C ASE STUDY: Characterization

Transcription

1 The Professional Animal Scientist 30 (2014): American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists C ASE STUDY: Characterization of lying behavior in dairy cows transitioning from a freestall barn with pasture access to a compost bedded pack barn without pasture access E. A. Eckelkamp, C. N. Gravatte, C. O. Coombs, and J. M. Bewley1 Department of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington ABSTRACT Lying times of 10 lactating Holstein cows were monitored using an activity monitor to assess lying times. Changes were recorded while transitioning from a freestall barn with pasture access to a newly constructed compost bedded pack barn in a private dairy herd. An IceTag (IceRobotics Ltd., Roslin, Scotland, UK) animal activity monitoring sensor measuring posture (lying vs. standing) and steps was attached to a hind leg of each cow above the fetlock. The MIXED procedure of SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used to fit a model describing the differences in lying time between the 2 housing systems. More cow days were recorded (n = 495) for the freestall barn than the compost bedded pack barn (n = 132). Overall, lying times were longer for sound cows (locomotion category 2, 11.6 ± 0.5 h/d) than lame cows (locomotion category 3, 10.5 ± 0.5 h/d) (P < 0.01). In the freestall and 1 Corresponding author: jbewley@uky.edu pasture system, sound cows lay down more than lame cows (10.1 ± 0.5 and 8.0 ± 0.5 h/d, respectively, P < 0.05); however, after transition to the compost bedded pack barn, there was no difference in lying time between lame and sound cows (13.1 ± 0.5 h/d, respectively, P < 0.05). Overall, hours of lying per day were longer (P < 0.01) after the cows transitioned into the compost barn from the freestall barn with pasture access (least squares means 13.1 ± 0.5 and 9.6 ± 0.5 h/d, respectively). Key words: compost bedded pack barn, freestall barn, lying time INTRODUCTION Lying time in dairy cattle has been linked to lameness incidence, behavior, rumination, and changes in feeding time (Cooper et al., 2007; Dippel et al., 2009; Ito et al., 2010; Lobeck et al., 2011). Compost bedded pack barns (CBP) have the potential to increase lying time and alleviate the negative factors associated with lying-time deprivation. A CBP barn consists of a large, open resting area generally bedded with sawdust, dry fine wood shavings, or other organic material (Shane et al., 2010). Barns are designed so that all cows can lie down at the same time with room for them to get up for feed or water without disturbing another cow (Janni et al., 2006). Another loose housing system, the strawyard system, contains a large, open area similar to a compost barn and has been compared with cubicle-based housing. High-producing cows with a low space allowance spent 52% of time lying in strawyard, in comparison with 39% of time lying in cubicle housing, indicating a greater degree of comfort and welfare in the strawyard system (Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002). The IceTag (IceRobotics Ltd., Roslin, Scotland, UK) animal activity monitoring system uses accelerometer technology to monitor lying, standing, and stepping behavior and has been validated by comparison with direct visual observations (Munksgaard et

2 110 Eckelkamp et al. Table 1. Daily mean, SD, maximum, and minimum for 627 analysis days of 10 experimental cows transitioning from a freestall and pasture system to a compost bedded pack barn Variable Freestall and pasture (n = 495) Compost (n = 132) Mean SD Range Mean SD Range Parity to to 4.0 Daily milk yield (kg/d) to to 37.7 DIM to to Locomotion score to to 3.0 Hygiene score to to 2.0 Lying (h/d) to to 17.7 Lying bouts (no./d) to to Mean duration of lying bout (min) to to Steps (no./d) 1, , to 6, , to 3, Locomotion score (1 to 5) was measured according to Sprecher et al. (1997). 2 Hygiene score (1 to 4) was measured according to Ruegg and Schreiner (2002). al., 2006; McGowan et al., 2007). This technology provided a way for researchers to examine lying behavior in a less time-consuming fashion than video or direct observation. The objective of this study was to use the IceTag to determine how lying time changes as cows transition from a freestall barn with pasture access to a newly constructed compost bedded pack barn. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data were collected from a private Kentucky dairy farm from December 2008 to February The herd consisted of 123 milking cows with a rolling herd average milk yield of 8,788 kg in December Two treatment periods were assigned for the farm, CBP and freestall with pasture (FP). The FP treatment provided cows with Figure 1. Least squares means for average daily hours lying per housing system for 10 cows transitioning from a freestall and pasture system to a compost bedded pack barn. Least squares means with different letters (a, b) differ (P < 0.05). access to a freestall facility consisting of wood plank freestalls without neck rails and a clay base with sawdust bedding and pasture, whereas the CBP treatment kept cows in a newly constructed compost bedded pack barn (9.3 m 2 per cow) with no access to pasture. The dairy producer constructed the barn for improved cow comfort and cleanliness with a desire to keep cows housed indoors at all times. During the FP treatment period, cows had access to pasture at all times, with time spent on pasture varying throughout the study period based on changing weather conditions. Twenty-four Holstein-Friesian cows were selected randomly for the study, with cows at varying stages of lactation and milk yield. Milk-yield data were collected from the Dairy Herd Improvement Association. Mean milk yields from the December 19, 2008, and January 22, 2009, test dates were used as the milk-production level for the FP treatment. Mean milk yield from the February 19, 2009, test date was used as the milk-production level for the CBP treatment. Any cow that was visibly limping at the beginning of the study was excluded from the study to avoid bias toward either system. All cows were scored for locomotion using a 1 to 5 scale before tag attachment (Sprecher et al., 1997). An IceTag animal activity monitoring sensor was attached

3 Lying behavior: Freestall versus compost barn 111 Figure 2. Least squares means for average daily lying hours per locomotion category for cows transitioning from a freestall and pasture system to a compost bedded pack barn. Locomotion score [ 2: sound (n = 7) or 3: lame (n = 3)] measured according to Sprecher et al. (1997). Least squares means with different letters (a, b) differ (P < 0.05). Figure 3. Least squares means average daily hours lying per housing system and locomotion score for cows transitioning from a freestall and pasture system to a compost bedded pack barn. Locomotion score [ 2: sound (n = 7) or 3: lame (n = 3)] measured according to Sprecher et al. (1997). Least squares means with different letters (a c) differ (P < 0.05). to a rear leg of each cow above the fetlock using a Velcro strap. Tag dimensions were (mm) 95.0 (height) 82.3 (width) 31.5 (depth) weighing 130 g (Munksgaard et al., 2006). Data from each tag were downloaded and imported into SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) for editing and analysis. Data from the day of tag attachment were discarded to allow the cows an adjustment period to the new device. Thus, each cow s recording period began at 00:00 on the day following attachment of the tag. Only days with a full 24 h of data available were included for analysis. The percentages of time within day spent lying, active, and standing were converted to hours per day. Step counts were totaled within each day. These accumulated times represent the time budget for each day in hours per day. Lying and standing bouts were calculated using per minute percentages. If the within minute lying percentage was greater than or equal to 50%, cow status was defined as lying. Otherwise, cow status was defined as standing. Consequently, each standing or lying bout was calculated by counting the number of consecutive minutes with identical status. Outliers were removed when lying time, standing time, or number of steps was more than 3 SD from the individual mean baseline of a cow. Because of construction delays (some cows were dried off or removed from the herd) and permanently failed devices, 9 cows were not available for observation during both treatment periods. Four cows were removed from the data set before analysis because they experienced metabolic disorders during the study. Only cows with at least 1 wk of valid data for both housing systems were included in the final analysis (n = 10). Admittedly, the final number of cows in the study is less than desired. However, the construction delays reduced the number of cows available for the study. Given that this was a unique opportunity for a case study of changes in behavior, the results of this study are interesting but must be interpreted with caution.

4 112 Eckelkamp et al. Number of lying bouts, maximum and minimum lying bouts, average lying bouts, hours lying, hours standing, hours active, and number of steps were calculated for each day. The MIXED procedure of SAS version 9.3 was used to develop a model to describe hours lying. These models were run as a repeated measures analysis with variables repeated by date (within cow) with cow (within treatment) as subject. For each model, the fixed class variables (housing system, locomotion score, parity, lactation-stage category, and milk-yield category) and all 2-way interactions were tested. Fixed interactions were selected for the models using a 0.05 significance level. The same cows were monitored throughout the study period, and the effect of DIM was considered within the MIXED model. Least squares means resulting from final models were calculated for significant class variables. Figure 4. Fixed effect of average milk yield by locomotion score and average daily hours lying for cows transitioning from a freestall and pasture system to a compost bedded pack barn. Locomotion score [ 2: sound (n = 7) or 3: lame (n = 3)] measured according to Sprecher et al. (1997). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Mean parity, daily milk yield, and DIM for study cows were 1.6 ± 1.0 lactations, 31.5 ± 4.9 kg/d, and ± 77.1 d, respectively, in FP, and 1.7 ± 1.0 lactations, 30.6 ± 5.5 kg/d, and ± 73.4 d, respectively, in CBP (Table 1). Mean locomotion score and hygiene score were 1.9 ± 0.8 and 1.4 ± 0.5. Mean lying time, lying bout, bout duration, and steps taken were 9.4 ± 3.0 h/d, 17.3 ± 23.9 bouts/d, 69.2 ± 43.6 min, and 1,989.4 ± 1,166.2 steps/d, respectively, on FP. On CBP, the means were 13.1 ± 1.8 h/d, 26.7 ± 27.8 steps/d, 59.7 ± 34.5 min, and 1,484.7 ± steps/d. Housing system, locomotion score, milk yield locomotion score, and housing system locomotion score interactions were significant effects in the mixed model developed to describe lying time (P < 0.05). Between housing systems, the average daily hours lying (least squares means) were greater (P < 0.01) when housed in the CBP system (13.1 ± 0.5 h/d) than when in the FP system (9.6 ± 0.5 h/d; Figure 1). The increased lying time reported in this study after cows were transitioned into the new facility supports observations by producers of improved cow comfort in compost bedded pack barns. Within locomotion score, daily hours lying (least squares means) were greater (P < 0.01) for cows that were sound (11.6 ± 0.5 h/d) than cows that were lame (10.5 ± 0.5 h/d; Figure 2). Galindo and Broom (2000) noted that cows that spent more time standing half in or completely out of cubicle stalls had a an increased (P < 0.01) number of lameness cases (χ 2 = 39.21, df = 2; and χ 2 = , df = 2, respectively). Ito et al. (2010) concluded severely lame cows housed in deep-bedded stalls compared with nonlame cows laid down 1.6 h longer per day (P < 0.01), had longer lying bouts (P < 0.01), and a greater SD of lying-bout duration (P = 0.03). No significant difference was detected in lying time between severely lame cows and cows that were not severely lame on mattress stalls (Ito et al., 2010). These findings are similar to our study when daily hours lying were compared based on housing system and locomotion score. Cows housed on compost had no change in lying time between lame and sound cows (13.1 ± 0.5 h/d for both) but were different (P = 0.024) between lame and sound cows housed in freestalls (Figure 3). The lying time and milk yield were increased (P < 0.01) for sound cows compared with lame cows (Figure 4) within milk yield locomotion score. Warnick et al. (2001) and Reader et al. (2011) detected similar results concerning milk yield and lameness. Cows that were diagnosed lame produced an average of 2.6 kg/d less than cows that were not lame (Warnick et al., 2001). Moderately lame cows [mobility score (MSc) 1] had (P < 0.05) greater milk yield than clinically lame cows (MSc 2 or 3), 0.7 and 1.6 kg/d less, respectively (Reader et al., 2011). Green et al. (2002) reported that cows that were lame at least once during lactation had a greater production level (1.12 ± 0.34 kg/d more milk) throughout lactation than cows that were never lame. However, cows diagnosed clinically lame had up to 9 mo of lower milk production before and after diagnoses (Green

5 Lying behavior: Freestall versus compost barn 113 et al., 2002). Although these findings do not directly match this study, the trend for cows diagnosed lame to produce less per day than cows diagnosed sound was present. Reader et al. (2011) also saw that cows that were clinically lame (MSc 2 and 3) were (P < 0.05) less active (3 and 5% less, respectively) than cows that were moderately lame (MSc 1). IMPLICATIONS Cow comfort and animal wellbeing may be improved when cows are housed in compost bedded pack barns. Improvements in lying time during the transition into this new facility resulted from improved housing conditions. Additional research should explore the repeatability of the observed changes in lying behavior in more herds transitioning to compost bedded pack barns from modern, welldesigned freestall barns. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by a grant from the University of Kentucky Research Foundation. We extend our gratitude to Darrell Edgington, Burkmann Feeds, for suggesting this project. The authors thank the producer for his help and cooperation during this project. We also thank IceRobotics for technical assistance with the IceTags. LITERATURE CITED Cooper, M. D., D. R. Arney, and C. J. C. Phillips Two- or four-hour lying deprivation on the behavior of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: Dippel, S., M. Dolezal, C. Brenninkmeyer, J. Brinkmann, S. March, U. Knierim, and C. Winckler Risk factors for lameness in freestall-housed dairy cows across two breeds, farming systems, and countries. J. Dairy Sci. 92: Fregonesi, J. A., and J. D. Leaver Influence of space allowance and milk yield level on behaviour, performance and health of dairy cows housed in strawyard and cubicle systems. Livest. Prod. Sci. 78: Galindo, F., and D. M. Broom The relationships between social behaviour of dairy cows and the occurrence of lameness in three herds. Res. Vet. Sci. 69: Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85: Ito, K., M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, S. J. LeBlanc, and D. M. Weary Lying behavior as an indicator of lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: Janni, K. A., M. I. Endres, J. K. Reneau, and W. W. Schoper Compost dairy barn layout and management recommendations. Pages in ASAE Annual Meeting. Vol. 23(1). Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng., Boston, MA. Lobeck, K. M., M. I. Endres, E. M. Shane, S. M. Godden, and J. Fetrow Animal welfare in cross-ventilated, compost-bedded pack, and naturally ventilated dairy barns in the upper Midwest. J. Dairy Sci. 94: McGowan, J. E., C. R. Burke, and J. G. Jago Validation of a technology for objectively measuring behaviour in dairy cows and its application for oestrous detection. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 67: Munksgaard, L., C. G. Reenen, and R. E. Boyce Automatic monitoring of lying, standing and walking behavior in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 89(Suppl. 1):304. (Abstr.) Reader, J. D., M. J. Green, J. Kaler, S. A. Mason, and L. E. Green Effect of mobility score on milk yield and activity in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 94: Schreiner, D. A., and P. L. Ruegg Effects of tail docking on milk quality and cow cleanliness. J. Dairy Sci. 85: Shane, E. M., M. I. Endres, and K. A. Janni Alternative bedding materials for compost bedded pack barns in Minnesota: A descriptive study. Appl. Eng. Agric. 26: Sprecher, D. J., D. E. Hostetler, and J. B. Kaneene A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47: Warnick, L. D., D. Janssen, C. L. Guard, and Y. T. Gröhn The effect of lameness on milk production in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 84: