- Email: [email protected]
Behaviour, performance and health indicators of welfare for dairy cows housed in strawyard or cubicle systems
Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205–216 www.elsevier.com / locate / livprodsci
Behaviour, performance and health indicators of welfare for dairy cows housed in strawyard or cubicle systems Jose A. Fregonesi, J. David Leaver* Wye College, University of London, Near Ashford, Kent TN 25 5 AH, UK Received 16 November 1999; received in revised form 11 May 2000; accepted 14 August 2000
Abstract Objective methods are required to assess the welfare of livestock in different environments. Two experiments were conducted to determine comparative indicators of welfare in the two most common loose-housing systems for dairy cows, strawyards and cubicles. Experiment I examined the animal responses to the two housing systems with 16 high- and 16 low-yielding Holstein Friesian cows in a changeover design over two, 4-week periods. Experiment II was carried out over 17 weeks to assess the longer-term responses to the two systems with 24 Holstein Friesian cows. In experiment I cows in the strawyard system had a significantly greater lying time, ruminating time and synchronisation of lying behaviour than the cubicle system. The cows were significantly cleaner in the cubicle system but there were no significant differences between systems in milk production, cell count or locomotion score. High yield cows had a shorter lying time but longer feeding time than low yield cows. The cows of different milk yield level responded similarly to the housing systems, indicating that cows of high milk yield do not require different housing systems from low yield cows. In experiment II there were no significant differences between housing systems in lying, ruminating or synchronisation of lying behaviour. Milk yields were significantly lower in the strawyard than in the cubicle system due to a significantly higher incidence of clinical mastitis. Cell-counts were significantly lower and cows were significantly cleaner in cubicles. There were no significant effects of housing system on hoof dimensions, locomotion score or clinical lameness. It was concluded that total lying time, lying synchrony, milk cell count and locomotion score are potential indicators for the assessment of dairy cow welfare in different housing environments. 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Dairy cattle; Behaviour; Milk production; Herd health; Housing systems; Animal welfare
1. Introduction There is a growing interest and concern about the welfare of housed dairy cattle. Over the past 40 years as herd sizes have increased, cowshed housing, in *Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 44-1233-812-401; fax: 1 441233-812-855. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.D. Leaver).
which cows are tied by the neck for prolonged periods during the winter months, has been replaced by strawyards and cubicles (Leaver, 1999). The two systems provide loose housing for dairy cows, but differ in the proportion of bedded area, the depth of bedding and the formality of the lying arrangements. These physical differences between the two housing systems may be influential in the welfare of dairy cows.
0301-6226 / 01 / $ – see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S0301-6226( 00 )00234-7
206
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
Measuring animal welfare in a system involves making value judgements about what is better or worse, and what is more important or less important (Fraser, 1995). Whilst science can identify, diagnose and possibly solve welfare problems it cannot assess in a single measure, the overall welfare of animals in a particular system (Fraser, 1995), as different values will be placed on different indicators by different people. The potential value of welfare indicators is in the identification of welfare problems associated with particular aspects of systems and their management. Animal-centred definitions of welfare provide one approach to welfare assessment and are concerned with what animals feel in response to their environment (Dawkins, 1990; Duncan, 1996; Sandoe et al., 1996). One method of assessment is to allow animals to choose between systems in a preference test. Recent research using this methodology showed that dairy cows had a clear preference for standing and lying in a strawyard system rather than in a cubicle system (Fregonesi, 1999). This result does not mean necessarily that welfare of cows in cubicles is poor, because the strength of the choice was not tested. A wider definition that provides a more practical approach to assessment of welfare, is the state of an individual as regards its attempts to cope with its environment (Broom, 1992, 1996). This approach allows welfare to be measured through the use of functional indicators, which have been grouped into the following criteria groups; behavioural, physiological, pathological and performance, by Smidt (1983). The objective of the two experiments was to use welfare indicators from three criteria of Smidt (1983), behaviour, performance and health (pathol-
ogy), to examine the welfare of dairy cows in two housing systems. The first experiment had a changeover design, and compared animal responses to the two systems. It also addressed the question of whether there is an interaction between the milk yield level of cows and the response to the different housing environments. High milk yield dairy cows with a high nutrient demand may cope differently from low yield cows, since they could be faced with a higher level of metabolic stress and disease challenge (Enevoldsen et al., 1994). The second experiment examined the longer-term responses of dairy cows to the two housing systems, as the effects on health and performance may take a period of time to develop.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental design and animals The experiments were carried out at the Wye College Dairy Research Unit from February to April 1996 (experiment I) and from October 1996 to February 1997 (experiment II). Experiment I compared two housing systems and two milk yield level groups of cows in a changeover design. The treatments with eight cows in each period were; HS, high yield cows in a strawyard; HC, high yield cows in cubicles; LS, low yield cows in a strawyard, and LC, low yield cows in cubicles. The 32 (16 high and 16 low yield) Holstein Friesian cows were paired on the basis of current milk yield, liveweight, parity and days post partum (Table 1).
Table 1 Mean values and ranges for initial milk yield, initial liveweight, parity and days post partum for low and high yield dairy cows in two experiments
Experiment I Low yield High yield Experiment II Strawyard Cubicles
Initial milk yield (kg / day)
Initial liveweight (kg)
Parity
Days post partum
19.1 (15.0–24.0) 32.1 (23.7–40.0)
606 (495–700) 572 (449–692)
2.9 (1–8) 3.1 (1–7)
210 (183–246) 182 (142–228)
34.5 (29.3–43.8) 34.9 (28.7–45.4)
583 (460–702) 582 (487–770)
2.7 (1–6) 2.7 (1–6)
29 (5–46) 32 (5–52)
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
Within each milk yield group, they were allocated at random within pairs to cubicles or strawyards for the first period. The experiment was a multiple latin square design with one high-yield replicate and one low-yield replicate starting in a strawyard and one replicate of each yield level starting in cubicles. At the end of the first period each replicate group changed to the other housing system. The two periods each lasted for 4 weeks. Experiment II had two treatments each of 12 high yielding cows in a continuous design, HS a strawyard system and HC, a cubicle system, and was of 17 weeks duration. The animals were paired on the same basis as experiment I and allocated at random within pairs to the two treatments in a randomised block design (Table 1).
2.2. Housing systems and management A schematic diagram of the strawyard and cubicle housing systems used in experiments I and II is shown in Fig. 1. Strawyard space allowances in experiments I and II were, respectively, total area
Fig. 1. Schematic drawing of the strawyard and cubicle housing systems used in experiments I and II.
207
10.0 and 9.2 m 2 / cow; bedding area 6.8 and 5.4 m 2 / cow; feeding barrier 2.8 and 1.0 spaces / cow. Cubicle space allowances in experiments I and II, respectively, were total area 10.0 and 9.2 m 2 / cow; bedding area 1.25 and 1.33 cubicles / cow and feeding barrier 1.5 and 1.0 spaces / cow. The cubicle divisions consisted of a top horizontal metal tube and a lower horizontal rope (1.70 m long). There was a vertical post (1.15 m high) front and back to support the tube and rope. Each cubicle bed measured 1.25 m wide and 2.10 m long forming a double row with the cows lying head to head in experiment I, and forming a single row of cows lying facing a wall in experiment II. The areas provided per cow were higher than the minimum requirements of 3 m 2 bedding area and 2 m 2 loafing area for strawyards, and one cubicle and 3 m 2 loafing area for cubicles (Leaver, 1999). In strawyards, the bedding was long wheat straw given daily, and in cubicles chopped wheat straw given thrice weekly in appropriate amounts to keep the bed surfaces clean. The amounts of long and chopped wheat straw used as bedding in the strawyards and cubicles, respectively, in experiment I were 7.3 and 1.3 kg / cow / day and in experiment II 7.6 and 1.0 kg / cow / day. Concrete passageway floors were scraped twice daily using a scraper mounted on the back of a tractor in all housing systems except in experiment I where cubicle passageways were scraped six times each day using an automatic scraper. The cows were offered a forage / concentrate mixture ad libitum using a Keenan mixer wagon. The mixture offered per cow on a group-fed basis each morning in experiment I, was composed of (fresh weight); 36 kg maize silage, 3.5 kg wheat straw, 4.5 kg maize gluten, 2.5 kg soybean meal, and in addition 3 kg / cow / day of a compound concentrate fed individually in the milking parlour. In experiment II the forage / concentrate mixture offered per cow each morning was composed of 33 kg maize silage, 15 kg grass silage, 4 kg maize gluten, 4 kg soybean / rapeseed meal (1:1 ratio), and 2 kg / cow / day of a compound concentrate in the milking parlour. Also 0.15 kg / cow of a mineral / vitamin supplement was offered with the forage / concentrate mixture. The feeds were sampled for chemical analysis
208
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
Table 2 Estimated metabolisable energy (ME) and crude protein (CP) content of feeds used in two experiments Experiment I ME (MJ / kg DM) Maize silage Grass silage Wheat straw Maize gluten Soyabean meal Rapeseed meal Compound concentrate
Experiment II CP (g / kg DM)
11.1
92
6.0 10.9 13.0
20 263 503
12.2
282
every 4 weeks in both experiments (Table 2). The neutral cellulase and gammanase digestibility (NCGD g / kg DM) method (MAFF, 1993) was used to estimate metabolisable energy (ME), and crude protein (CP) was estimated from nitrogen content (N g / kg DM) 3 6.25 (AOAC, 1980). The forage / concentrate mixture had ME and CP contents of 10.4 MJ / kg DM and 159 g CP/ kg DM in experiment I, and 11.3 MJ / kg DM and 190 g CP/ kg DM in experiment II. The cows were fed the mixture once daily at 08:30 h, and milked twice daily through a herringbone parlour in separate groups at | 06:30 h and 16:30 h.
2.3. Measurements Behavioural indicator measurements were made manually and included the recording of maintenance and agonistic behaviour in both experiments. Maintenance behaviour (lying down, ruminating, standing on bed, standing on passage and feeding) was recorded for 24 h (5-min intervals) by a team of observers twice per period (in weeks 2 and 4) in experiment I, and every 4 weeks (weeks 4, 8, 12 and 16) in experiment II. A single observer recorded all groups at any one time. Synchronisation of lying behaviour (time when all animals in a treatment group were lying at the same time) was also recorded. Agonistic behaviour (threats, bunts, pushes and fights) was recorded in a 30-min continuous observation per treatment twice weekly by the same observer using a sociometric matrix (Jensen et al., 1986). One weekly observation was taken between
ME (MJ / kg DM)
CP (g / kg DM)
11.3 11.4
88 211
10.8 12.8 11.9 12.2
29.3 523 402 280
10:00 and 12:00 h, and one between 15:00 and 17:00 h for each treatment in both experiments. The order of treatment observation on each occasion was randomised. Performance indicators included milk yield and composition, liveweight, body condition score, food intake and reproduction. Milk yield was recorded automatically at each milking for individual cows by a computer-linked flow meter, and mean daily milk yield per cow was calculated on a weekly basis. Morning and afternoon samples of milk from individual cows were analysed weekly for milk constituents (fat, protein, lactose). Liveweight was measured twice weekly and the body condition scored, to indicate the level of subcutaneous fat, was carried out at the same time using the tailhead scoring system of Mulvany (1977), where 0 is emaciated and 5 is very fat. The feed intake was estimated by measuring the amount of forage / concentrate mixture offered to each group daily and the refusals were recorded three times each week. The rate of DM intake was calculated from the group DM intake of the mixture divided by the mean feeding time for individual cows within the group. Reproductive performance was recorded in experiment II. Milk progesterone was monitored twice weekly until first oestrus. This was confirmed by the presence of a low progesterone level combined with observed oestrous behaviour. All oestrous observations and inseminations were recorded, and pregnancy diagnosis was confirmed later by ultrasound carried out by a veterinary surgeon on the final day of the experiment
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
The health indicators were those relating to mastitis and lameness. The milk somatic cell count was recorded for each cow in the final week of each period in experiment I and every 4 weeks in experiment II. These data were obtained from the monthly National Milk Records plc (NMR) report. A cleanliness score was carried out at the end of each period in experiment I, and on a weekly basis in experiment II. This assessment was made to assist in the interpretation of indicator results for mastitis and lameness. The following scoring system was used; score 0, clean udder, belly, rear legs and tail; score 1, clean udder, belly, rear legs or tail with only minimal dirtiness; score 2, udder with minimal dirtiness, belly, rear legs or tail with some dirtiness; score 3, udder with some dirtiness, belly, rear legs or tail dirty; score 4, udder dirty, belly, rear legs or tail very dirty and score 5, udder very dirty, belly, rear legs or tail very dirty. Hoof measurements including lateral foot angle, dorsal toe length and heel depth were carried out at the start and end of experiment II using the methods described by Boelling (1996). Locomotion scores using the score 1 (even gait) to score 5 (severe lameness) method of Manson and Leaver (1988) were carried out at the end of each period in experiment I, and every 4 weeks in experiment II.
2.4. Statistical analysis Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed on the results using the Genstat statistical computer program (Genstat, 1987). Experiment I was analysed as a multiple latin square design. In experiment II, the mean results over 17 weeks were analysed as a randomised block design using the GLM procedure, with housing system (n 5 2) and cow blocks (n 5 12) as independent variables, and 11 df for error. A covariate of the pre-experimental value for each cow was also included in the ANOVA for milk yield, milk composition, liveweight, condition score and final hoof measurements, reducing the error df to 10. The results for incidence of mastitis and proportion of cows conceiving were analysed by the chi-squared test. Cell-count and milk composition records of cows with mastitis on the day of recording were considered as missing values in the statistical analysis. The cell counts and cleanliness scores did not
209
have normal distributions, and log and square root transformations, respectively, were found to be necessary.
3. Results There were no significant interactions between housing system and milk yield level of cows in experiment I for any of the indicators, and only main effects of treatments are therefore presented.
3.1. Behaviour The total time spent lying down (P , 0.01), total ruminating time (P , 0.001) and bed occupation (total time lying plus standing on bed) were greater (P , 0.001) in the strawyard than cubicles in experiment I. Nevertheless, these responses were not found in experiment II (Table 3). In experiment I, cows in strawyards spent a significantly longer time lying down with all animals lying at the same time (lying synchronisation) than cows in cubicles (P , 0.01) but not in experiment II. Cows spent a significantly longer time in the cubicle system standing on the passageways (P , 0.001 in experiment I, P , 0.05 in experiment II), whereas in strawyards they spent significantly more time standing on the bed (P , 0.05 in experiment I) and eating straw in both experiments (P , 0.001). In experiment I, the time spent eating the forage / concentrate mixture was greater in the cubicle system (P , 0.05). The higher time spent eating straw bedding by cows in the strawyard system might have been a contributing factor. The estimated mean rates of intake of the mixture were 59 g DM / min in experiment I, and 86 g DM / min in experiment II. In experiment I, the high yield cows spent more time eating the mixture (P , 0.001) than the low yield cows. However, low yield cows spent more time lying down (P , 0.001) and eating straw from the bed (P , 0.05) than high yield cows. There were no significant differences in agonistic interactions between the two housing systems in either experiment although there was a tendency for the number of interactions to be higher in the strawyard system.
210
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
Table 3 Mean duration of maintenance behaviour and agonistic interactions of dairy cows of low (L) and high (H) milk yield in strawyard (S) and cubicle (C) systems in two experiments (min / 24 h)
Experiment I Total lying Lying synchronisation Standing on bed Bed occupation b Standing on passage Eating forage / concentrate mixture Eating straw on bed Ruminating Agonistic interactions (no. / 30 min)
LS
843 114 153 996 42 287 17 507 1.09
LC
814 56 95 910 83 304 2 468 0.66
Experiment II Total lying Lying synchronisation Standing on bed Bed occupation b Standing on passage Eating forage / concentrate mixture Eating straw on bed Ruminating Agonistic interactions (no. / 30 min)
HS
HC
S.E.D.a
Significance Housing system
Milk yield *** ns * ** ns *** * ns ns
792 101 170 961 34 329 9 538 1.36
711 56 148 859 68 358 1 473 1.02
20.2 15.5 15.3 12.7 5.9 10.0 2.5 12.6 0.207
** ** * *** *** * *** *** ns
710 24 214 924 97 233 16 507 1.10
723 26 171 894 135 242 1 494 0.93
27.5 19.7 22.1 21.3 15.5 10.1 3.0 16.9 0.383
ns ns ns ns * ns *** ns ns
a In this and subsequent tables, S.E.D. is the standard error of difference between system means and milk yield means; ***P , 0.001, **P , 0.01, *P , 0.05; ns, not significant. b Total lying 1 standing on bed.
3.2. Performance In experiment I there were no significant differences between strawyards and cubicles in milk yield and milk composition. However in experiment II (Table 4), milk yield in cubicles was significantly greater than in strawyards when the loss of milk from mastitis treatments was taken into account (P , 0.05). There were no significant differences in milk composition, liveweight or body condition score between strawyards and cubicles in either experiment, nor in liveweight change in experiment II (Table 4). Liveweight change was not estimated in experiment I due to the short duration of the periods. In experiment I low yield cows had greater (P , 0.001) liveweight and body condition scores than high yield cows (2.97 and 2.25). There were no significant differences between strawyards and cubi-
cles in either experiment (Table 4) for total DM intake (forage / concentrate mixture plus compound concentrate). In experiment I, the high yield cows had a significantly (P , 0.001) higher intake than low yield cows. There were no significant differences between strawyards and cubicles in the time from parturition to first observed oestrus which averaged 46 days (S.E.D. 9.1) in both treatments, or in the proportion of cows pregnant by the end of experiment II (eight pregnant out of 12 cows in both treatments).
3.3. Health There were no significant differences in cell count and locomotion score between strawyards and cubicles, respectively, or between milk yield level groups in experiment I. However, in experiment II (Table
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
211
Table 4 Mean milk yield, milk composition, liveweight, body condition score and total dry matter intake of low (L) and high (H) yield dairy cows in strawyard (S) and cubicle (C) systems in two experiments LS
Experiment I Milk yield (kg / day) Milk fat (g / kg) Milk protein (g / kg) Milk lactose (g / kg) Liveweight (kg) Body condition score a Total DMI (kg DM / day)
16.3 46.1 35.3 43.8 631 2.9 20.2
LC
16.4 46.9 35.3 43.4 630 3.0 20.6
Experiment II Milk yield (kg / day) Milk yield (kg / day)b Milk fat (g / kg) Milk protein (g / kg) Milk lactose (g / kg) Liveweight (kg) Liveweight gain (kg / day) Body condition score a Total DMI (kg DM / day) a b
HS
HC
S.E.D.
Significance Housing system
Milk yield *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
27.5 42.2 32.5 46.0 601 2.2 22.2
27.3 43.3 32.6 45.9 607 2.3 22.5
0.28 0.92 0.41 0.42 8.2 0.14 0.21
ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
32.6 30.2 47.3 34.6 46.6 611 0.23 2.4 22.1
33.8 33.3 45.0 33.9 47.1 608 0.26 2.5 22.0
0.95 1.09 1.32 0.83 0.50 7.1 0.217 0.07 0.38
ns * ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
Body condition score; 0, emaciated; 5, very fat. Recorded milk yield minus milk discarded due to treatment for mastitis.
5), cows in strawyards had significantly greater cell counts (P , 0.05) than cows in cubicles. There was also a significantly greater incidence of clinical mastitis in strawyards than in cubicles, with 8 and 2 quarters infected, respectively (P , 0.01). In both experiments cows in the cubicles were significantly cleaner (P , 0.001) than cows housed in strawyards. There were no significant differences between strawyards and cubicles (Table 5) in hoof angle (mean 428), dorsal toe length (8.0 cm) or heel depth (4.4 cm) measured at the end of the experiment.
4. Discussion
4.1. Behaviour The total time spent lying per day and synchrony of lying are important indicators of cow comfort (Miller and Wood-Gush, 1991; Krohn et al., 1992). The results in experiment I (Table 3) agree with previous observations (Schmisseur et al., 1966;
Singh et al., 1993; Phillips and Schofield, 1994) reporting greater lying and ruminating times in strawyards than cubicles. Also, strawyard-housed cows showed a greater synchrony of lying down than cubicle housed cows, which may have been due to a greater degree of comfort than for cows in cubicles (Phillips and Schofield, 1994). In addition, the flexibility of lying arrangements in strawyards compared with cubicles, may have provided a better social environment for the cows to carry out normal behaviour patterns. In experiment II, cows housed in strawyards had a similar total lying time to cows in cubicles. However, compared with HS cows in experiment I, the lying time of HS cows in experiment II was 82 min lower. The cows in cubicles had a similar lying time to the high yield group in experiment I. It is possible therefore that the lying down behaviour of the strawyard cows in experiment II was reduced due to the layout of the bedded area of the strawyard. The entrance to the bedded area in experiment II was on the short side of an oblong yard (Fig. 1) which could
212
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
Table 5 Mean cell count, locomotion score, cleanliness score and hoof measurements of low (L) and high (H) milk yield dairy cows in strawyard (S) and cubicle (C) systems in two experiments LS
Experiment I Cell count a Cell count b Locomotion score c Cleanliness score d Cleanliness score e Experiment II Cell count a Cell count b Locomotion score c Hoof angle (8)f Dorsal toe length (cm)f Heel depth (cm)f Cleanliness score d Cleanliness score e
164 4.6 1.6 1.0 0.8
LC
192 4.6 1.7 0.3 0.4
HS
HC
107 4.4 1.6 1.0 0.9
91 4.2 1.7 0.3 0.4
386 5.3 1.6 42 8.2 4.5 1.5 1.2
118 4.1 1.6 42 7.8 4.3 0.4 0.5
S.E.D.
Significance Housing system
Milk yield
0.25 0.05
ns ns
ns ns
0.10
***
ns
0.46 0.08 2.7 0.36 0.21
* ns ns ns ns
0.10
***
a
Cell count 5 ,000 cells / ml milk. b Log transformation. c Locomotion score; 1, good; 5, poor. d Cleanliness score; 0, clean; 5, very dirty. e Square root transformation. f Final measurements adjusted by covariance for differences in initial measurements.
have disrupted the lying behaviour of cows, whereas in experiment I it was on the long side. This may also explain the lack of difference between housing systems in synchrony of lying, and the increased time spent standing on the bed of the strawyard in experiment II. In both experiments cows housed in strawyards spent more time standing on the bed, and cows housed in cubicles spent more time standing on the concrete passageway. This could be due to the differences between systems in the lying surface areas offered to the animals (Phillips and Schofield, 1994). In experiment I for strawyard and cubicle yards, respectively, the lying area was 68% and 33% of the total area, and in experiment II the respective areas were 59% and 38% of the total. Play behaviour actions such as mock fleeing (running, trotting, cantering and galloping, often with tail elevated), mock aggression, and environmental exploration were observed during the change-over in experiment I. In that experiment the cows which were switched from cubicles to strawyards after the first experimental period showed play behaviour as
soon as they were moved to strawyards, whereas cows switching from strawyards to cubicles did not show the same reactions. This play behaviour is considered to be a good indicator of psychological and physical welfare in cattle (Phillips, 1993). Cubicle beds are not only important for dairy cows as a resting place, but also as a refuge to avoid confrontation with group mates (Potter and Broom, 1986; Wierenga and Hopster, 1990). This suggests that cows housed in strawyards should have shown a greater number of agonistic interactions than cows housed in cubicles. Although there was a tendency for greater number of agonistic interaction in strawyards than cubicles this difference was not significant in either experiment.
4.2. Performance In experiment I there were no significant effects of housing system on feed intake, milk yield or milk composition (Table 4) as also found by Schmisseur et al. (1966) and Phillips and Schofield (1994). Also
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
there were no significant interactions between milk yield level and housing system in relation to animal performance, indicating that housing requirements are similar for cows of different milk yield level. The significant difference between housing systems in milk yield in experiment II resulted from the difference in the incidence of mastitis, which was significantly higher in strawyards. The cows were in good body condition in both experiments with treatment mean scores ranging from 2.2 to 3.0 (Table 4), and there were no effects of housing system. In contrast Phillips and Schofield (1994) found that cows in strawyards lost more weight and condition score than cows in cubicles. The difference between low and high yield groups in experiment I reflected the differences in stage of lactation with early lactation, higher yielding cows being lower in liveweight due to having a lower body condition score. A previous study (Phillips and Schofield, 1994) reported significantly reduced calving to conception intervals for cows housed in a strawyard compared with a cubicle system, but there were no differences between housing systems in reproductive indicators in experiment II.
4.3. Health Milk cell-count and the incidence of mastitis are important indicators of the health of housed cattle. The higher incidence of mastitis in strawyards in experiment II (Table 5) was probably a result of the layout of the yard (Fig. 1) which meant that the bedded area adjacent to the concrete area used for feeding was much walked upon. This led to difficulties in keeping clean, that area of bed, and maintaining cleanliness in the cows. The cleanliness score results showed that cows in strawyards were dirtier than cows in cubicles in both experiments, which agrees with Albright and Alliston (1971) and Bakken (1981). The lack of cleanliness may have been an influential factor in the higher milk cell count and mastitis incidence observed in strawyards compared with cubicles in experiment II. The results confirm the tendency to a greater incidence of mastitis in strawyards compared with cubicles (Schmisseur et al., 1966; Jackson and Bramley, 1983). The locomotion scores (Table 5) indicated no
213
effects of housing system on lameness in these experiments. The hoof measurements taken in experiment II also showed no significant differences between the systems, although there was a tendency for both toe length and heel depth to be greater in the strawyard. Phillips and Schofield (1994) reported a greater heel depth for cows in strawyards. Cows in the strawyard spent a greater period of time standing on the bed and less time standing on concrete compared with cows in cubicles, and this should have led to less wear on the hooves for strawyard cows. However they did have access to an area of concrete which would have provided some hoof wear (Hahn et al., 1986), and may explain the lack of a significant difference between the two systems. There were no cases of clinical lameness observed during the experiment which indicates that good walking and standing conditions were provided in both housing systems.
4.4. Welfare indicators The biological functionality indicators used in these experiments provide one methodological approach to assessing welfare. The methodology has some limitations as it is not directly concerned with measuring what animals feel (Dawkins, 1990; Duncan, 1996; Sandoe et al., 1996). Measuring the responses of animals to the two housing systems, in behaviour, performance and health however, provided some indirect indicators of how the animals were coping with the environments provided (Broom, 1992, 1996). A number of indicators were used to assess welfare in the two experiments. Such an approach is advised as different measures of welfare do not always correlate, and it might be misleading to put too much emphasis on one particular measure (Dawkins, 1983; Duncan and Fraser, 1997). The indicators of welfare from the two experiments were to some extent in conflict. In experiment I, the health and performance indicators were not significantly different between the two housing systems, but the behavioural indicators, in particular total lying time and lying synchrony led to the conclusion that the strawyard provided the better environment for the cows. In contrast in experiment II, the behavioural indicators were similar for the
214
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
two systems. The higher incidence of mastitis in the strawyard, which also had a detrimental effect on animal performance, indicated that the welfare of animals was better served in the cubicle system. This highlights the problem of making simplistic conclusions about the welfare provided by different systems, and confirms that how the system is managed is an equally important issue in assessing animal welfare. In considering which behavioural measurements have wider potential as indicators of animal welfare, the results in experiment I indicate that total lying time and lying synchrony have merit as indicators as suggested by Miller and Wood-Gush (1991) and Krohn et al. (1992). Minimum average lying times of 600 min / day for strawyards (Singh et al., 1993), and 576 min / day for cubicles (Wierenga and Hopster, 1990) have been suggested. Whilst the mean total lying times in these experiments were above these minimum levels, there was substantial variation between animals within systems. In the two experiments the minimum and maximum lying times for individuals ranged from 335 to 1050 min / day. A range of genetic and environmental factors is known to influence individual lying times (Wierenga and Hopster, 1990). Research is needed into the importance of variation in lying time, between animals within groups, as it may provide a better insight into the welfare of animals than the mean lying time. Lying synchrony might also be a more sensitive welfare indicator than mean total lying time as it is related to social disturbance and a lack of comfort (Nielsen et al., 1997). Loss of synchrony can lead to frustration in animals and consequently to a reduction in welfare (Miller and Wood-Gush, 1991). The usefulness of performance indicators of welfare was less clear. Differences observed in milk yield between housing systems in experiment II resulted from differences in mastitis prevalence between the housing systems. Milk production per se may have limitations as an indicator of welfare as it is influenced by genetic factors, and a range of environmental factors including nutrition, disease, milking management and climate. Physiological and psychological problems of animals which have implications for welfare, may or may not result in the impairment of milk production (Smidt, 1983). Liveweight and body condition were not affected by
housing conditions in these experiments, but may be useful indicators of welfare when appetite is not being satisfied, or where there are implications for disease and survival (Bienfait et al., 1983). Body condition score, due to its simplicity in measurement under farm conditions, may be the more useful indicator. Mastitis and lameness are the two most important health problems affecting the welfare of dairy cows (Albright, 1983), and therefore the availability of appropriate indicators to measure them is desirable. Milk cell count and locomotion score have been considered previously as indicators of welfare (Blowey and Edmondson, 1995; Manson and Leaver, 1988), and provide a simple means of monitoring mastitis and lameness. Milk cell count is a better indicator than mastitis incidence for the assessment of mastitis in a herd, as it is an objective and instantaneous indicator, measured on the individual animal, and reflecting both the clinical and subclinical levels of the disease. Locomotion score (Manson and Leaver, 1988) provides a simple and more objective on-farm method of monitoring lameness than lameness incidence. When monitored regularly, it allows prevalence, duration and severity of lameness to be measured. A visual score of hoof shape to detect overgrown hooves, derived from the hoof measurements carried out in experiment II, could provide an additional indicator of welfare relating to lameness. It is not feasible to calculate the overall animal welfare for each housing system by determining a composite score from the behaviour, performance and health indicators, as this requires value judgements to be made on the weighting of individual indicators (Fraser, 1995). However, the results suggest that indicators relating to behaviour and health in particular, can be used to identify welfare problems associated with the design and management of housing systems.
5. Conclusions The use of behaviour, performance and health indicators to assess the welfare of lactating dairy cows was successful in detecting differences in animal responses between strawyard and cubicle
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
systems. Total lying time and lying synchrony were found to be measurable and usable indicators of welfare, with significant differences being found between housing systems in experiment I. Differences between housing systems in these behavioural indicators were not found in experiment II, which suggests that variations in welfare potential within housing systems, is as important as variations between systems. The health indicators, milk cell count and locomotion score were also found to be useful indicators of mastitis and lameness, respectively. Production traits such as milk yield were less useful as primary welfare indicators. There is a need for further research to confirm the most beneficial indicators of welfare for housing systems, and to identify the factors within the physical and social environments of housing systems that lead to increased values of these indicators. This information is needed as a basis for developing housing systems that provide improved welfare conditions for dairy cattle.
Acknowledgements We wish to thank the Universidade de Londrina and Fundacao Coordenacao de Aperfecoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior, Brazil for support of the Ph.D. programme of Jose A. Fregonesi.
References Albright, J.L., 1983. Our industry today — state of animal welfare awareness of producers and direction of animal welfare research in the future. J. Dairy Sci. 66, 2208–2220. Albright, J.L., Alliston, C.W., 1971. Effects of varying the environment upon the performance of dairy cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 32, 566–577. AOAC, 1980. In: Horowitz, W. (Ed.), 13th Edition. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. AOAC, Washington, USA. Bakken, G., 1981. Environment and bovine udder diseases in the loose housing systems for dairy cows with reference to relevant data from the cowhouse system. Acta Agric. Scand. 31, 445– 451. Bienfait, J.M., Nicks, B., Eenaemie, V.C., 1983. Significance of production performance traits as indicators of animal welfare. In: Smidt, D. (Ed.), Indicators Relevant to Animal Welfare. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 167–182.
215
Blowey, R., Edmondson, P., 1995. Mastitis Control in Dairy Herds. An Illustrated and Practical Guide. Farming Press, Ipswich, UK. Boelling, D., 1996. The Influence of Phenotype and Genotype on Locomotion in Cattle. University of London, Ph.D. Thesis. Broom, D.M., 1992. Animal welfare: its scientific measurement and current relevance to animal husbandry in Europe. In: Phillips, C., Piggins, D. (Eds.), Farm Animals and the Environment. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 245–253. Broom, D.M., 1996. Animal welfare defined in terms of attempts to cope with the environment. Acta Agric. Scand. Section A Anim. Sci. 27, 22–28. Dawkins, M.S., 1983. The current status of preference tests in the assessment of animal welfare. In: Baxter, S.H., Baxter, M.R., MacCormack, J.A.D. (Eds.), Farm Animal Housing and Welfare. Nijhoff, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 20–26. Dawkins, M.S., 1990. From an animal’s point of view: motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behav. Brain Sci. 13, 1–61. Duncan, I.J.H., 1996. Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agric. Scand. Section A Anim. Sci. 27, 29–35. Duncan, I.J.H., Fraser, D., 1997. Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby, M.C., Hughes, B.O. (Eds.), Animal Welfare. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 19–31. Enevoldsen, C., Grohn, Y.T., Thysen, I., 1994. Skin injuries on the body and thigh of dairy cows. Associations with season, claw health, disease, treatment and other cow characteristics. Acta Vet. Scand. 35, 337–347. Fraser, D., 1995. Science, values and animal welfare. Exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Anim. Welfare 4, 103–117. Fregonesi, J.A., 1999. Production and Behaviour of Dairy Cattle in Different Housing Systems. University of London, Ph.D. Thesis. Genstat, 1987. Genstat Reference Manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. Hahn, M.V., McDaniel, B.T., Wilk, J.C., 1986. Hoof growth and wear in Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 69, 2148–2156. Jackson, E., Bramley, J., 1983. Coliform mastitis. In-Practice 5, 135–146. Jensen, P., Algers, B., Ekesbo, I., 1986. In: Methods of Sampling and Analysis of Data in Farm Animal Ethology. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, p. 86. Krohn, C.C., Munksgaard, L., Jonasen, B., 1992. Behaviour of dairy cows kept in intensive (loose housing pasture) or intensive (tie stall) environments. 1. Experimental procedure, facilities, time budgets — diurnal and seasonal conditions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 34, 37–47. Leaver, J.D., 1999. Dairy cattle. In: Ewbank, R., Kim-Madslien, F., Hart, C.B. (Eds.), Management and Welfare of Farm Animals, 4th Edition. The UFAW Handbook. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, Wheathampstead, UK, pp. 17–47. MAFF, 1993. Prediction of Energy Value of Compound Feedstuffs for Farm Animals. MAFF Publications, Alnwick, UK, Booklet 1285. Manson, F.J., Leaver, J.D., 1988. The influence of concentrate amount on locomotion and clinical lameness in dairy cattle. Anim. Prod. 47, 185–190.
216
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
Miller, K., Wood-Gush, D.G.M., 1991. Some effects of housing on the social behaviour of dairy cows. Anim. Prod. 53, 271–278. Mulvany, P.M., 1977. Dairy Cow Condition Scoring, Report No. 4468. National Institute for Research in Dairying, Reading, UK. Nielsen, L.H., Mogensen, L., Krohn, C., Hindehede, J., Sorensen, J.T., 1997. Resting and social behaviour of dairy heifers housed in slatted floor pens with different sized bedded lying areas. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 54, 307–316. Phillips, C.J.C., 1993. In: Cattle Behaviour. Farming Press Books, Ipswich, UK, p. 212. Phillips, C.J.C., Schofield, S.A., 1994. The effect of cubicle and strawyard housing on behaviour, production and hoof health of dairy cows. Anim. Welfare 3, 37–44. Potter, M.J., Broom, D.M., 1986. Behaviour and welfare of cows in a cubicle house. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 16, 94–95.
Sandoe, P., Giersing, M.H., Jeppesen, L.L., 1996. Concluding remarks and perspectives. Acta Agric. Scand. Section A Anim. Sci. 27, 109–115. Schmisseur, W.E., Albright, J.L., Dillon, W.M., Kehrberg, E.W., Morris, W.H.M., 1966. Animal behaviour responses to loose and free stall housing. J. Dairy Sci. 49, 102–104. Singh, S.S., Ward, W.R., Lautenbach, K., Murray, R.D., 1993. Behaviour of lame and normal dairy cows in cubicles and in a strawyard. Vet. Rec. 133, 204–208. Smidt, D., 1983. Advantages and problems of using integrated systems of indicators as compared to single traits. In: Smidt, D. (Ed.), Indicators Relevant to Farm Animal Welfare. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 201–207. Wierenga, H.K., Hopster, H., 1990. The significance of cubicles for the behaviour of dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 26, 309–337.
Behaviour, performance and health indicators of welfare for dairy cows housed in strawyard or cubicle systems Jose A. Fregonesi, J. David Leaver* Wye College, University of London, Near Ashford, Kent TN 25 5 AH, UK Received 16 November 1999; received in revised form 11 May 2000; accepted 14 August 2000
Abstract Objective methods are required to assess the welfare of livestock in different environments. Two experiments were conducted to determine comparative indicators of welfare in the two most common loose-housing systems for dairy cows, strawyards and cubicles. Experiment I examined the animal responses to the two housing systems with 16 high- and 16 low-yielding Holstein Friesian cows in a changeover design over two, 4-week periods. Experiment II was carried out over 17 weeks to assess the longer-term responses to the two systems with 24 Holstein Friesian cows. In experiment I cows in the strawyard system had a significantly greater lying time, ruminating time and synchronisation of lying behaviour than the cubicle system. The cows were significantly cleaner in the cubicle system but there were no significant differences between systems in milk production, cell count or locomotion score. High yield cows had a shorter lying time but longer feeding time than low yield cows. The cows of different milk yield level responded similarly to the housing systems, indicating that cows of high milk yield do not require different housing systems from low yield cows. In experiment II there were no significant differences between housing systems in lying, ruminating or synchronisation of lying behaviour. Milk yields were significantly lower in the strawyard than in the cubicle system due to a significantly higher incidence of clinical mastitis. Cell-counts were significantly lower and cows were significantly cleaner in cubicles. There were no significant effects of housing system on hoof dimensions, locomotion score or clinical lameness. It was concluded that total lying time, lying synchrony, milk cell count and locomotion score are potential indicators for the assessment of dairy cow welfare in different housing environments. 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Dairy cattle; Behaviour; Milk production; Herd health; Housing systems; Animal welfare
1. Introduction There is a growing interest and concern about the welfare of housed dairy cattle. Over the past 40 years as herd sizes have increased, cowshed housing, in *Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 44-1233-812-401; fax: 1 441233-812-855. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.D. Leaver).
which cows are tied by the neck for prolonged periods during the winter months, has been replaced by strawyards and cubicles (Leaver, 1999). The two systems provide loose housing for dairy cows, but differ in the proportion of bedded area, the depth of bedding and the formality of the lying arrangements. These physical differences between the two housing systems may be influential in the welfare of dairy cows.
0301-6226 / 01 / $ – see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S0301-6226( 00 )00234-7
206
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
Measuring animal welfare in a system involves making value judgements about what is better or worse, and what is more important or less important (Fraser, 1995). Whilst science can identify, diagnose and possibly solve welfare problems it cannot assess in a single measure, the overall welfare of animals in a particular system (Fraser, 1995), as different values will be placed on different indicators by different people. The potential value of welfare indicators is in the identification of welfare problems associated with particular aspects of systems and their management. Animal-centred definitions of welfare provide one approach to welfare assessment and are concerned with what animals feel in response to their environment (Dawkins, 1990; Duncan, 1996; Sandoe et al., 1996). One method of assessment is to allow animals to choose between systems in a preference test. Recent research using this methodology showed that dairy cows had a clear preference for standing and lying in a strawyard system rather than in a cubicle system (Fregonesi, 1999). This result does not mean necessarily that welfare of cows in cubicles is poor, because the strength of the choice was not tested. A wider definition that provides a more practical approach to assessment of welfare, is the state of an individual as regards its attempts to cope with its environment (Broom, 1992, 1996). This approach allows welfare to be measured through the use of functional indicators, which have been grouped into the following criteria groups; behavioural, physiological, pathological and performance, by Smidt (1983). The objective of the two experiments was to use welfare indicators from three criteria of Smidt (1983), behaviour, performance and health (pathol-
ogy), to examine the welfare of dairy cows in two housing systems. The first experiment had a changeover design, and compared animal responses to the two systems. It also addressed the question of whether there is an interaction between the milk yield level of cows and the response to the different housing environments. High milk yield dairy cows with a high nutrient demand may cope differently from low yield cows, since they could be faced with a higher level of metabolic stress and disease challenge (Enevoldsen et al., 1994). The second experiment examined the longer-term responses of dairy cows to the two housing systems, as the effects on health and performance may take a period of time to develop.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental design and animals The experiments were carried out at the Wye College Dairy Research Unit from February to April 1996 (experiment I) and from October 1996 to February 1997 (experiment II). Experiment I compared two housing systems and two milk yield level groups of cows in a changeover design. The treatments with eight cows in each period were; HS, high yield cows in a strawyard; HC, high yield cows in cubicles; LS, low yield cows in a strawyard, and LC, low yield cows in cubicles. The 32 (16 high and 16 low yield) Holstein Friesian cows were paired on the basis of current milk yield, liveweight, parity and days post partum (Table 1).
Table 1 Mean values and ranges for initial milk yield, initial liveweight, parity and days post partum for low and high yield dairy cows in two experiments
Experiment I Low yield High yield Experiment II Strawyard Cubicles
Initial milk yield (kg / day)
Initial liveweight (kg)
Parity
Days post partum
19.1 (15.0–24.0) 32.1 (23.7–40.0)
606 (495–700) 572 (449–692)
2.9 (1–8) 3.1 (1–7)
210 (183–246) 182 (142–228)
34.5 (29.3–43.8) 34.9 (28.7–45.4)
583 (460–702) 582 (487–770)
2.7 (1–6) 2.7 (1–6)
29 (5–46) 32 (5–52)
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
Within each milk yield group, they were allocated at random within pairs to cubicles or strawyards for the first period. The experiment was a multiple latin square design with one high-yield replicate and one low-yield replicate starting in a strawyard and one replicate of each yield level starting in cubicles. At the end of the first period each replicate group changed to the other housing system. The two periods each lasted for 4 weeks. Experiment II had two treatments each of 12 high yielding cows in a continuous design, HS a strawyard system and HC, a cubicle system, and was of 17 weeks duration. The animals were paired on the same basis as experiment I and allocated at random within pairs to the two treatments in a randomised block design (Table 1).
2.2. Housing systems and management A schematic diagram of the strawyard and cubicle housing systems used in experiments I and II is shown in Fig. 1. Strawyard space allowances in experiments I and II were, respectively, total area
Fig. 1. Schematic drawing of the strawyard and cubicle housing systems used in experiments I and II.
207
10.0 and 9.2 m 2 / cow; bedding area 6.8 and 5.4 m 2 / cow; feeding barrier 2.8 and 1.0 spaces / cow. Cubicle space allowances in experiments I and II, respectively, were total area 10.0 and 9.2 m 2 / cow; bedding area 1.25 and 1.33 cubicles / cow and feeding barrier 1.5 and 1.0 spaces / cow. The cubicle divisions consisted of a top horizontal metal tube and a lower horizontal rope (1.70 m long). There was a vertical post (1.15 m high) front and back to support the tube and rope. Each cubicle bed measured 1.25 m wide and 2.10 m long forming a double row with the cows lying head to head in experiment I, and forming a single row of cows lying facing a wall in experiment II. The areas provided per cow were higher than the minimum requirements of 3 m 2 bedding area and 2 m 2 loafing area for strawyards, and one cubicle and 3 m 2 loafing area for cubicles (Leaver, 1999). In strawyards, the bedding was long wheat straw given daily, and in cubicles chopped wheat straw given thrice weekly in appropriate amounts to keep the bed surfaces clean. The amounts of long and chopped wheat straw used as bedding in the strawyards and cubicles, respectively, in experiment I were 7.3 and 1.3 kg / cow / day and in experiment II 7.6 and 1.0 kg / cow / day. Concrete passageway floors were scraped twice daily using a scraper mounted on the back of a tractor in all housing systems except in experiment I where cubicle passageways were scraped six times each day using an automatic scraper. The cows were offered a forage / concentrate mixture ad libitum using a Keenan mixer wagon. The mixture offered per cow on a group-fed basis each morning in experiment I, was composed of (fresh weight); 36 kg maize silage, 3.5 kg wheat straw, 4.5 kg maize gluten, 2.5 kg soybean meal, and in addition 3 kg / cow / day of a compound concentrate fed individually in the milking parlour. In experiment II the forage / concentrate mixture offered per cow each morning was composed of 33 kg maize silage, 15 kg grass silage, 4 kg maize gluten, 4 kg soybean / rapeseed meal (1:1 ratio), and 2 kg / cow / day of a compound concentrate in the milking parlour. Also 0.15 kg / cow of a mineral / vitamin supplement was offered with the forage / concentrate mixture. The feeds were sampled for chemical analysis
208
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
Table 2 Estimated metabolisable energy (ME) and crude protein (CP) content of feeds used in two experiments Experiment I ME (MJ / kg DM) Maize silage Grass silage Wheat straw Maize gluten Soyabean meal Rapeseed meal Compound concentrate
Experiment II CP (g / kg DM)
11.1
92
6.0 10.9 13.0
20 263 503
12.2
282
every 4 weeks in both experiments (Table 2). The neutral cellulase and gammanase digestibility (NCGD g / kg DM) method (MAFF, 1993) was used to estimate metabolisable energy (ME), and crude protein (CP) was estimated from nitrogen content (N g / kg DM) 3 6.25 (AOAC, 1980). The forage / concentrate mixture had ME and CP contents of 10.4 MJ / kg DM and 159 g CP/ kg DM in experiment I, and 11.3 MJ / kg DM and 190 g CP/ kg DM in experiment II. The cows were fed the mixture once daily at 08:30 h, and milked twice daily through a herringbone parlour in separate groups at | 06:30 h and 16:30 h.
2.3. Measurements Behavioural indicator measurements were made manually and included the recording of maintenance and agonistic behaviour in both experiments. Maintenance behaviour (lying down, ruminating, standing on bed, standing on passage and feeding) was recorded for 24 h (5-min intervals) by a team of observers twice per period (in weeks 2 and 4) in experiment I, and every 4 weeks (weeks 4, 8, 12 and 16) in experiment II. A single observer recorded all groups at any one time. Synchronisation of lying behaviour (time when all animals in a treatment group were lying at the same time) was also recorded. Agonistic behaviour (threats, bunts, pushes and fights) was recorded in a 30-min continuous observation per treatment twice weekly by the same observer using a sociometric matrix (Jensen et al., 1986). One weekly observation was taken between
ME (MJ / kg DM)
CP (g / kg DM)
11.3 11.4
88 211
10.8 12.8 11.9 12.2
29.3 523 402 280
10:00 and 12:00 h, and one between 15:00 and 17:00 h for each treatment in both experiments. The order of treatment observation on each occasion was randomised. Performance indicators included milk yield and composition, liveweight, body condition score, food intake and reproduction. Milk yield was recorded automatically at each milking for individual cows by a computer-linked flow meter, and mean daily milk yield per cow was calculated on a weekly basis. Morning and afternoon samples of milk from individual cows were analysed weekly for milk constituents (fat, protein, lactose). Liveweight was measured twice weekly and the body condition scored, to indicate the level of subcutaneous fat, was carried out at the same time using the tailhead scoring system of Mulvany (1977), where 0 is emaciated and 5 is very fat. The feed intake was estimated by measuring the amount of forage / concentrate mixture offered to each group daily and the refusals were recorded three times each week. The rate of DM intake was calculated from the group DM intake of the mixture divided by the mean feeding time for individual cows within the group. Reproductive performance was recorded in experiment II. Milk progesterone was monitored twice weekly until first oestrus. This was confirmed by the presence of a low progesterone level combined with observed oestrous behaviour. All oestrous observations and inseminations were recorded, and pregnancy diagnosis was confirmed later by ultrasound carried out by a veterinary surgeon on the final day of the experiment
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
The health indicators were those relating to mastitis and lameness. The milk somatic cell count was recorded for each cow in the final week of each period in experiment I and every 4 weeks in experiment II. These data were obtained from the monthly National Milk Records plc (NMR) report. A cleanliness score was carried out at the end of each period in experiment I, and on a weekly basis in experiment II. This assessment was made to assist in the interpretation of indicator results for mastitis and lameness. The following scoring system was used; score 0, clean udder, belly, rear legs and tail; score 1, clean udder, belly, rear legs or tail with only minimal dirtiness; score 2, udder with minimal dirtiness, belly, rear legs or tail with some dirtiness; score 3, udder with some dirtiness, belly, rear legs or tail dirty; score 4, udder dirty, belly, rear legs or tail very dirty and score 5, udder very dirty, belly, rear legs or tail very dirty. Hoof measurements including lateral foot angle, dorsal toe length and heel depth were carried out at the start and end of experiment II using the methods described by Boelling (1996). Locomotion scores using the score 1 (even gait) to score 5 (severe lameness) method of Manson and Leaver (1988) were carried out at the end of each period in experiment I, and every 4 weeks in experiment II.
2.4. Statistical analysis Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed on the results using the Genstat statistical computer program (Genstat, 1987). Experiment I was analysed as a multiple latin square design. In experiment II, the mean results over 17 weeks were analysed as a randomised block design using the GLM procedure, with housing system (n 5 2) and cow blocks (n 5 12) as independent variables, and 11 df for error. A covariate of the pre-experimental value for each cow was also included in the ANOVA for milk yield, milk composition, liveweight, condition score and final hoof measurements, reducing the error df to 10. The results for incidence of mastitis and proportion of cows conceiving were analysed by the chi-squared test. Cell-count and milk composition records of cows with mastitis on the day of recording were considered as missing values in the statistical analysis. The cell counts and cleanliness scores did not
209
have normal distributions, and log and square root transformations, respectively, were found to be necessary.
3. Results There were no significant interactions between housing system and milk yield level of cows in experiment I for any of the indicators, and only main effects of treatments are therefore presented.
3.1. Behaviour The total time spent lying down (P , 0.01), total ruminating time (P , 0.001) and bed occupation (total time lying plus standing on bed) were greater (P , 0.001) in the strawyard than cubicles in experiment I. Nevertheless, these responses were not found in experiment II (Table 3). In experiment I, cows in strawyards spent a significantly longer time lying down with all animals lying at the same time (lying synchronisation) than cows in cubicles (P , 0.01) but not in experiment II. Cows spent a significantly longer time in the cubicle system standing on the passageways (P , 0.001 in experiment I, P , 0.05 in experiment II), whereas in strawyards they spent significantly more time standing on the bed (P , 0.05 in experiment I) and eating straw in both experiments (P , 0.001). In experiment I, the time spent eating the forage / concentrate mixture was greater in the cubicle system (P , 0.05). The higher time spent eating straw bedding by cows in the strawyard system might have been a contributing factor. The estimated mean rates of intake of the mixture were 59 g DM / min in experiment I, and 86 g DM / min in experiment II. In experiment I, the high yield cows spent more time eating the mixture (P , 0.001) than the low yield cows. However, low yield cows spent more time lying down (P , 0.001) and eating straw from the bed (P , 0.05) than high yield cows. There were no significant differences in agonistic interactions between the two housing systems in either experiment although there was a tendency for the number of interactions to be higher in the strawyard system.
210
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
Table 3 Mean duration of maintenance behaviour and agonistic interactions of dairy cows of low (L) and high (H) milk yield in strawyard (S) and cubicle (C) systems in two experiments (min / 24 h)
Experiment I Total lying Lying synchronisation Standing on bed Bed occupation b Standing on passage Eating forage / concentrate mixture Eating straw on bed Ruminating Agonistic interactions (no. / 30 min)
LS
843 114 153 996 42 287 17 507 1.09
LC
814 56 95 910 83 304 2 468 0.66
Experiment II Total lying Lying synchronisation Standing on bed Bed occupation b Standing on passage Eating forage / concentrate mixture Eating straw on bed Ruminating Agonistic interactions (no. / 30 min)
HS
HC
S.E.D.a
Significance Housing system
Milk yield *** ns * ** ns *** * ns ns
792 101 170 961 34 329 9 538 1.36
711 56 148 859 68 358 1 473 1.02
20.2 15.5 15.3 12.7 5.9 10.0 2.5 12.6 0.207
** ** * *** *** * *** *** ns
710 24 214 924 97 233 16 507 1.10
723 26 171 894 135 242 1 494 0.93
27.5 19.7 22.1 21.3 15.5 10.1 3.0 16.9 0.383
ns ns ns ns * ns *** ns ns
a In this and subsequent tables, S.E.D. is the standard error of difference between system means and milk yield means; ***P , 0.001, **P , 0.01, *P , 0.05; ns, not significant. b Total lying 1 standing on bed.
3.2. Performance In experiment I there were no significant differences between strawyards and cubicles in milk yield and milk composition. However in experiment II (Table 4), milk yield in cubicles was significantly greater than in strawyards when the loss of milk from mastitis treatments was taken into account (P , 0.05). There were no significant differences in milk composition, liveweight or body condition score between strawyards and cubicles in either experiment, nor in liveweight change in experiment II (Table 4). Liveweight change was not estimated in experiment I due to the short duration of the periods. In experiment I low yield cows had greater (P , 0.001) liveweight and body condition scores than high yield cows (2.97 and 2.25). There were no significant differences between strawyards and cubi-
cles in either experiment (Table 4) for total DM intake (forage / concentrate mixture plus compound concentrate). In experiment I, the high yield cows had a significantly (P , 0.001) higher intake than low yield cows. There were no significant differences between strawyards and cubicles in the time from parturition to first observed oestrus which averaged 46 days (S.E.D. 9.1) in both treatments, or in the proportion of cows pregnant by the end of experiment II (eight pregnant out of 12 cows in both treatments).
3.3. Health There were no significant differences in cell count and locomotion score between strawyards and cubicles, respectively, or between milk yield level groups in experiment I. However, in experiment II (Table
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
211
Table 4 Mean milk yield, milk composition, liveweight, body condition score and total dry matter intake of low (L) and high (H) yield dairy cows in strawyard (S) and cubicle (C) systems in two experiments LS
Experiment I Milk yield (kg / day) Milk fat (g / kg) Milk protein (g / kg) Milk lactose (g / kg) Liveweight (kg) Body condition score a Total DMI (kg DM / day)
16.3 46.1 35.3 43.8 631 2.9 20.2
LC
16.4 46.9 35.3 43.4 630 3.0 20.6
Experiment II Milk yield (kg / day) Milk yield (kg / day)b Milk fat (g / kg) Milk protein (g / kg) Milk lactose (g / kg) Liveweight (kg) Liveweight gain (kg / day) Body condition score a Total DMI (kg DM / day) a b
HS
HC
S.E.D.
Significance Housing system
Milk yield *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
27.5 42.2 32.5 46.0 601 2.2 22.2
27.3 43.3 32.6 45.9 607 2.3 22.5
0.28 0.92 0.41 0.42 8.2 0.14 0.21
ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
32.6 30.2 47.3 34.6 46.6 611 0.23 2.4 22.1
33.8 33.3 45.0 33.9 47.1 608 0.26 2.5 22.0
0.95 1.09 1.32 0.83 0.50 7.1 0.217 0.07 0.38
ns * ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
Body condition score; 0, emaciated; 5, very fat. Recorded milk yield minus milk discarded due to treatment for mastitis.
5), cows in strawyards had significantly greater cell counts (P , 0.05) than cows in cubicles. There was also a significantly greater incidence of clinical mastitis in strawyards than in cubicles, with 8 and 2 quarters infected, respectively (P , 0.01). In both experiments cows in the cubicles were significantly cleaner (P , 0.001) than cows housed in strawyards. There were no significant differences between strawyards and cubicles (Table 5) in hoof angle (mean 428), dorsal toe length (8.0 cm) or heel depth (4.4 cm) measured at the end of the experiment.
4. Discussion
4.1. Behaviour The total time spent lying per day and synchrony of lying are important indicators of cow comfort (Miller and Wood-Gush, 1991; Krohn et al., 1992). The results in experiment I (Table 3) agree with previous observations (Schmisseur et al., 1966;
Singh et al., 1993; Phillips and Schofield, 1994) reporting greater lying and ruminating times in strawyards than cubicles. Also, strawyard-housed cows showed a greater synchrony of lying down than cubicle housed cows, which may have been due to a greater degree of comfort than for cows in cubicles (Phillips and Schofield, 1994). In addition, the flexibility of lying arrangements in strawyards compared with cubicles, may have provided a better social environment for the cows to carry out normal behaviour patterns. In experiment II, cows housed in strawyards had a similar total lying time to cows in cubicles. However, compared with HS cows in experiment I, the lying time of HS cows in experiment II was 82 min lower. The cows in cubicles had a similar lying time to the high yield group in experiment I. It is possible therefore that the lying down behaviour of the strawyard cows in experiment II was reduced due to the layout of the bedded area of the strawyard. The entrance to the bedded area in experiment II was on the short side of an oblong yard (Fig. 1) which could
212
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
Table 5 Mean cell count, locomotion score, cleanliness score and hoof measurements of low (L) and high (H) milk yield dairy cows in strawyard (S) and cubicle (C) systems in two experiments LS
Experiment I Cell count a Cell count b Locomotion score c Cleanliness score d Cleanliness score e Experiment II Cell count a Cell count b Locomotion score c Hoof angle (8)f Dorsal toe length (cm)f Heel depth (cm)f Cleanliness score d Cleanliness score e
164 4.6 1.6 1.0 0.8
LC
192 4.6 1.7 0.3 0.4
HS
HC
107 4.4 1.6 1.0 0.9
91 4.2 1.7 0.3 0.4
386 5.3 1.6 42 8.2 4.5 1.5 1.2
118 4.1 1.6 42 7.8 4.3 0.4 0.5
S.E.D.
Significance Housing system
Milk yield
0.25 0.05
ns ns
ns ns
0.10
***
ns
0.46 0.08 2.7 0.36 0.21
* ns ns ns ns
0.10
***
a
Cell count 5 ,000 cells / ml milk. b Log transformation. c Locomotion score; 1, good; 5, poor. d Cleanliness score; 0, clean; 5, very dirty. e Square root transformation. f Final measurements adjusted by covariance for differences in initial measurements.
have disrupted the lying behaviour of cows, whereas in experiment I it was on the long side. This may also explain the lack of difference between housing systems in synchrony of lying, and the increased time spent standing on the bed of the strawyard in experiment II. In both experiments cows housed in strawyards spent more time standing on the bed, and cows housed in cubicles spent more time standing on the concrete passageway. This could be due to the differences between systems in the lying surface areas offered to the animals (Phillips and Schofield, 1994). In experiment I for strawyard and cubicle yards, respectively, the lying area was 68% and 33% of the total area, and in experiment II the respective areas were 59% and 38% of the total. Play behaviour actions such as mock fleeing (running, trotting, cantering and galloping, often with tail elevated), mock aggression, and environmental exploration were observed during the change-over in experiment I. In that experiment the cows which were switched from cubicles to strawyards after the first experimental period showed play behaviour as
soon as they were moved to strawyards, whereas cows switching from strawyards to cubicles did not show the same reactions. This play behaviour is considered to be a good indicator of psychological and physical welfare in cattle (Phillips, 1993). Cubicle beds are not only important for dairy cows as a resting place, but also as a refuge to avoid confrontation with group mates (Potter and Broom, 1986; Wierenga and Hopster, 1990). This suggests that cows housed in strawyards should have shown a greater number of agonistic interactions than cows housed in cubicles. Although there was a tendency for greater number of agonistic interaction in strawyards than cubicles this difference was not significant in either experiment.
4.2. Performance In experiment I there were no significant effects of housing system on feed intake, milk yield or milk composition (Table 4) as also found by Schmisseur et al. (1966) and Phillips and Schofield (1994). Also
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
there were no significant interactions between milk yield level and housing system in relation to animal performance, indicating that housing requirements are similar for cows of different milk yield level. The significant difference between housing systems in milk yield in experiment II resulted from the difference in the incidence of mastitis, which was significantly higher in strawyards. The cows were in good body condition in both experiments with treatment mean scores ranging from 2.2 to 3.0 (Table 4), and there were no effects of housing system. In contrast Phillips and Schofield (1994) found that cows in strawyards lost more weight and condition score than cows in cubicles. The difference between low and high yield groups in experiment I reflected the differences in stage of lactation with early lactation, higher yielding cows being lower in liveweight due to having a lower body condition score. A previous study (Phillips and Schofield, 1994) reported significantly reduced calving to conception intervals for cows housed in a strawyard compared with a cubicle system, but there were no differences between housing systems in reproductive indicators in experiment II.
4.3. Health Milk cell-count and the incidence of mastitis are important indicators of the health of housed cattle. The higher incidence of mastitis in strawyards in experiment II (Table 5) was probably a result of the layout of the yard (Fig. 1) which meant that the bedded area adjacent to the concrete area used for feeding was much walked upon. This led to difficulties in keeping clean, that area of bed, and maintaining cleanliness in the cows. The cleanliness score results showed that cows in strawyards were dirtier than cows in cubicles in both experiments, which agrees with Albright and Alliston (1971) and Bakken (1981). The lack of cleanliness may have been an influential factor in the higher milk cell count and mastitis incidence observed in strawyards compared with cubicles in experiment II. The results confirm the tendency to a greater incidence of mastitis in strawyards compared with cubicles (Schmisseur et al., 1966; Jackson and Bramley, 1983). The locomotion scores (Table 5) indicated no
213
effects of housing system on lameness in these experiments. The hoof measurements taken in experiment II also showed no significant differences between the systems, although there was a tendency for both toe length and heel depth to be greater in the strawyard. Phillips and Schofield (1994) reported a greater heel depth for cows in strawyards. Cows in the strawyard spent a greater period of time standing on the bed and less time standing on concrete compared with cows in cubicles, and this should have led to less wear on the hooves for strawyard cows. However they did have access to an area of concrete which would have provided some hoof wear (Hahn et al., 1986), and may explain the lack of a significant difference between the two systems. There were no cases of clinical lameness observed during the experiment which indicates that good walking and standing conditions were provided in both housing systems.
4.4. Welfare indicators The biological functionality indicators used in these experiments provide one methodological approach to assessing welfare. The methodology has some limitations as it is not directly concerned with measuring what animals feel (Dawkins, 1990; Duncan, 1996; Sandoe et al., 1996). Measuring the responses of animals to the two housing systems, in behaviour, performance and health however, provided some indirect indicators of how the animals were coping with the environments provided (Broom, 1992, 1996). A number of indicators were used to assess welfare in the two experiments. Such an approach is advised as different measures of welfare do not always correlate, and it might be misleading to put too much emphasis on one particular measure (Dawkins, 1983; Duncan and Fraser, 1997). The indicators of welfare from the two experiments were to some extent in conflict. In experiment I, the health and performance indicators were not significantly different between the two housing systems, but the behavioural indicators, in particular total lying time and lying synchrony led to the conclusion that the strawyard provided the better environment for the cows. In contrast in experiment II, the behavioural indicators were similar for the
214
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
two systems. The higher incidence of mastitis in the strawyard, which also had a detrimental effect on animal performance, indicated that the welfare of animals was better served in the cubicle system. This highlights the problem of making simplistic conclusions about the welfare provided by different systems, and confirms that how the system is managed is an equally important issue in assessing animal welfare. In considering which behavioural measurements have wider potential as indicators of animal welfare, the results in experiment I indicate that total lying time and lying synchrony have merit as indicators as suggested by Miller and Wood-Gush (1991) and Krohn et al. (1992). Minimum average lying times of 600 min / day for strawyards (Singh et al., 1993), and 576 min / day for cubicles (Wierenga and Hopster, 1990) have been suggested. Whilst the mean total lying times in these experiments were above these minimum levels, there was substantial variation between animals within systems. In the two experiments the minimum and maximum lying times for individuals ranged from 335 to 1050 min / day. A range of genetic and environmental factors is known to influence individual lying times (Wierenga and Hopster, 1990). Research is needed into the importance of variation in lying time, between animals within groups, as it may provide a better insight into the welfare of animals than the mean lying time. Lying synchrony might also be a more sensitive welfare indicator than mean total lying time as it is related to social disturbance and a lack of comfort (Nielsen et al., 1997). Loss of synchrony can lead to frustration in animals and consequently to a reduction in welfare (Miller and Wood-Gush, 1991). The usefulness of performance indicators of welfare was less clear. Differences observed in milk yield between housing systems in experiment II resulted from differences in mastitis prevalence between the housing systems. Milk production per se may have limitations as an indicator of welfare as it is influenced by genetic factors, and a range of environmental factors including nutrition, disease, milking management and climate. Physiological and psychological problems of animals which have implications for welfare, may or may not result in the impairment of milk production (Smidt, 1983). Liveweight and body condition were not affected by
housing conditions in these experiments, but may be useful indicators of welfare when appetite is not being satisfied, or where there are implications for disease and survival (Bienfait et al., 1983). Body condition score, due to its simplicity in measurement under farm conditions, may be the more useful indicator. Mastitis and lameness are the two most important health problems affecting the welfare of dairy cows (Albright, 1983), and therefore the availability of appropriate indicators to measure them is desirable. Milk cell count and locomotion score have been considered previously as indicators of welfare (Blowey and Edmondson, 1995; Manson and Leaver, 1988), and provide a simple means of monitoring mastitis and lameness. Milk cell count is a better indicator than mastitis incidence for the assessment of mastitis in a herd, as it is an objective and instantaneous indicator, measured on the individual animal, and reflecting both the clinical and subclinical levels of the disease. Locomotion score (Manson and Leaver, 1988) provides a simple and more objective on-farm method of monitoring lameness than lameness incidence. When monitored regularly, it allows prevalence, duration and severity of lameness to be measured. A visual score of hoof shape to detect overgrown hooves, derived from the hoof measurements carried out in experiment II, could provide an additional indicator of welfare relating to lameness. It is not feasible to calculate the overall animal welfare for each housing system by determining a composite score from the behaviour, performance and health indicators, as this requires value judgements to be made on the weighting of individual indicators (Fraser, 1995). However, the results suggest that indicators relating to behaviour and health in particular, can be used to identify welfare problems associated with the design and management of housing systems.
5. Conclusions The use of behaviour, performance and health indicators to assess the welfare of lactating dairy cows was successful in detecting differences in animal responses between strawyard and cubicle
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
systems. Total lying time and lying synchrony were found to be measurable and usable indicators of welfare, with significant differences being found between housing systems in experiment I. Differences between housing systems in these behavioural indicators were not found in experiment II, which suggests that variations in welfare potential within housing systems, is as important as variations between systems. The health indicators, milk cell count and locomotion score were also found to be useful indicators of mastitis and lameness, respectively. Production traits such as milk yield were less useful as primary welfare indicators. There is a need for further research to confirm the most beneficial indicators of welfare for housing systems, and to identify the factors within the physical and social environments of housing systems that lead to increased values of these indicators. This information is needed as a basis for developing housing systems that provide improved welfare conditions for dairy cattle.
Acknowledgements We wish to thank the Universidade de Londrina and Fundacao Coordenacao de Aperfecoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior, Brazil for support of the Ph.D. programme of Jose A. Fregonesi.
References Albright, J.L., 1983. Our industry today — state of animal welfare awareness of producers and direction of animal welfare research in the future. J. Dairy Sci. 66, 2208–2220. Albright, J.L., Alliston, C.W., 1971. Effects of varying the environment upon the performance of dairy cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 32, 566–577. AOAC, 1980. In: Horowitz, W. (Ed.), 13th Edition. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. AOAC, Washington, USA. Bakken, G., 1981. Environment and bovine udder diseases in the loose housing systems for dairy cows with reference to relevant data from the cowhouse system. Acta Agric. Scand. 31, 445– 451. Bienfait, J.M., Nicks, B., Eenaemie, V.C., 1983. Significance of production performance traits as indicators of animal welfare. In: Smidt, D. (Ed.), Indicators Relevant to Animal Welfare. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 167–182.
215
Blowey, R., Edmondson, P., 1995. Mastitis Control in Dairy Herds. An Illustrated and Practical Guide. Farming Press, Ipswich, UK. Boelling, D., 1996. The Influence of Phenotype and Genotype on Locomotion in Cattle. University of London, Ph.D. Thesis. Broom, D.M., 1992. Animal welfare: its scientific measurement and current relevance to animal husbandry in Europe. In: Phillips, C., Piggins, D. (Eds.), Farm Animals and the Environment. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 245–253. Broom, D.M., 1996. Animal welfare defined in terms of attempts to cope with the environment. Acta Agric. Scand. Section A Anim. Sci. 27, 22–28. Dawkins, M.S., 1983. The current status of preference tests in the assessment of animal welfare. In: Baxter, S.H., Baxter, M.R., MacCormack, J.A.D. (Eds.), Farm Animal Housing and Welfare. Nijhoff, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 20–26. Dawkins, M.S., 1990. From an animal’s point of view: motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behav. Brain Sci. 13, 1–61. Duncan, I.J.H., 1996. Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agric. Scand. Section A Anim. Sci. 27, 29–35. Duncan, I.J.H., Fraser, D., 1997. Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby, M.C., Hughes, B.O. (Eds.), Animal Welfare. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 19–31. Enevoldsen, C., Grohn, Y.T., Thysen, I., 1994. Skin injuries on the body and thigh of dairy cows. Associations with season, claw health, disease, treatment and other cow characteristics. Acta Vet. Scand. 35, 337–347. Fraser, D., 1995. Science, values and animal welfare. Exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Anim. Welfare 4, 103–117. Fregonesi, J.A., 1999. Production and Behaviour of Dairy Cattle in Different Housing Systems. University of London, Ph.D. Thesis. Genstat, 1987. Genstat Reference Manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. Hahn, M.V., McDaniel, B.T., Wilk, J.C., 1986. Hoof growth and wear in Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 69, 2148–2156. Jackson, E., Bramley, J., 1983. Coliform mastitis. In-Practice 5, 135–146. Jensen, P., Algers, B., Ekesbo, I., 1986. In: Methods of Sampling and Analysis of Data in Farm Animal Ethology. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, p. 86. Krohn, C.C., Munksgaard, L., Jonasen, B., 1992. Behaviour of dairy cows kept in intensive (loose housing pasture) or intensive (tie stall) environments. 1. Experimental procedure, facilities, time budgets — diurnal and seasonal conditions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 34, 37–47. Leaver, J.D., 1999. Dairy cattle. In: Ewbank, R., Kim-Madslien, F., Hart, C.B. (Eds.), Management and Welfare of Farm Animals, 4th Edition. The UFAW Handbook. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, Wheathampstead, UK, pp. 17–47. MAFF, 1993. Prediction of Energy Value of Compound Feedstuffs for Farm Animals. MAFF Publications, Alnwick, UK, Booklet 1285. Manson, F.J., Leaver, J.D., 1988. The influence of concentrate amount on locomotion and clinical lameness in dairy cattle. Anim. Prod. 47, 185–190.
216
J. A. Fregonesi, J.D. Leaver / Livestock Production Science 68 (2001) 205 – 216
Miller, K., Wood-Gush, D.G.M., 1991. Some effects of housing on the social behaviour of dairy cows. Anim. Prod. 53, 271–278. Mulvany, P.M., 1977. Dairy Cow Condition Scoring, Report No. 4468. National Institute for Research in Dairying, Reading, UK. Nielsen, L.H., Mogensen, L., Krohn, C., Hindehede, J., Sorensen, J.T., 1997. Resting and social behaviour of dairy heifers housed in slatted floor pens with different sized bedded lying areas. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 54, 307–316. Phillips, C.J.C., 1993. In: Cattle Behaviour. Farming Press Books, Ipswich, UK, p. 212. Phillips, C.J.C., Schofield, S.A., 1994. The effect of cubicle and strawyard housing on behaviour, production and hoof health of dairy cows. Anim. Welfare 3, 37–44. Potter, M.J., Broom, D.M., 1986. Behaviour and welfare of cows in a cubicle house. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 16, 94–95.
Sandoe, P., Giersing, M.H., Jeppesen, L.L., 1996. Concluding remarks and perspectives. Acta Agric. Scand. Section A Anim. Sci. 27, 109–115. Schmisseur, W.E., Albright, J.L., Dillon, W.M., Kehrberg, E.W., Morris, W.H.M., 1966. Animal behaviour responses to loose and free stall housing. J. Dairy Sci. 49, 102–104. Singh, S.S., Ward, W.R., Lautenbach, K., Murray, R.D., 1993. Behaviour of lame and normal dairy cows in cubicles and in a strawyard. Vet. Rec. 133, 204–208. Smidt, D., 1983. Advantages and problems of using integrated systems of indicators as compared to single traits. In: Smidt, D. (Ed.), Indicators Relevant to Farm Animal Welfare. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 201–207. Wierenga, H.K., Hopster, H., 1990. The significance of cubicles for the behaviour of dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 26, 309–337.