. Relationship between udder and leg hygiene scores and subclinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3460–3465.Google Scholar
Shane, EM, Endres, MI and Janni, KA 2010a. Alternative bedding materials for compost bedded pack barns in Minnesota: a descriptive study. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 26, 465–473.Google Scholar
Shane, EM, Endres, MI, Johnson, DG and Reneau, JK 2010b. Bedding options for an alternative housing system for dairy cows: a descriptive study. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 26, 659–666.Google Scholar
Sprecher, DJ, Hostetler, DE and Kaneene, JB 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47, 1179–1187.Google Scholar
Stone, AE, Jones, BW, Becker, CA and Bewley, JM 2017. Influence of breed, milk yield, and temperature-humidity index on dairy cow lying time, neck activity, reticulorumen temperature, and rumination behavior. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 2395–2403.Google Scholar
Sturtz, S, Ligges, U and Gelman, A 2005. R2WinBUGS: a package for running WinBUGS from R. Journal of Statistical Software 12, 1–16.Google Scholar
Val-Laillet, D, Veira, DM and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2008. Short communication: dominance in free-stall-housed dairy cattle is dependent upon resource. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3922–3926.Google Scholar