- Email: [email protected]
Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness
Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Livestock Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/livsci
Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness C. Menke a, M. Peer c, C. Schneider b, A. Spengler b, S. Waiblinger c,n a
Association for Animal Welfare Research, VEAT, Regensburg, Germany Animal Husbandry and Consulting Departments, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, FiBL, Frick, Switzerland c Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria b
art ic l e i nf o
Keywords: Cattle Straw yard Lying behaviour Welfare Horns Structural elements
a b s t r a c t The transition of tie-stalls to loose housing systems is often accompanied by starting dehorning. Deeplitter and straw-flow systems can be more cost-effective and advantageous for various aspects of the welfare of dairy cows than cubicle loose housing. However, the number of social encounters and disturbances of lying animals can be higher in these systems especially for animals with horns. The use of structural elements may improve the situation and the aim of this project was to investigate the potential effects of structural elements in the free resting area on resting behaviour, animal cleanliness and straw usage in herds of horned dairy cows. On five commercial farms that keep horned dairy cows in a deep-litter system, data were collected in situations without and with a structural element present. Lying behaviour was recorded by scan sampling for each individual animal every 5 min. The cleanliness of the cows was assessed at the beginning and end of the four-day recording period. The proportion of scans in which animals were lying in 24 h, during day and at night as well as the change in cleanliness were analysed using linear mixed models. Straw usage was evaluated by counting the number of bales used on each of the four days on four farms. The proportion of lying was higher with the structural elements present than without for 24 h (po 0.001) and at night (p o0.001), while no effect was found during the day (p ¼0.964). This was particularly true for high-ranking and middle-ranking animals (interaction rank*structure: p¼0.007), for which lying time increased by about 1 h on average, while for low-ranking animals it increased only about 10 min. The strength of the effect, however, varied considerably between individual farms. Animals were also less dirty with the structural element present than without (p¼ 0.008). For straw usage, no uniform trend was found on the farms. In conclusion, the results indicate a positive effect of the presence of a Y-shaped structural element in the free resting area of straw yard systems on lying time and cleanliness of horned dairy cows. The use of structural elements in straw yard or comparable systems thus has the potential to improve the welfare of horned dairy cows and furthers keeping of horned cows as an alternative to dehorning. & 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction and aims In mountainous regions, tie-stall systems were traditionally used for dairy cattle. Even though many cows are still kept in tie stalls, there is a clear trend towards loose-housing systems (Schütz, 2011). The transition to loose housing is often accompanied by starting with the practise of dehorning animals. In Europe, about 50% of the cows kept in tie-stalls still have horns, n
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Waiblinger).
while in loose housing about 85% are dehorned (Cozzi et al., in this issue). The practise of dehorning, however, is more and more questioned, especially in organic farming, where in some countries about one fifth of the farms with loose housing refrain from dehorning (Cozzi et al., in this issue). Dehorning in loose housing is argued for by a high risk of injuries by horn butts in both animals and humans and higher levels of stress and behavioural restrictions for low ranking animals (Waiblinger et al., 2011). Several on farm studies identified factors influencing the level of aggression and injuries when keeping horned cows in loose housing (Menke, 1996; Baars and Brands, 2000; Schneider, 2010), but open
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015 1871-1413/& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
2
C. Menke et al. / Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
questions remain. In addition to cubicle loose-housing systems, which are often used due to a low straw usage, systems with a free resting area, i.e. deep-litter or straw-flow pens, represent cost-effective solutions that are easier to install in old buildings, which is advantageous for small farms with low space and capital resources (Schütz et al., 2011). Deep-litter and straw-flow systems are also advantageous over cubicle loose housing with regard to various aspects of the welfare of dairy cows. In contrast to cubicles, a free resting area not only provides dairy cows with the possibility of lying down, standing up and assuming all resting positions without hindrance (Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002; Hörning, 2003), thus also reducing the risk of injuries, but also with an optimum floor for resting and locomotion. Correspondingly, deep-litter systems are advantageous over cubicle housing in terms of claw health (Somers et al., 2003; Webster, 2002). With respect to keeping horned cows Baars and Brands (2000) describe a beneficial effect of a free resting area in terms of lower injuries by horn butts, which, however was not confirmed in two larger studies (Menke et al., 1999; Schneider, 2010). Instead, due to the mix of functions in the resting area (mainly resting and locomotion) the number of social encounters and disturbances of lying animals by other animals is higher in free resting areas than in cubicle housing (Metz and Wierenga, 1984; Rist, 1989) and this might reduce lying time. Accordingly, in a study involving 35 horned dairy cow herds, activity in the resting area was higher in free resting area systems compared to cubicles, i.e. a lower proportion of animals was lying (Menke, 1996). Especially low-ranking animals may suffer from disturbances and reduced lying time (Wierenga, 1983; for review Bouissou et al. (2001)). Respect from low-ranking animals for the individual distances of dominant ones seem to be more pronounced in horned animals, as reflected in a smaller amount of agonistic interactions with body contact (in goats: Aschwanden et al., 2008b; Nordmann et al., 2011; in cattle: Graf, 1974). That is, visual signs or the mere approach of a higher ranking animal are more effective in causing a subordinate animal to withdraw. The disadvantages of a free resting area without structural elements in terms of disturbances of lying animals thus might appear even more clearly in horned dairy cows. In their previous study in horned dairy herds CM and SW frequently observed a large part of the animals rising quickly due to disturbance by an animal walking through the free resting area. However, no study investigated lying behaviour in horned dairy herds in deep litter or straw flow pens systematically so far. Undisturbed lying and sufficient lying time is not only beneficial for production (Munksgaard and Simonsen, 1996), but is a necessary precondition for a good quality of life. Thus, solutions for reducing disturbances of animals in free resting area systems will increase animal welfare and economic viability of keeping horned dairy cows in these systems. Cubicle housing systems constitute an extreme form of structuring the resting area. Results in other species (for review Waiblinger (2009)) suggest that the use of physical and/or visual barriers in a free resting area for dairy cows might also reduce activity in that area and disturbance of lying animals. This is expected to result not only in longer durations of undisturbed lying, but also by reducing locomotion, in a reduction in straw usage (Groenewold, 2006), without losing the benefits of deep-litter and straw-flow systems. For example, enriching pens for small groups of goats (8 animals/group) with structural elements providing visual cover and with elevated platforms positively affected feeding, resting and agonistic behaviour (Aschwanden et al., 2009a). In horses, Pollmann (2001) observed longer lying times in animals with structural elements present in the resting area. However, the use of structural elements in the resting area did not affect resting time in very small groups (4 animals/group) of goats (Ehrlenbruch
et al., 2010) or sheep (Jørgensen et al., 2009). The impact of structuring the free resting area on cattle is largely unknown, and, to our knowledge, no study has been published on this subject. Thus, the aim of this project was to investigate the potential effects of structural elements in the free resting area on resting behaviour, animal cleanliness and straw usage in herds of horned dairy cows. We expected a beneficial effect of the presence of structural elements on lying time, cleanliness and straw usage. Further we expected low-ranking animals to benefit most with respect to lying time. The results should help to further develop economically viable loose-housing systems for keeping horned dairy cows and further increase the welfare of cows in systems with a free resting area.
2. Animals, material and methods 2.1. Farms, animals and housing The potential effects of structural elements were investigated on five commercial farms keeping horned dairy cows in a deeplitter system. Farms were selected where farmers expected both a constant herd composition and no or a small number of cows in heat during the observation period. Herd size on the farms ranged from 19 to 36 animals/herd. Three of the farms were located in Switzerland (farm 1 with a herd of 22 cows and 1 bull, Swiss Fleckvieh (SF) cattle; farm 3 with 19 Braunvieh (BV) cows (Brown Swiss (BS) Original Brown (OB)-crosses) and 1 bull; farm 5 with 23 Brown Swiss cows and 1 bull), and two were located in Germany (farm 2 with 13 Brown Swiss cows and 6 heifers; farm 4 with 36 German Simmental cows). For individual identification cows were marked with numbers by tinting or bleaching their hair. The shape and structure of the deep-litter systems varied between the farms (Fig. 1). 2.2. Study design and structural element In the five dairy cow herds described above, data were collected in situations without and with a structural element present for four days each. First, the situation without a structural element was recorded for four days (4 24 h). Then, a structural element was installed in the resting area, and, after a habituation period of six days, data were collected (with a structural element present) for four days. No other changes in housing or management except the installation of the structural element were undertaken. Data collection started in December 2011 on farm 1 and ended in April 2012 on farm 5. Following a pre-study on one farm where three different structural elements were tested, a Y-shaped structural element was selected. This structural element was built of three solid wooden walls (2.50 m long and 1.5 m high) arranged in a Y-shape and placed in the centre of the resting area (Fig. 1). 2.3. Data recording 2.3.1. Resting behaviour For recording the resting behaviour, the entire deep-litter area was filmed by three to four video cameras using a digital video recording system by Mobotixs. Infra-red lights were installed to allow recording at night. To reduce the hard drive space required, a time-lapse mode at 4 fps was chosen, which resulted in an amount of data of about 100–150 GB per day for all cameras. To be able to record a cow’s position relative to the walls or the structural element, a grid was laid out and filmed while the animals were locked outside the resting area. Grid size was about 3 m2 (Fig. 1). The recording of the resting behaviour started on the first day
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
C. Menke et al. / Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
3
Fig. 1. Scheme of the resting areas on the five farms with the Y-shaped structural element (thick black lines). The grid for analysing the position of lying is visible. The grid cells that were summed up as “near-structure” are marked in light grey, the ones summed up as “near-wall” are marked in dark grey. Small black rectangles or dots correspond to pillars.
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
4
C. Menke et al. / Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
(with or without structure) after morning feeding, i.e. after cows were released from the feeding rack. The behaviour of the animals (lying or standing) and their positions in the resting area were recorded by scan sampling every five minutes. Intervals of 5 min proved to be sufficient for a correct estimation of resting time in cattle (Hirata et al., 2002). The entire herd was observed. The grid was laid over the screen during video analysis, and the location of the cows’ forelegs on the grid was noted together with their behaviour. The behavioural parameters noted were “lying” (contact of the body with the floor, legs are not carrying any weight) or “standing” (weight of the body is supported by the legs). The behavioural recordings were carried out by one person. Due to technical problems or cows in heat, not on all farms four full 24-h recordings per situation could be evaluated despite an extension of the recording period for one to two days. The night was of special interest for the study of the effects of the structural elements. This is why we not simply analysed 24-h periods, but distinguished between day (from releasing the cows from the feeding rack after morning milking and feeding until releasing them after evening milking and feeding) and night (from releasing the cows after evening feeding until releasing them after morning feeding). The following numbers of days and nights were available for further analysis: farm 1: days without/with structural element 4/3 – nights without/with structural elements 4/4; farm 2: days 4/ 2 – nights 4/2; farm 3: 4/4–4/4; farm 4: 1/2–2/2; farm 5: 3/4–4/4. The duration of day and night periods on the different farms ranged between 9–14 h and 10–15 h, respectively. The number of scans where animals were lying down in the resting area was expressed as a percentage of the total number of scans in the respective observation period. The following variables were calculated for further analysis: LyingDay%: percentage of lying in the resting area of the total number of scans for each day. LyingNight%: percentage of lying in the resting area of the total number of scans for each night. LyingTotal%: percentage of lying in the resting area of the total number of scans of all complete 24-h periods of a situation. The average percentage of animals lying in the resting area at the same time relative to the overall number of animals in the herd was calculated for each 24-h period of a situation to estimate synchronous lying (%AnimalsLying). Theoretically, animals could have lain in the area of the outdoor run, i.e. outside our observed area. There, however, no area adequate for lying (i.e. with soft and clean floor) existed, thus species-adequate lying was possible only on the observed deep litter area. To investigate whether the structural elements influence the resting place of the cows, near-structure and near-wall grid cells were determined. Near-structure grid cells were defined as grid cells that directly adjoin the structural elements or into which the structural elements extended more than 50 cm (Fig. 1). Near-wall grid cells were defined as grid cells directly adjoining a wall, but the first two grids which were adjacent to the outdoor run or feeding place, i.e. where cow traffic was expected to be more disturbing, were not included (Fig. 1). The number of scans where an animal was lying with its front legs in the respective grid cells (near-structure or near-wall) were summed up, and the percentage of scans where the animal was lying near the structural element or near the wall was calculated for day and night periods relative to the number of scans in which the animal was lying (NearStructure%LyingDay, NearWall%LyingDay, NearStructure% LyingNight, NearWall%LyingNight). 2.3.2. Cleanliness of the animals and straw usage Cleanliness was evaluated for each animal according to Faye and Barnouin (1987) twice per data collection period, i.e. at the
start and at the end of the four-day periods without and with the structural element present. The degree of cleanliness was determined by rating five commonly affected body regions (anogenital region, leg and thigh, lower leg including ankle, udder, lower abdomen) on a five-point scale (score 1 ¼respective body region was absolutely clean, score 5¼ area completely covered with dirt). For further analysis, the values of the five regions were averaged, and the differences between the start and end values were calculated to determine the change in the degree of cleanliness (DiffClean). On all farms, fresh straw was scattered once a day, during the morning hours, while the cows were restrained in the headlock feed barrier. Straw usage was assessed by counting the number of bales of straw used on each day of the data collection period. On farm four, however, the amount of straw could not be assessed, because there loose straw was directly thrown from the storage room over the deep litter. 2.3.3. Social rank To consider the social status of an animal in the analysis of the effects of the structural element, dominance values were calculated for each animal based on observations of social behaviour for a total of 32 h per herd during periods of most social agonistic interactions (per herd a total of 8 days of observation, 4 days without and 4 days with the structural element present, two periods per day: 2 h after the animals were released after morning feedings and 2 h after evening feedings). Dominance values were calculated according to Sambraus (1975), for behavioural parameters and more details see Mülleder et al. (2003). First the dominance relationships between pairs of animals were evaluated (the dominant animal caused the subordinate animal to withdraw at least twice as frequent as vice versa). Then the dominance value of each animal was calculated by dividing the number of animals dominated by the sum of the number of animals dominated plus the number of dominant animals. Dominance values could range from 0 (all other animals dominant) to 1 (all other animals subordinate). Animals were ranked according to dominance value and then categorised as high- (highest third of dominance value), middle- (middle third) or low-ranking (lowest third).The comparison between the situation without and with the structural element present is included in a separate paper (Waiblinger et al., in preparation). 2.4. Statistical analysis For statistical analyses the programme SPSS 17.0 (SPSS Inc.) was used. For the outcome variables LyingDay%, LyingNight% and LyingTotal%, linear mixed models with the fixed factors structure (yes/no), rank (high/medium/low) and interaction structure*rank were calculated. The animal nested in farm was included as a random factor. The model assumptions (normal distribution of residuals and homoscedasticity) were checked graphically. For the variables describing the location of the animals (NearStructureDay%, NearWallDay%, NearStructureNight%, NearWallNight%), no valid linear mixed models (including the same factors as described above) could be calculated due to heteroscedasticity of variance and/or non-normality of residuals even after transformation of the data. These variables were analysed with non-parametric statistics (Wilcoxon rank sum test). Potential differences between the situations with and without a structuring element present were first tested for cows of all rank groups and then for each rank group separately. For the change in cleanliness (DiffClean), a linear mixed model was calculated with the same fixed factors as mentioned above (structure, rank, rank*structure) and the random factor farm. For the percentage of animal lying at the same time (%AnimalsLying) a
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
C. Menke et al. / Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
linear mixed model with the fixed factor structure, the random factor farm and day as repeated factor was calculated. The results for straw usage are shown descriptively. A statistical analysis was not performed because data were available only for 4 farms and not on all farms the scattering of straw was carried out by the same person throughout the observation periods.
3. Results 3.1. Resting behaviour Both the amount of total lying (LyingTotal%) and the amount of lying at night (LyingNight%) were greater when the structural element was installed in the free resting area (po 0.001 for both; Table 1), but the effect depended on the rank of the animal (interaction structure*rank; p ¼0.007 and p ¼0.014; Table 1, Fig. 2): in high- and middle-ranking cows the percentage of lying increased in the presence of the structural element by about 4.5% (differences in estimated means), while for low-ranking animals the difference was very low (0.5% in total, 1.4% at night). During daytime no general effect of the structural element was found, but there was an interaction structure*rank (p¼ 0.047) with a small increase (1.5%) in lying with the structural element present in high-ranking animals and a small decrease (2.3%) in low-ranking animals (Table 1). The five farms differed with respect to the proportion of lying as well as the effect of the structural element. The most pronounced effect was observed on farm 3, where also the lowest percentage of lying without the structural element present was found (Fig. 3). On farm 2, the percentages of lying in total and at night increased markedly for high- and middle-ranking cows, but not for low-ranking ones (Fig. 3). On farms 1 and 5, the differences were much smaller; on farm 4, no effect of the structural element can be seen (Fig. 3). The average percentage of animals lying at the same time (% AnimalsLying) was higher with the structural element present (51%) than without (46%, F1,885 ¼13.857, p ¼0.005).
5
No effect of the structural element on the locations of animals within near-wall or near-structure grid cells was found in animals of all ranks during day or at night (all p 40.1). However, during daytime high-ranking animals tended to lie less often in nearstructure grid cells (Z¼ 1.706 and p¼ 0.088) with the structural element present (median, min–max: 2, 0–59%) than without (18, 0–53%). Low-ranking animals, on the other hand, lay more often in near-structure grid cells (Z¼ 2.419 and p ¼ 0.016) with (15, 0– 57%) than without the structural element present (8, 0–44%). No other effect on the distribution of the animals at night or near-wall was found when taking the different rank groups into account. 3.2. Cleanliness and straw usage Cleanliness decreased less during the four-day period with the structural element present (increase in score: 0.12 70.46; estimated mean 7 SD) compared to the four days without (increase in score: 0.24 70.37; F5,715 ¼4.722, p¼ 0.008), i.e. the structural element had a positive effect on cleanliness. Rank, the interaction of structure and rank, or farm had no effect on the cleanliness score of the animals (all p 40.1). The numbers of straw bales used per farm with and without the structural element are shown in Table 2. On farms 1 and 3, less straw was used when the structural element was present in the resting area ( 24% and 16%), while on farms 2 and 5 more straw was used ( þ10% and þ 6.7% straw).
4. Discussion The study investigated for the first time potential effects of a structural element in a straw yard system for horned dairy cows. In five herds of horned dairy cows we tested the hypothesis that the presence of a structural element in the resting area increases lying time and positively affects the cleanliness of the cows as well as straw usage. Our results confirm the hypothesis with respect to lying and cleanliness. Furthermore, the effect on lying was dependant on rank and farm: contrary to expectations, high-ranking
Table 1 Results of the linear mixed models for the percentage of scans in which animals were lying of all scans during 24 h (LyingTotal%), of scans during the day (LyingDay%) and at night (LyingNight%). Estimated means (%) Structure Outcome
Fixed factor
LyingTotal%
Structure Rank
Structure*rank
LyingDay%
Structure Rank
Structure*rank
LyingNight%
Structure Rank
Structure*rank
Value
High Middle Low High Middle Low High Middle Low High Middle Low
High Middle Low High Middle Low
No
Yes
37.77
40.42
Overall
41.71 39.59 35.99 39.76 37.86 35.70 32.01
43.66 41.32 36.28 31.98 32.36 32.17 31.45
31.60 31.82 32.60
33.12 32.52 30.29
44.49
48.03 50.32 47.20 41.27
47.95 44.94 40.57
52.69 49.45 41.96
F
DF
p
32.223 8.106
1,525 2,982
0.000 0.001
5.009
2,530
0.007
0.002 0.148
1,621 2,992
0.964 0.863
3.082
2,639
0.047
45.489 14.635
1,665 2,982
0.000 0.000
4.270
2,668
0.014
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
C. Menke et al. / Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
6
Fig. 2. Percentages of lying without (white boxes) and with (grey boxes) the structural element present for high-ranking (n¼ 40), middle-ranking (n¼ 41) and low-ranking animals (n¼40) in total (left) and at night (right side) over all 5 farms. The figure is based on the original data.
cows benefited most and low-ranking ones benefited least. For straw usage, descriptive results do not show a uniform trend. 4.1. Resting behaviour The percentage of scans where animals were lying suggests an average lying time of about 8.8 h without and about 9.6 h with the structural element present, corresponding to an increase of 48 min due to the presence of a structural element. Lying time varies depending on housing systems, comfort of the lying area as well as climatic, nutritional and social factors (Rushen et al., 2008). Thus, even within the same system, variation can be high: durations of lying for dairy cows in systems with free resting area were found to be 9.3 h (Endres and Barberg, 2007), 9.7 h (Singh et al., 2009) or about 14 h (Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002). Those studies do not mention the horn status of the cows but as dehorning is the common practise in those countries it can be assumed that cows were dehorned. On the farms in this study, with horned animals, average lying time was shorter without the structuring element present. In the presence of the structuring element, it was within the range of other studies, although some farms still fell below this level. The general positive influence of the structural element on total lying time in the investigated herds of horned dairy cows is consistent with findings in horses (Pollmann, 2001): horses had longer and more undisturbed lying time with a structural element present, especially if this structural element provided visual cover, which was also the case in our experiment. In contrast, solid wooden walls had no effect on lying time in small ruminants (goats: Ehrlenbruch et al., 2010; sheep: Jørgensen et al., 2009). However, the above mentioned experiments were carried out with very small goat and sheep groups of only four individuals per group and with highly limited space. In our experiment, lying time increased due to the presence of the structuring element especially at night, while during the day no general effect on all animals was observed. Night-time is the main resting time of dairy cows, when they have most of their sleep and the highest number of animals can be found lying at the same time (Dwyer, 1961; Ruckebush, 1972, 1974), which explains the stronger effects at night. In our study, the effect of the structural element depended on the rank of the animals. Contrary to the assumption that especially low-ranking cows would benefit from the structural element (Waiblinger, 2009), especially high- and middle-ranking had longer lying times with the structural element present than without, while for lower-ranking animals only a small increase was observed (with the exception of farm 3, where all three rank
groups equally profited from the presence of the structural element). The increase for high- and middle-ranking animals is about 1 h in total and at night, while for low-rankers it is only 20 min at night and less than 10 min in total. This suggests that the housing conditions without the structural element present were inadequate even for higher-ranking animals, so that the introduction of a structuring element in the resting area resulted in a significant improvement. Depending on environmental conditions and on social structure and stability, social stress can be more pronounced in higher-ranking or in lower-ranking animals or affect all ranks similarly (Galindo et al., 2000; for review: Mendl (2001)). Visual barriers between the animals can therefore improve the situation for all. Apparently, the effect of the structural element was not strong enough to cause a marked increase in lying time also for low-ranking animals. Probably the structural element was too small considering the size of the total resting area and the number of animals to have more positive effects on some of the herds. More structural elements may be needed to enhance the effect by further reducing visual contact between the animals. In this regard, Aschwanden et al. (2009b) observed fewer interruptions of lying when animals were placed in a pen with more structural elements (both in the feeding area and in the lying area) compared to a standard situation (with fewer structural elements in the pen). Furthermore, high-ranking and middle-ranking goats interrupted lying periods less often in order to initiate an agonistic interaction when more structural elements were present, which is in agreement with our results showing that lying time at night was longer for high-ranking animals. Due to the fact that high-ranking animals accept a smaller distance to the low-ranking animals, which are shielded by the structural element, and thus their motivation for agonistic behaviour is reduced (in goats: Aschwanden et al., 2009a,, 2009b; in pigs: Andersen and Boe, 2007), low-ranking animals may benefit even if their lying time is increased only marginally. Indeed we found a reduction in agonistic interactions, especially without body contact, on the resting area with the structural element present (Waiblinger et al., in preparation). The differences between the farms suggest that the potential effects of structural elements strongly depend on the initial level of lying time. Especially on the one farm where the initial lying time was shortest (farm 3) the amount of lying increased markedly. The more severe the initial problems (on a farm), probably the stronger the positive effects of structural elements. Moreover, the shape of the resting area and its integration into the housing design have an effect on the behaviour of the cows and interact with the structural element per se and the location of the structural element.
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
C. Menke et al. / Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
7
Fig. 3. Percentages of lying without (white boxes) and with (grey boxes) the structural element present for high-ranking, middle-ranking and low-ranking animals in total (left side) and at night (right side) for farms 1 (a,b) to 5 (i,j). The figure is based on the original data.
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
C. Menke et al. / Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
8
Table 2 Straw usage (number of straw bales) during the recording periods of four days with and without a structural element present. Farm Number of bales used in four days Without structural element
With structural element
1
3.3
2.5
2
1
1.1
3
1.9
1.6
4 5
– 1.5
– 1.9
a similar effect might have occurred. However, results on straw usage are only descriptive, and other factors, such as weather conditions, might have played a role.
Type and size of straw bales
5. Conclusion Large bales of 2.2 m length Round bales of 1.6 m diameter Round bales of 1.2 m diameter Large bales of 2.3 m length
The structural element only influenced the distribution of the animals during the day. Low-ranking animals lay more often near the structural element, while high-ranking cows tended to lie there less often. It might be that high-ranking animals prefer locations providing an overview and “control” over the herd (Aschwanden et al., 2008a; Mendl 2001) during the light phase. Low-rankers, on the other hand, might have searched for some form of visual and physical barrier protecting them from disturbance by higher-ranking animals. Cattle have a tendency towards synchronous lying (Stoye et al., 2012; Nielsen et al., 1997). Due to the positive effect of the presence of the structuring element on the resting behaviour of highranking cows, it can be hypothesised that other animals of the herd were animated to lie down, thus resulting in a positive effect on the whole herd. Indeed the percentage of animals lying at the same time was higher with the structural element present.
Our results point to positive effects of the use of a Y-shaped element in the free resting area in straw yard systems on lying behaviour in the resting area, especially at night, and on animal cleanliness. Structural elements thus have the potential to improve the welfare of horned dairy cows in straw yard systems. The strength of the effect varied between farms, which gives an indication of the importance of the initial level of lying time and of the respective design of the resting area. It seemed as if the structural element used in our study was not suitable for all farms, failing to achieve a significant improvement in all rank groups. Thus, there is a need for continuing research, e.g. with regard to the level of structuring or other types of structuring elements, to further enhance the benefits of straw yard systems with respect to cow welfare in general and the welfare of horned dairy cows in particular.
Acknowledgement We gratefully acknowledge funding by the Austrian Ministry of Health (BMG-16600/0550-I/4/2011); VierPfoten Austria; VierPfoten Switzerland; Stiftung Dreiklang für ökologische Forschung und Bildung, Switzerland; Mahle Stiftung (100333), Germany; Graf Fabrice, von Gundlach und Payne Smith-Stiftung, Switzerland and Stihl Stiftung, Germany. We would like to thank Andreas Kurtz for his advice and the farmers for their cooperation and help when performing the study in their herds.
4.2. Cleanliness and straw usage Dirtiness increased less with the structural element present than without, i.e. the structural element had a positive effect on cleanliness. This may be explained by increased lying time, leading to reduced locomotion in the resting area, less trampling on the deep litter and hence a cleaner resting area – which should result in cleaner animals and a smaller amount of straw used (Groenewold, 2006). This is in line with a markedly reduced usage of straw (25% or 15%) on farms 2 and 5 with the structural element present, but is contradicted by the slightly greater amount of straw used on farms 1 and 3 (10% and 7% more). On farm 1, there was one cow in heat during the period with the structural element present. While, for this reason, the behavioural observations of this day had to be suspended (see Section 2.3.1.), straw usage was evaluated over the whole four-day period. The presence of cows in heat reduces lying time and increases the number of lying bouts (Sambraus, 1971; Beneke, 1985), corresponding to increased activity and locomotion in the resting area (Menke, 1996; Baars and Brands, 2000), thus resulting in a higher straw usage (Groenewold, 2006). On farm 2, there was also one cow in heat with the structural element present. Thus, the reduction in straw usage might have been even more pronounced without this confounding factor. Furthermore, the shape of the resting area and the positioning of the structuring element in relation to the various functional areas may have influenced the outcome. On farm 1, the structuring element was located between the wide entrance to the run and the feeding area, so that the animals had to pass the element when moving back and forth between these areas (see Fig. 1a). This may have caused a “street effect”, with most of the locomotion occurring on both sides of the structural element, where litter was soaked from deeper layers, and a need for a greater amount of straw. On farm 3,
References Andersen, I.L., Boe, K.E., 2007. Resting pattern and social interactions in goats – the impact of size and organisation of lying space. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 108, 89–103. Aschwanden, J., Gygax, L., Wechsler, B., Keil, N.M., 2008a. Cardiac activity in dairy goats whilst feeding side-by-side at two different distances and during social separation. Physiol. Behav. 95, 641–648. Aschwanden, J., Gygax, L., Wechsler, B., Keil, N.M., 2008b. Social distances of goats at the feeding rack: Influence of the quality of social bonds, rank differences, grouping age and presence of horns. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 114, 116–131. Aschwanden, J., Gygax, L., Wechsler, B., Keil, N.M., 2009a. Loose-housing of small goat groups: influence of visual cover and elevated levels on feeding, resting and agonistic behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 119, 171–179. Aschwanden, J., Gygax, L., Wechsler, B., Keil, N.M., 2009b. Structural modifications at the feeding place: effects of partitions and platforms on feeding and social behaviour of goats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 119, 180–192. Baars, T., Brands, L., 2000. Een Koppel Koeien is Nog Geen Kudde Welzijn en Houderij van Gehoornd Melkvee in Loopstallen. Louis Bolk Instituut, Amsterdam, pp. 1–100. Beneke, B., 1985. Zum Flächenbedarf zuchtfähiger Färsen in Rinderlaufställen. Inst. Für Tierzucht und Tierhalten. Mariensee. Der Bundesforschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft. Braunschweig Völken (FAL). Institutsteil Trenthorst-Wulmenau, Trenthorst-Wulmenau. Bouissou, M.F., Boissy, A., Le Neindre, P., Veissier, I., 2001. The social behaviour of cattle. In: Keeling, L.J., Gonyou, H.W. (Eds.), Social Behaviour in Farm Animals. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 113–145. Cozzi, G., Prevedello, P., Bouka, A., Winckler, C., Knierim, U., Pentelescu, O., Windig, I., Mirabito, L., Kling Eveillard, F., Dockes, A.C., Veissier, I., Velarde, A., Fuentes, C., Dalmau, A.,. Dehorning practices across Eu member states. Alcasde, Livestock Science, in this issue. Dwyer, D.D., 1961. Activities and Grazing Preferences of Cows with Calves in Northern Osage County, Oklahoma, Bulletin B-588. Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, p. 588. Ehrlenbruch, R., Jørgensen, G.H.M., Anderson, I.L., Boe, K.E., 2010. Provision of additional walls in the resting area – The effect on resting behaviour and social interaction in goats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 122, 35–40. Endres, M.I., Barberg, A.E., 2007. Behavior of dairy cows in an alternative beddedpack housing system. J. Dairy Sci. 90, 4192–4200.
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
C. Menke et al. / Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ Faye, B., Barnouin, J., 1987. Condition d'utilisation de différents types d'étables allaitantes. Dokumentation Observation Nr. 88051, Institut technique de l'elevage bovin, E.D.E.Nievre, E.D.E.Haute-Vienne. Fregonesi, J.A., Leaver, J.D., 2002. Preference of Lactating Dairy Cows for Strawyard or Cubicle Housing Systems at Two Space Allowances, 23. Semina, Londrina, pp. 45–55. Galindo, F., Broom, D.M., Jackson, P.G.G., 2000. A note on possible link between behaviour and the occurence of lameness in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 67, 335–341. Graf, B., 1974. Aktivitäten von enthornten und nichtenthornten Milchkühen auf der Weide. Diplomarbeit Institut für Tierproduktion ETH, Switzerland. Groenewold, J., 2006. Haltungsverfahren für Mastrinder. Kälber- und Jungviehhaltung – Aufzucht und Mast. Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster, Germany. Hirata, M., Iwamoto, T., Otozu, W., Kiyoto, D., 2002. The effects of recording interval on the estimation of grazing behaviour of cattle in a daytime grazing system. Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 15, 745–750. Hörning, B., 2003. Nutztierethologische Untersuchungen zur Liegeplatzqualität in Milchviehlaufstallsystemen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung eines epidemiologischen Ansatzes. Universität Gesamthochschule, Kassel, p. 288. Jørgensen, G.H.M., Anderson, I.L., Bøe, K.E., 2009. The effect of different pen partition configurations on the behaviour of sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 119, 66–70. Mendl, M., 2001. How do animals cope with social problems?. In: Broom, D.M. (Ed.), Coping with Challenge: Welfare in Animals Including Humans. Dahlem University Press, Berlin, Germany, pp. 211–228. Menke, C., 1996. Laufstallhaltung mit behornten Milchkühen. Institut für Nutztierwissenschaften, ETH-Zürich, Dissertation. Menke, C., Waiblinger, S., Fölsch, D.W., Wiepkema, P.R., 1999. Social behaviour and injuries of horned cows in loose housing systems. Anim. Welf. 8, 243–258. Metz, J.H.M., Wierenga, H.K.,1984. Spatial requirements and lying behaviour of cows in loose housing systems. In: Unshelm, J., Van Putten, G., Zeeb, K.G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology in Farm Animals, pp. 179–183. Mülleder, C., Palme, R., Menke, C., Waiblinger, S., 2003. Individual differences in behaviour and in adrenocortical activity in beef-suckler cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 84, 167–183. Munksgaard, L., Simonsen, H.B., 1996. Behavioural and pituitary adrenal-axis responses of dairy cows to social isolation and deprivation of lying down. J. Anim. Sci. 74, 769–778. Nielsen, L.H., Mogensen, L., Krohn, Ch., Hindhede, J., und Sørensen, 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. Nordmann, E., Keil, N.M., Schmied-Wagner, C., Graml, C., Langbein, J., Aschwanden, J., von Hof, J., Maschat, K., Palme, R., Waiblinger, S., 2011. Feed barrier design affects behaviour and physiology in goats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 133, 40–53. Pollmann, U., 2001. Einfluss der Strukturierung des Liegebereiches einer Gruppenauslaufhaltung auf das Verhalten der Pferde. KTBL, Darmstadt, pp. 518–521. Rist, M., 1989. Tierverhalten als Planungsgrundlage für Aufstallungssysteme. KTBL,
9
Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemässen Tierhaltung 1988, KTBL-Schrift 336, Münster-Hiltrup, pp. 339–353. Ruckebush, Y., 1972. The relevance of drowsiness in the cicardian cycle of farm animals. Anim. Behav. 20, 637–643. Ruckebush, Y., 1974. Sleep deprivation in cattle. Brain Res. 78, 495–499. Rushen, J., De Passillé, A.M., Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., 2008. The Welfare of Cattle. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht. Sambraus, H.H., 1971. Zum Liegeverhalten der Wiederkäuer. Züchtungskunde 43, 187–198. Sambraus, H.H., 1975. Beobachtungen und Überlegungen zur Sozialordnung von Rindern. Züchtungskunde 47, 8–14. Schneider, C., 2010. Dimensionierung und Gestaltung von Laufställen für behornte Milchkühe unter Berücksichtigung des Herdenmanagements. Universität Kassel, Witzenhausen, p. 185, Dissertation. Schütz, R., 2011. Einfache Laufställe für Klein- und Mittelbetriebe. Lehr- und Forschungszentrum für Landwirtschaft Raumberg-Gumpenstein, Gumpenstein, pp.13–18. Schütz, R., Lenz, V., Brandl, D., Breininger, W., Fröch, G., Huber, H., Ofner-Schröck, E., Troxler, J., 2011. Einfacher Laufstall für kleine und mittlere Milchviehbestände: Von der Anbindehaltung zum Laufstall. Österreichisches Kuratorium für Landtechnik und Landentwicklung, Wien, 1–64. Singh, S.S., Ward, W.R., Hughes, J.W., Lautenbach, K., Murray, R.D., 2009. Behaviour of dairy cows in a straw yard in relation to lameness. Vet. Res. 135, 251–253. Somers, J.G., Frankena, K., Noordhuizen-Stassen, E.N., Metz, J.H., 2003. Prevalence of claw disorders in Dutch dairy cows exposed to several floor systems. J. Dairy Sci. 86, 2082–2093. Stoye, S., Porter, M.A., und Dawkins, M.S., 2012. Synchronized lying in cattle in relation to time of day. Livestock Science 149, 70–73. Waiblinger, S., 2009. Animal welfare and housing. In: Smulders, F., Algers, B. (Eds.), Welfare of Production Animals: Assessment and Management of Risks. Wageningen University Press, Wageningen, Netherlands, pp. 79–111. Waiblinger, S., Binder, R. und Hagen, K., 2011. Enthornung oder Haltung horntragender Rinder und Ziegen aus veterinärmedizinischer, ethologischer, ethischer und tierschutzrechtlicher Sicht. In: Ethologie und Tierschutz. 12. Internationale Fachtagung zu Fragen von Verhaltenskunde, Tierhaltung und Tierschutz, 5–7 Mai 2011, München, Verlag der DVG Service GmbH, Gießen, pp. 49–67. Waiblinger, S., Menke, C., Schneider, C., Spengler, A. (in preparation): Effects of structural elements in the resting area of deep litter systems on social behaviour and integument alterations in horned dairy cows. Webster, A.J.F., 2002. Effects of housing practices on the development of foot lesions in dairy heifer in early lactation. Vet. Rec. 151, 9–12. Wierenga, H.K., 1983. The influence of the space for walking and lying in a cubicle system on the behaviour of dairy cattle. In: Baxter, S.H., Baxter, M.R., MacCormack, J.A.C. (Eds.), Farm Animal Housing and Welfare. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, pp. 171–180.
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Livestock Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/livsci
Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness C. Menke a, M. Peer c, C. Schneider b, A. Spengler b, S. Waiblinger c,n a
Association for Animal Welfare Research, VEAT, Regensburg, Germany Animal Husbandry and Consulting Departments, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, FiBL, Frick, Switzerland c Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria b
art ic l e i nf o
Keywords: Cattle Straw yard Lying behaviour Welfare Horns Structural elements
a b s t r a c t The transition of tie-stalls to loose housing systems is often accompanied by starting dehorning. Deeplitter and straw-flow systems can be more cost-effective and advantageous for various aspects of the welfare of dairy cows than cubicle loose housing. However, the number of social encounters and disturbances of lying animals can be higher in these systems especially for animals with horns. The use of structural elements may improve the situation and the aim of this project was to investigate the potential effects of structural elements in the free resting area on resting behaviour, animal cleanliness and straw usage in herds of horned dairy cows. On five commercial farms that keep horned dairy cows in a deep-litter system, data were collected in situations without and with a structural element present. Lying behaviour was recorded by scan sampling for each individual animal every 5 min. The cleanliness of the cows was assessed at the beginning and end of the four-day recording period. The proportion of scans in which animals were lying in 24 h, during day and at night as well as the change in cleanliness were analysed using linear mixed models. Straw usage was evaluated by counting the number of bales used on each of the four days on four farms. The proportion of lying was higher with the structural elements present than without for 24 h (po 0.001) and at night (p o0.001), while no effect was found during the day (p ¼0.964). This was particularly true for high-ranking and middle-ranking animals (interaction rank*structure: p¼0.007), for which lying time increased by about 1 h on average, while for low-ranking animals it increased only about 10 min. The strength of the effect, however, varied considerably between individual farms. Animals were also less dirty with the structural element present than without (p¼ 0.008). For straw usage, no uniform trend was found on the farms. In conclusion, the results indicate a positive effect of the presence of a Y-shaped structural element in the free resting area of straw yard systems on lying time and cleanliness of horned dairy cows. The use of structural elements in straw yard or comparable systems thus has the potential to improve the welfare of horned dairy cows and furthers keeping of horned cows as an alternative to dehorning. & 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction and aims In mountainous regions, tie-stall systems were traditionally used for dairy cattle. Even though many cows are still kept in tie stalls, there is a clear trend towards loose-housing systems (Schütz, 2011). The transition to loose housing is often accompanied by starting with the practise of dehorning animals. In Europe, about 50% of the cows kept in tie-stalls still have horns, n
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Waiblinger).
while in loose housing about 85% are dehorned (Cozzi et al., in this issue). The practise of dehorning, however, is more and more questioned, especially in organic farming, where in some countries about one fifth of the farms with loose housing refrain from dehorning (Cozzi et al., in this issue). Dehorning in loose housing is argued for by a high risk of injuries by horn butts in both animals and humans and higher levels of stress and behavioural restrictions for low ranking animals (Waiblinger et al., 2011). Several on farm studies identified factors influencing the level of aggression and injuries when keeping horned cows in loose housing (Menke, 1996; Baars and Brands, 2000; Schneider, 2010), but open
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015 1871-1413/& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
2
C. Menke et al. / Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
questions remain. In addition to cubicle loose-housing systems, which are often used due to a low straw usage, systems with a free resting area, i.e. deep-litter or straw-flow pens, represent cost-effective solutions that are easier to install in old buildings, which is advantageous for small farms with low space and capital resources (Schütz et al., 2011). Deep-litter and straw-flow systems are also advantageous over cubicle loose housing with regard to various aspects of the welfare of dairy cows. In contrast to cubicles, a free resting area not only provides dairy cows with the possibility of lying down, standing up and assuming all resting positions without hindrance (Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002; Hörning, 2003), thus also reducing the risk of injuries, but also with an optimum floor for resting and locomotion. Correspondingly, deep-litter systems are advantageous over cubicle housing in terms of claw health (Somers et al., 2003; Webster, 2002). With respect to keeping horned cows Baars and Brands (2000) describe a beneficial effect of a free resting area in terms of lower injuries by horn butts, which, however was not confirmed in two larger studies (Menke et al., 1999; Schneider, 2010). Instead, due to the mix of functions in the resting area (mainly resting and locomotion) the number of social encounters and disturbances of lying animals by other animals is higher in free resting areas than in cubicle housing (Metz and Wierenga, 1984; Rist, 1989) and this might reduce lying time. Accordingly, in a study involving 35 horned dairy cow herds, activity in the resting area was higher in free resting area systems compared to cubicles, i.e. a lower proportion of animals was lying (Menke, 1996). Especially low-ranking animals may suffer from disturbances and reduced lying time (Wierenga, 1983; for review Bouissou et al. (2001)). Respect from low-ranking animals for the individual distances of dominant ones seem to be more pronounced in horned animals, as reflected in a smaller amount of agonistic interactions with body contact (in goats: Aschwanden et al., 2008b; Nordmann et al., 2011; in cattle: Graf, 1974). That is, visual signs or the mere approach of a higher ranking animal are more effective in causing a subordinate animal to withdraw. The disadvantages of a free resting area without structural elements in terms of disturbances of lying animals thus might appear even more clearly in horned dairy cows. In their previous study in horned dairy herds CM and SW frequently observed a large part of the animals rising quickly due to disturbance by an animal walking through the free resting area. However, no study investigated lying behaviour in horned dairy herds in deep litter or straw flow pens systematically so far. Undisturbed lying and sufficient lying time is not only beneficial for production (Munksgaard and Simonsen, 1996), but is a necessary precondition for a good quality of life. Thus, solutions for reducing disturbances of animals in free resting area systems will increase animal welfare and economic viability of keeping horned dairy cows in these systems. Cubicle housing systems constitute an extreme form of structuring the resting area. Results in other species (for review Waiblinger (2009)) suggest that the use of physical and/or visual barriers in a free resting area for dairy cows might also reduce activity in that area and disturbance of lying animals. This is expected to result not only in longer durations of undisturbed lying, but also by reducing locomotion, in a reduction in straw usage (Groenewold, 2006), without losing the benefits of deep-litter and straw-flow systems. For example, enriching pens for small groups of goats (8 animals/group) with structural elements providing visual cover and with elevated platforms positively affected feeding, resting and agonistic behaviour (Aschwanden et al., 2009a). In horses, Pollmann (2001) observed longer lying times in animals with structural elements present in the resting area. However, the use of structural elements in the resting area did not affect resting time in very small groups (4 animals/group) of goats (Ehrlenbruch
et al., 2010) or sheep (Jørgensen et al., 2009). The impact of structuring the free resting area on cattle is largely unknown, and, to our knowledge, no study has been published on this subject. Thus, the aim of this project was to investigate the potential effects of structural elements in the free resting area on resting behaviour, animal cleanliness and straw usage in herds of horned dairy cows. We expected a beneficial effect of the presence of structural elements on lying time, cleanliness and straw usage. Further we expected low-ranking animals to benefit most with respect to lying time. The results should help to further develop economically viable loose-housing systems for keeping horned dairy cows and further increase the welfare of cows in systems with a free resting area.
2. Animals, material and methods 2.1. Farms, animals and housing The potential effects of structural elements were investigated on five commercial farms keeping horned dairy cows in a deeplitter system. Farms were selected where farmers expected both a constant herd composition and no or a small number of cows in heat during the observation period. Herd size on the farms ranged from 19 to 36 animals/herd. Three of the farms were located in Switzerland (farm 1 with a herd of 22 cows and 1 bull, Swiss Fleckvieh (SF) cattle; farm 3 with 19 Braunvieh (BV) cows (Brown Swiss (BS) Original Brown (OB)-crosses) and 1 bull; farm 5 with 23 Brown Swiss cows and 1 bull), and two were located in Germany (farm 2 with 13 Brown Swiss cows and 6 heifers; farm 4 with 36 German Simmental cows). For individual identification cows were marked with numbers by tinting or bleaching their hair. The shape and structure of the deep-litter systems varied between the farms (Fig. 1). 2.2. Study design and structural element In the five dairy cow herds described above, data were collected in situations without and with a structural element present for four days each. First, the situation without a structural element was recorded for four days (4 24 h). Then, a structural element was installed in the resting area, and, after a habituation period of six days, data were collected (with a structural element present) for four days. No other changes in housing or management except the installation of the structural element were undertaken. Data collection started in December 2011 on farm 1 and ended in April 2012 on farm 5. Following a pre-study on one farm where three different structural elements were tested, a Y-shaped structural element was selected. This structural element was built of three solid wooden walls (2.50 m long and 1.5 m high) arranged in a Y-shape and placed in the centre of the resting area (Fig. 1). 2.3. Data recording 2.3.1. Resting behaviour For recording the resting behaviour, the entire deep-litter area was filmed by three to four video cameras using a digital video recording system by Mobotixs. Infra-red lights were installed to allow recording at night. To reduce the hard drive space required, a time-lapse mode at 4 fps was chosen, which resulted in an amount of data of about 100–150 GB per day for all cameras. To be able to record a cow’s position relative to the walls or the structural element, a grid was laid out and filmed while the animals were locked outside the resting area. Grid size was about 3 m2 (Fig. 1). The recording of the resting behaviour started on the first day
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
C. Menke et al. / Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
3
Fig. 1. Scheme of the resting areas on the five farms with the Y-shaped structural element (thick black lines). The grid for analysing the position of lying is visible. The grid cells that were summed up as “near-structure” are marked in light grey, the ones summed up as “near-wall” are marked in dark grey. Small black rectangles or dots correspond to pillars.
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
4
C. Menke et al. / Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
(with or without structure) after morning feeding, i.e. after cows were released from the feeding rack. The behaviour of the animals (lying or standing) and their positions in the resting area were recorded by scan sampling every five minutes. Intervals of 5 min proved to be sufficient for a correct estimation of resting time in cattle (Hirata et al., 2002). The entire herd was observed. The grid was laid over the screen during video analysis, and the location of the cows’ forelegs on the grid was noted together with their behaviour. The behavioural parameters noted were “lying” (contact of the body with the floor, legs are not carrying any weight) or “standing” (weight of the body is supported by the legs). The behavioural recordings were carried out by one person. Due to technical problems or cows in heat, not on all farms four full 24-h recordings per situation could be evaluated despite an extension of the recording period for one to two days. The night was of special interest for the study of the effects of the structural elements. This is why we not simply analysed 24-h periods, but distinguished between day (from releasing the cows from the feeding rack after morning milking and feeding until releasing them after evening milking and feeding) and night (from releasing the cows after evening feeding until releasing them after morning feeding). The following numbers of days and nights were available for further analysis: farm 1: days without/with structural element 4/3 – nights without/with structural elements 4/4; farm 2: days 4/ 2 – nights 4/2; farm 3: 4/4–4/4; farm 4: 1/2–2/2; farm 5: 3/4–4/4. The duration of day and night periods on the different farms ranged between 9–14 h and 10–15 h, respectively. The number of scans where animals were lying down in the resting area was expressed as a percentage of the total number of scans in the respective observation period. The following variables were calculated for further analysis: LyingDay%: percentage of lying in the resting area of the total number of scans for each day. LyingNight%: percentage of lying in the resting area of the total number of scans for each night. LyingTotal%: percentage of lying in the resting area of the total number of scans of all complete 24-h periods of a situation. The average percentage of animals lying in the resting area at the same time relative to the overall number of animals in the herd was calculated for each 24-h period of a situation to estimate synchronous lying (%AnimalsLying). Theoretically, animals could have lain in the area of the outdoor run, i.e. outside our observed area. There, however, no area adequate for lying (i.e. with soft and clean floor) existed, thus species-adequate lying was possible only on the observed deep litter area. To investigate whether the structural elements influence the resting place of the cows, near-structure and near-wall grid cells were determined. Near-structure grid cells were defined as grid cells that directly adjoin the structural elements or into which the structural elements extended more than 50 cm (Fig. 1). Near-wall grid cells were defined as grid cells directly adjoining a wall, but the first two grids which were adjacent to the outdoor run or feeding place, i.e. where cow traffic was expected to be more disturbing, were not included (Fig. 1). The number of scans where an animal was lying with its front legs in the respective grid cells (near-structure or near-wall) were summed up, and the percentage of scans where the animal was lying near the structural element or near the wall was calculated for day and night periods relative to the number of scans in which the animal was lying (NearStructure%LyingDay, NearWall%LyingDay, NearStructure% LyingNight, NearWall%LyingNight). 2.3.2. Cleanliness of the animals and straw usage Cleanliness was evaluated for each animal according to Faye and Barnouin (1987) twice per data collection period, i.e. at the
start and at the end of the four-day periods without and with the structural element present. The degree of cleanliness was determined by rating five commonly affected body regions (anogenital region, leg and thigh, lower leg including ankle, udder, lower abdomen) on a five-point scale (score 1 ¼respective body region was absolutely clean, score 5¼ area completely covered with dirt). For further analysis, the values of the five regions were averaged, and the differences between the start and end values were calculated to determine the change in the degree of cleanliness (DiffClean). On all farms, fresh straw was scattered once a day, during the morning hours, while the cows were restrained in the headlock feed barrier. Straw usage was assessed by counting the number of bales of straw used on each day of the data collection period. On farm four, however, the amount of straw could not be assessed, because there loose straw was directly thrown from the storage room over the deep litter. 2.3.3. Social rank To consider the social status of an animal in the analysis of the effects of the structural element, dominance values were calculated for each animal based on observations of social behaviour for a total of 32 h per herd during periods of most social agonistic interactions (per herd a total of 8 days of observation, 4 days without and 4 days with the structural element present, two periods per day: 2 h after the animals were released after morning feedings and 2 h after evening feedings). Dominance values were calculated according to Sambraus (1975), for behavioural parameters and more details see Mülleder et al. (2003). First the dominance relationships between pairs of animals were evaluated (the dominant animal caused the subordinate animal to withdraw at least twice as frequent as vice versa). Then the dominance value of each animal was calculated by dividing the number of animals dominated by the sum of the number of animals dominated plus the number of dominant animals. Dominance values could range from 0 (all other animals dominant) to 1 (all other animals subordinate). Animals were ranked according to dominance value and then categorised as high- (highest third of dominance value), middle- (middle third) or low-ranking (lowest third).The comparison between the situation without and with the structural element present is included in a separate paper (Waiblinger et al., in preparation). 2.4. Statistical analysis For statistical analyses the programme SPSS 17.0 (SPSS Inc.) was used. For the outcome variables LyingDay%, LyingNight% and LyingTotal%, linear mixed models with the fixed factors structure (yes/no), rank (high/medium/low) and interaction structure*rank were calculated. The animal nested in farm was included as a random factor. The model assumptions (normal distribution of residuals and homoscedasticity) were checked graphically. For the variables describing the location of the animals (NearStructureDay%, NearWallDay%, NearStructureNight%, NearWallNight%), no valid linear mixed models (including the same factors as described above) could be calculated due to heteroscedasticity of variance and/or non-normality of residuals even after transformation of the data. These variables were analysed with non-parametric statistics (Wilcoxon rank sum test). Potential differences between the situations with and without a structuring element present were first tested for cows of all rank groups and then for each rank group separately. For the change in cleanliness (DiffClean), a linear mixed model was calculated with the same fixed factors as mentioned above (structure, rank, rank*structure) and the random factor farm. For the percentage of animal lying at the same time (%AnimalsLying) a
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
C. Menke et al. / Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
linear mixed model with the fixed factor structure, the random factor farm and day as repeated factor was calculated. The results for straw usage are shown descriptively. A statistical analysis was not performed because data were available only for 4 farms and not on all farms the scattering of straw was carried out by the same person throughout the observation periods.
3. Results 3.1. Resting behaviour Both the amount of total lying (LyingTotal%) and the amount of lying at night (LyingNight%) were greater when the structural element was installed in the free resting area (po 0.001 for both; Table 1), but the effect depended on the rank of the animal (interaction structure*rank; p ¼0.007 and p ¼0.014; Table 1, Fig. 2): in high- and middle-ranking cows the percentage of lying increased in the presence of the structural element by about 4.5% (differences in estimated means), while for low-ranking animals the difference was very low (0.5% in total, 1.4% at night). During daytime no general effect of the structural element was found, but there was an interaction structure*rank (p¼ 0.047) with a small increase (1.5%) in lying with the structural element present in high-ranking animals and a small decrease (2.3%) in low-ranking animals (Table 1). The five farms differed with respect to the proportion of lying as well as the effect of the structural element. The most pronounced effect was observed on farm 3, where also the lowest percentage of lying without the structural element present was found (Fig. 3). On farm 2, the percentages of lying in total and at night increased markedly for high- and middle-ranking cows, but not for low-ranking ones (Fig. 3). On farms 1 and 5, the differences were much smaller; on farm 4, no effect of the structural element can be seen (Fig. 3). The average percentage of animals lying at the same time (% AnimalsLying) was higher with the structural element present (51%) than without (46%, F1,885 ¼13.857, p ¼0.005).
5
No effect of the structural element on the locations of animals within near-wall or near-structure grid cells was found in animals of all ranks during day or at night (all p 40.1). However, during daytime high-ranking animals tended to lie less often in nearstructure grid cells (Z¼ 1.706 and p¼ 0.088) with the structural element present (median, min–max: 2, 0–59%) than without (18, 0–53%). Low-ranking animals, on the other hand, lay more often in near-structure grid cells (Z¼ 2.419 and p ¼ 0.016) with (15, 0– 57%) than without the structural element present (8, 0–44%). No other effect on the distribution of the animals at night or near-wall was found when taking the different rank groups into account. 3.2. Cleanliness and straw usage Cleanliness decreased less during the four-day period with the structural element present (increase in score: 0.12 70.46; estimated mean 7 SD) compared to the four days without (increase in score: 0.24 70.37; F5,715 ¼4.722, p¼ 0.008), i.e. the structural element had a positive effect on cleanliness. Rank, the interaction of structure and rank, or farm had no effect on the cleanliness score of the animals (all p 40.1). The numbers of straw bales used per farm with and without the structural element are shown in Table 2. On farms 1 and 3, less straw was used when the structural element was present in the resting area ( 24% and 16%), while on farms 2 and 5 more straw was used ( þ10% and þ 6.7% straw).
4. Discussion The study investigated for the first time potential effects of a structural element in a straw yard system for horned dairy cows. In five herds of horned dairy cows we tested the hypothesis that the presence of a structural element in the resting area increases lying time and positively affects the cleanliness of the cows as well as straw usage. Our results confirm the hypothesis with respect to lying and cleanliness. Furthermore, the effect on lying was dependant on rank and farm: contrary to expectations, high-ranking
Table 1 Results of the linear mixed models for the percentage of scans in which animals were lying of all scans during 24 h (LyingTotal%), of scans during the day (LyingDay%) and at night (LyingNight%). Estimated means (%) Structure Outcome
Fixed factor
LyingTotal%
Structure Rank
Structure*rank
LyingDay%
Structure Rank
Structure*rank
LyingNight%
Structure Rank
Structure*rank
Value
High Middle Low High Middle Low High Middle Low High Middle Low
High Middle Low High Middle Low
No
Yes
37.77
40.42
Overall
41.71 39.59 35.99 39.76 37.86 35.70 32.01
43.66 41.32 36.28 31.98 32.36 32.17 31.45
31.60 31.82 32.60
33.12 32.52 30.29
44.49
48.03 50.32 47.20 41.27
47.95 44.94 40.57
52.69 49.45 41.96
F
DF
p
32.223 8.106
1,525 2,982
0.000 0.001
5.009
2,530
0.007
0.002 0.148
1,621 2,992
0.964 0.863
3.082
2,639
0.047
45.489 14.635
1,665 2,982
0.000 0.000
4.270
2,668
0.014
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
C. Menke et al. / Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
6
Fig. 2. Percentages of lying without (white boxes) and with (grey boxes) the structural element present for high-ranking (n¼ 40), middle-ranking (n¼ 41) and low-ranking animals (n¼40) in total (left) and at night (right side) over all 5 farms. The figure is based on the original data.
cows benefited most and low-ranking ones benefited least. For straw usage, descriptive results do not show a uniform trend. 4.1. Resting behaviour The percentage of scans where animals were lying suggests an average lying time of about 8.8 h without and about 9.6 h with the structural element present, corresponding to an increase of 48 min due to the presence of a structural element. Lying time varies depending on housing systems, comfort of the lying area as well as climatic, nutritional and social factors (Rushen et al., 2008). Thus, even within the same system, variation can be high: durations of lying for dairy cows in systems with free resting area were found to be 9.3 h (Endres and Barberg, 2007), 9.7 h (Singh et al., 2009) or about 14 h (Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002). Those studies do not mention the horn status of the cows but as dehorning is the common practise in those countries it can be assumed that cows were dehorned. On the farms in this study, with horned animals, average lying time was shorter without the structuring element present. In the presence of the structuring element, it was within the range of other studies, although some farms still fell below this level. The general positive influence of the structural element on total lying time in the investigated herds of horned dairy cows is consistent with findings in horses (Pollmann, 2001): horses had longer and more undisturbed lying time with a structural element present, especially if this structural element provided visual cover, which was also the case in our experiment. In contrast, solid wooden walls had no effect on lying time in small ruminants (goats: Ehrlenbruch et al., 2010; sheep: Jørgensen et al., 2009). However, the above mentioned experiments were carried out with very small goat and sheep groups of only four individuals per group and with highly limited space. In our experiment, lying time increased due to the presence of the structuring element especially at night, while during the day no general effect on all animals was observed. Night-time is the main resting time of dairy cows, when they have most of their sleep and the highest number of animals can be found lying at the same time (Dwyer, 1961; Ruckebush, 1972, 1974), which explains the stronger effects at night. In our study, the effect of the structural element depended on the rank of the animals. Contrary to the assumption that especially low-ranking cows would benefit from the structural element (Waiblinger, 2009), especially high- and middle-ranking had longer lying times with the structural element present than without, while for lower-ranking animals only a small increase was observed (with the exception of farm 3, where all three rank
groups equally profited from the presence of the structural element). The increase for high- and middle-ranking animals is about 1 h in total and at night, while for low-rankers it is only 20 min at night and less than 10 min in total. This suggests that the housing conditions without the structural element present were inadequate even for higher-ranking animals, so that the introduction of a structuring element in the resting area resulted in a significant improvement. Depending on environmental conditions and on social structure and stability, social stress can be more pronounced in higher-ranking or in lower-ranking animals or affect all ranks similarly (Galindo et al., 2000; for review: Mendl (2001)). Visual barriers between the animals can therefore improve the situation for all. Apparently, the effect of the structural element was not strong enough to cause a marked increase in lying time also for low-ranking animals. Probably the structural element was too small considering the size of the total resting area and the number of animals to have more positive effects on some of the herds. More structural elements may be needed to enhance the effect by further reducing visual contact between the animals. In this regard, Aschwanden et al. (2009b) observed fewer interruptions of lying when animals were placed in a pen with more structural elements (both in the feeding area and in the lying area) compared to a standard situation (with fewer structural elements in the pen). Furthermore, high-ranking and middle-ranking goats interrupted lying periods less often in order to initiate an agonistic interaction when more structural elements were present, which is in agreement with our results showing that lying time at night was longer for high-ranking animals. Due to the fact that high-ranking animals accept a smaller distance to the low-ranking animals, which are shielded by the structural element, and thus their motivation for agonistic behaviour is reduced (in goats: Aschwanden et al., 2009a,, 2009b; in pigs: Andersen and Boe, 2007), low-ranking animals may benefit even if their lying time is increased only marginally. Indeed we found a reduction in agonistic interactions, especially without body contact, on the resting area with the structural element present (Waiblinger et al., in preparation). The differences between the farms suggest that the potential effects of structural elements strongly depend on the initial level of lying time. Especially on the one farm where the initial lying time was shortest (farm 3) the amount of lying increased markedly. The more severe the initial problems (on a farm), probably the stronger the positive effects of structural elements. Moreover, the shape of the resting area and its integration into the housing design have an effect on the behaviour of the cows and interact with the structural element per se and the location of the structural element.
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
C. Menke et al. / Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
7
Fig. 3. Percentages of lying without (white boxes) and with (grey boxes) the structural element present for high-ranking, middle-ranking and low-ranking animals in total (left side) and at night (right side) for farms 1 (a,b) to 5 (i,j). The figure is based on the original data.
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
C. Menke et al. / Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
8
Table 2 Straw usage (number of straw bales) during the recording periods of four days with and without a structural element present. Farm Number of bales used in four days Without structural element
With structural element
1
3.3
2.5
2
1
1.1
3
1.9
1.6
4 5
– 1.5
– 1.9
a similar effect might have occurred. However, results on straw usage are only descriptive, and other factors, such as weather conditions, might have played a role.
Type and size of straw bales
5. Conclusion Large bales of 2.2 m length Round bales of 1.6 m diameter Round bales of 1.2 m diameter Large bales of 2.3 m length
The structural element only influenced the distribution of the animals during the day. Low-ranking animals lay more often near the structural element, while high-ranking cows tended to lie there less often. It might be that high-ranking animals prefer locations providing an overview and “control” over the herd (Aschwanden et al., 2008a; Mendl 2001) during the light phase. Low-rankers, on the other hand, might have searched for some form of visual and physical barrier protecting them from disturbance by higher-ranking animals. Cattle have a tendency towards synchronous lying (Stoye et al., 2012; Nielsen et al., 1997). Due to the positive effect of the presence of the structuring element on the resting behaviour of highranking cows, it can be hypothesised that other animals of the herd were animated to lie down, thus resulting in a positive effect on the whole herd. Indeed the percentage of animals lying at the same time was higher with the structural element present.
Our results point to positive effects of the use of a Y-shaped element in the free resting area in straw yard systems on lying behaviour in the resting area, especially at night, and on animal cleanliness. Structural elements thus have the potential to improve the welfare of horned dairy cows in straw yard systems. The strength of the effect varied between farms, which gives an indication of the importance of the initial level of lying time and of the respective design of the resting area. It seemed as if the structural element used in our study was not suitable for all farms, failing to achieve a significant improvement in all rank groups. Thus, there is a need for continuing research, e.g. with regard to the level of structuring or other types of structuring elements, to further enhance the benefits of straw yard systems with respect to cow welfare in general and the welfare of horned dairy cows in particular.
Acknowledgement We gratefully acknowledge funding by the Austrian Ministry of Health (BMG-16600/0550-I/4/2011); VierPfoten Austria; VierPfoten Switzerland; Stiftung Dreiklang für ökologische Forschung und Bildung, Switzerland; Mahle Stiftung (100333), Germany; Graf Fabrice, von Gundlach und Payne Smith-Stiftung, Switzerland and Stihl Stiftung, Germany. We would like to thank Andreas Kurtz for his advice and the farmers for their cooperation and help when performing the study in their herds.
4.2. Cleanliness and straw usage Dirtiness increased less with the structural element present than without, i.e. the structural element had a positive effect on cleanliness. This may be explained by increased lying time, leading to reduced locomotion in the resting area, less trampling on the deep litter and hence a cleaner resting area – which should result in cleaner animals and a smaller amount of straw used (Groenewold, 2006). This is in line with a markedly reduced usage of straw (25% or 15%) on farms 2 and 5 with the structural element present, but is contradicted by the slightly greater amount of straw used on farms 1 and 3 (10% and 7% more). On farm 1, there was one cow in heat during the period with the structural element present. While, for this reason, the behavioural observations of this day had to be suspended (see Section 2.3.1.), straw usage was evaluated over the whole four-day period. The presence of cows in heat reduces lying time and increases the number of lying bouts (Sambraus, 1971; Beneke, 1985), corresponding to increased activity and locomotion in the resting area (Menke, 1996; Baars and Brands, 2000), thus resulting in a higher straw usage (Groenewold, 2006). On farm 2, there was also one cow in heat with the structural element present. Thus, the reduction in straw usage might have been even more pronounced without this confounding factor. Furthermore, the shape of the resting area and the positioning of the structuring element in relation to the various functional areas may have influenced the outcome. On farm 1, the structuring element was located between the wide entrance to the run and the feeding area, so that the animals had to pass the element when moving back and forth between these areas (see Fig. 1a). This may have caused a “street effect”, with most of the locomotion occurring on both sides of the structural element, where litter was soaked from deeper layers, and a need for a greater amount of straw. On farm 3,
References Andersen, I.L., Boe, K.E., 2007. Resting pattern and social interactions in goats – the impact of size and organisation of lying space. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 108, 89–103. Aschwanden, J., Gygax, L., Wechsler, B., Keil, N.M., 2008a. Cardiac activity in dairy goats whilst feeding side-by-side at two different distances and during social separation. Physiol. Behav. 95, 641–648. Aschwanden, J., Gygax, L., Wechsler, B., Keil, N.M., 2008b. Social distances of goats at the feeding rack: Influence of the quality of social bonds, rank differences, grouping age and presence of horns. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 114, 116–131. Aschwanden, J., Gygax, L., Wechsler, B., Keil, N.M., 2009a. Loose-housing of small goat groups: influence of visual cover and elevated levels on feeding, resting and agonistic behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 119, 171–179. Aschwanden, J., Gygax, L., Wechsler, B., Keil, N.M., 2009b. Structural modifications at the feeding place: effects of partitions and platforms on feeding and social behaviour of goats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 119, 180–192. Baars, T., Brands, L., 2000. Een Koppel Koeien is Nog Geen Kudde Welzijn en Houderij van Gehoornd Melkvee in Loopstallen. Louis Bolk Instituut, Amsterdam, pp. 1–100. Beneke, B., 1985. Zum Flächenbedarf zuchtfähiger Färsen in Rinderlaufställen. Inst. Für Tierzucht und Tierhalten. Mariensee. Der Bundesforschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft. Braunschweig Völken (FAL). Institutsteil Trenthorst-Wulmenau, Trenthorst-Wulmenau. Bouissou, M.F., Boissy, A., Le Neindre, P., Veissier, I., 2001. The social behaviour of cattle. In: Keeling, L.J., Gonyou, H.W. (Eds.), Social Behaviour in Farm Animals. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 113–145. Cozzi, G., Prevedello, P., Bouka, A., Winckler, C., Knierim, U., Pentelescu, O., Windig, I., Mirabito, L., Kling Eveillard, F., Dockes, A.C., Veissier, I., Velarde, A., Fuentes, C., Dalmau, A.,. Dehorning practices across Eu member states. Alcasde, Livestock Science, in this issue. Dwyer, D.D., 1961. Activities and Grazing Preferences of Cows with Calves in Northern Osage County, Oklahoma, Bulletin B-588. Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, p. 588. Ehrlenbruch, R., Jørgensen, G.H.M., Anderson, I.L., Boe, K.E., 2010. Provision of additional walls in the resting area – The effect on resting behaviour and social interaction in goats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 122, 35–40. Endres, M.I., Barberg, A.E., 2007. Behavior of dairy cows in an alternative beddedpack housing system. J. Dairy Sci. 90, 4192–4200.
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i
C. Menke et al. / Livestock Science ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ Faye, B., Barnouin, J., 1987. Condition d'utilisation de différents types d'étables allaitantes. Dokumentation Observation Nr. 88051, Institut technique de l'elevage bovin, E.D.E.Nievre, E.D.E.Haute-Vienne. Fregonesi, J.A., Leaver, J.D., 2002. Preference of Lactating Dairy Cows for Strawyard or Cubicle Housing Systems at Two Space Allowances, 23. Semina, Londrina, pp. 45–55. Galindo, F., Broom, D.M., Jackson, P.G.G., 2000. A note on possible link between behaviour and the occurence of lameness in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 67, 335–341. Graf, B., 1974. Aktivitäten von enthornten und nichtenthornten Milchkühen auf der Weide. Diplomarbeit Institut für Tierproduktion ETH, Switzerland. Groenewold, J., 2006. Haltungsverfahren für Mastrinder. Kälber- und Jungviehhaltung – Aufzucht und Mast. Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster, Germany. Hirata, M., Iwamoto, T., Otozu, W., Kiyoto, D., 2002. The effects of recording interval on the estimation of grazing behaviour of cattle in a daytime grazing system. Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 15, 745–750. Hörning, B., 2003. Nutztierethologische Untersuchungen zur Liegeplatzqualität in Milchviehlaufstallsystemen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung eines epidemiologischen Ansatzes. Universität Gesamthochschule, Kassel, p. 288. Jørgensen, G.H.M., Anderson, I.L., Bøe, K.E., 2009. The effect of different pen partition configurations on the behaviour of sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 119, 66–70. Mendl, M., 2001. How do animals cope with social problems?. In: Broom, D.M. (Ed.), Coping with Challenge: Welfare in Animals Including Humans. Dahlem University Press, Berlin, Germany, pp. 211–228. Menke, C., 1996. Laufstallhaltung mit behornten Milchkühen. Institut für Nutztierwissenschaften, ETH-Zürich, Dissertation. Menke, C., Waiblinger, S., Fölsch, D.W., Wiepkema, P.R., 1999. Social behaviour and injuries of horned cows in loose housing systems. Anim. Welf. 8, 243–258. Metz, J.H.M., Wierenga, H.K.,1984. Spatial requirements and lying behaviour of cows in loose housing systems. In: Unshelm, J., Van Putten, G., Zeeb, K.G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology in Farm Animals, pp. 179–183. Mülleder, C., Palme, R., Menke, C., Waiblinger, S., 2003. Individual differences in behaviour and in adrenocortical activity in beef-suckler cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 84, 167–183. Munksgaard, L., Simonsen, H.B., 1996. Behavioural and pituitary adrenal-axis responses of dairy cows to social isolation and deprivation of lying down. J. Anim. Sci. 74, 769–778. Nielsen, L.H., Mogensen, L., Krohn, Ch., Hindhede, J., und Sørensen, 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. Nordmann, E., Keil, N.M., Schmied-Wagner, C., Graml, C., Langbein, J., Aschwanden, J., von Hof, J., Maschat, K., Palme, R., Waiblinger, S., 2011. Feed barrier design affects behaviour and physiology in goats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 133, 40–53. Pollmann, U., 2001. Einfluss der Strukturierung des Liegebereiches einer Gruppenauslaufhaltung auf das Verhalten der Pferde. KTBL, Darmstadt, pp. 518–521. Rist, M., 1989. Tierverhalten als Planungsgrundlage für Aufstallungssysteme. KTBL,
9
Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemässen Tierhaltung 1988, KTBL-Schrift 336, Münster-Hiltrup, pp. 339–353. Ruckebush, Y., 1972. The relevance of drowsiness in the cicardian cycle of farm animals. Anim. Behav. 20, 637–643. Ruckebush, Y., 1974. Sleep deprivation in cattle. Brain Res. 78, 495–499. Rushen, J., De Passillé, A.M., Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., 2008. The Welfare of Cattle. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht. Sambraus, H.H., 1971. Zum Liegeverhalten der Wiederkäuer. Züchtungskunde 43, 187–198. Sambraus, H.H., 1975. Beobachtungen und Überlegungen zur Sozialordnung von Rindern. Züchtungskunde 47, 8–14. Schneider, C., 2010. Dimensionierung und Gestaltung von Laufställen für behornte Milchkühe unter Berücksichtigung des Herdenmanagements. Universität Kassel, Witzenhausen, p. 185, Dissertation. Schütz, R., 2011. Einfache Laufställe für Klein- und Mittelbetriebe. Lehr- und Forschungszentrum für Landwirtschaft Raumberg-Gumpenstein, Gumpenstein, pp.13–18. Schütz, R., Lenz, V., Brandl, D., Breininger, W., Fröch, G., Huber, H., Ofner-Schröck, E., Troxler, J., 2011. Einfacher Laufstall für kleine und mittlere Milchviehbestände: Von der Anbindehaltung zum Laufstall. Österreichisches Kuratorium für Landtechnik und Landentwicklung, Wien, 1–64. Singh, S.S., Ward, W.R., Hughes, J.W., Lautenbach, K., Murray, R.D., 2009. Behaviour of dairy cows in a straw yard in relation to lameness. Vet. Res. 135, 251–253. Somers, J.G., Frankena, K., Noordhuizen-Stassen, E.N., Metz, J.H., 2003. Prevalence of claw disorders in Dutch dairy cows exposed to several floor systems. J. Dairy Sci. 86, 2082–2093. Stoye, S., Porter, M.A., und Dawkins, M.S., 2012. Synchronized lying in cattle in relation to time of day. Livestock Science 149, 70–73. Waiblinger, S., 2009. Animal welfare and housing. In: Smulders, F., Algers, B. (Eds.), Welfare of Production Animals: Assessment and Management of Risks. Wageningen University Press, Wageningen, Netherlands, pp. 79–111. Waiblinger, S., Binder, R. und Hagen, K., 2011. Enthornung oder Haltung horntragender Rinder und Ziegen aus veterinärmedizinischer, ethologischer, ethischer und tierschutzrechtlicher Sicht. In: Ethologie und Tierschutz. 12. Internationale Fachtagung zu Fragen von Verhaltenskunde, Tierhaltung und Tierschutz, 5–7 Mai 2011, München, Verlag der DVG Service GmbH, Gießen, pp. 49–67. Waiblinger, S., Menke, C., Schneider, C., Spengler, A. (in preparation): Effects of structural elements in the resting area of deep litter systems on social behaviour and integument alterations in horned dairy cows. Webster, A.J.F., 2002. Effects of housing practices on the development of foot lesions in dairy heifer in early lactation. Vet. Rec. 151, 9–12. Wierenga, H.K., 1983. The influence of the space for walking and lying in a cubicle system on the behaviour of dairy cattle. In: Baxter, S.H., Baxter, M.R., MacCormack, J.A.C. (Eds.), Farm Animal Housing and Welfare. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, pp. 171–180.
Please cite this article as: Menke, C., et al., Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livestock Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.015i