Behavioral consistency of competitive behaviors and feeding patterns in lactating dairy cows across stocking densities at the feed bunk.

Introduction: High feed bunk stocking densities can differentially impact individual dairy cows' competitive behaviors, feeding patterns, and feed efficiency. Our objective was to manipulate feed bunk stocking densities to evaluate intra-individual behavioral consistency across stocking densities and quantify associations with feed efficiency and production. Methods: Thirty-two primiparous (130.7 ± 29.0 days in milk, DIM) and 32 multiparous (111.3 ± 38.3 DIM) lactating Holstein cows were housed with 32 roughage intake control (RIC) bins. Each cow was assigned to share 8 bins with others of the same parity and similar body weight (16 cows/block; 2:1 feed bunk stocking density except during tests). Competition and feeding patterns were evaluated via video and RIC data, respectively, at 3 stocking densities (1:1, 2:1, 4:1 cows/bin) during 1-h tests (2 tests/stocking density; 6 tests/cow) following 2 h feed deprivation. Residual feed intake (RFI) was calculated across the 45-d study as the difference between observed and predicted dry matter intake (DMI) after accounting for known energy sinks. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate the overall impact of test stocking density on competition and feeding patterns. To evaluate intra-individual consistency between stocking densities, individual stability statistic (ISS) scores were computed. Correlational relationships were determined between RFI and ISS scores. Results and dicsussion: Cows displayed the most competitive behaviors at 2:1 stocking density (p < 0.0001) but experienced the highest rate of contacts per minute of eating time at 4:1 (1:1 vs. 2:1 vs. 4:1: 0.09 vs. 0.95 vs. 1.60 contacts/min; p < 0.0001). Feeding patterns were modulated as stocking density increased; eating rate increased (0.16 vs. 0.18 vs. 0.22 kg/min; p < 0.001) as eating time (40.3 vs. 28.2 vs. 14.6 min; p < 0.001) and DMI decreased (6.3 vs. 5.1 vs. 3.0 kg; p < 0.001). As stocking density doubled, individuals remained consistent (p = 0.018) in time spent near others actively eating and tended to remain consistent in competition behavior and feeding patterns (0.053 ≤ p ≤ 0.094). Between 2:1 and 4:1, cows with higher DMI and milk production were more consistent in first-visit DMI and duration. Feed efficiency was not associated with behavioral consistency across the tests (p ≥ 0.14). Nonetheless, feed bunk stocking density has behavioral implications which should be considered in nutritional management decisions.

Long-Term Effects of Pre-Weaning Individual or Pair Housing of Dairy Heifer Calves on Subsequent Growth and Feed Efficiency.

Our objective in this exploratory study was to evaluate the long-term impacts of pre-weaning social isolation vs. contact on subsequent growth and feed efficiency of Holstein heifers. As pre-weaned calves, 41 heifers were housed individually (n = 15 heifers) or in pairs (n = 13 pairs; 26 heifers). At 18 months of age, heifers were blocked by body weight and randomly assigned to one of three pens within a block (six to eight heifers per pen; six pens total), with original pairs maintained. Body weight (BW), hip height and width, and chest girth were measured at the start and end of the study. Each pen was given 3 days of access to a GreenFeed greenhouse gas emissions monitor to assess potential physiological differences between treatments in enteric methane emissions or behavioral differences in propensity to approach a novel object. During the 9-week study, heifers were fed a common diet containing 62.3% male-sterile corn silage, 36.0% haylage, 0.7% urea, and 1.0% mineral (DM basis). To calculate daily feed intake, as-fed weights and refusals were recorded for individual heifers using Calan gates. Feed samples were collected daily, composited by week, and dried to calculate dry matter intake (DMI). Feed refusal and fecal samples were collected on 3 consecutive days at 3 timepoints, composited by heifer, dried, and analyzed to calculate neutral detergent fiber (NDF), organic matter (OM), and DM digestibility. Feed efficiency was calculated as feed conversion efficiency (FCE; DMI/average daily gain [ADG]) and residual feed intake (RFI; observed DMI-predicted DMI). Paired and individually housed heifers did not differ in DMI, ADG, FCE, or RFI. Although no differences were found in initial or final hip height, hip width, or chest girth, heifers which had been pair-housed maintained a greater BW than individually housed heifers during the trial. Methane production, intensity, and yield were similar between treatments. Pre-weaning paired or individual housing did not impact the number of visits or latency to approach the GreenFeed; approximately 50% of heifers in each treatment visited the GreenFeed within 8 h of exposure. Digestibility of OM, DM, and NDF were also similar between housing treatments. In conclusion, pre-weaning pair housing had no adverse effects on growth, feed efficiency, or methane emissions at 18 to 20 months of age.

Preference for feed bins shared with cows of the same or different parity and relationships with feeding behavior and feed efficiency.

Our objectives were to (1) evaluate cows' preferences for visiting feed bins limited to either same- versus mixed-parity social interactions, depending on their parity; (2) examine the effect of parity and bin social dynamic type on competition behavior and feeding patterns, and (3) investigate cow-level relationships between feed bunk competition behavior, feeding patterns, and feed efficiency. Twenty-eight primiparous and 28 multiparous (2.4 ± 0.6 lactations) lactating Holstein cows (127.8 ± 30.1 and 145.3. ± 10.4 DIM, respectively) were housed in a freestall pen with 28 roughage intake control bins (2:1 stocking density). Each cow was assigned to 2 bins, including 1 shared with 3 other cows of the same parity (SM) and 1 with 3 cows of mixed parities (MX, 50% primiparous and 50% multiparous). Feed bunk competition was recorded via video in the first hour after morning feed delivery for 2 d, and feeding patterns were recorded from 24-h roughage intake control data. Residual feed intake was calculated as the difference between predicted and observed dry matter intake after accounting for known energy sinks. Based on the first visit to the feed bunk after fresh feed delivery, multiparous cows tended to prefer the MX bin compared with the SM one; cows showed no other overall preference for bin type based on number of visits. Over time, multiparous cows remained consistent in their magnitude of preference for visiting each bin type, but involvement in competition was not consistent over time. Primiparous cows tended to be involved in more total competitive contacts and ate faster at the SM bin compared with the MX one. Those primiparous cows who visited the SM bin more often within the first hour after morning feed delivery tended to be less feed efficient. Multiparous cows initiated more successful replacements after a displacement at the MX versus SM bin, with no difference in feeding patterns between bin types. Regardless of parity or bin type, visiting the bunk sooner after feed delivery was correlated with involvement in more competitive interactions and more time eating within the first 30 min. Consuming more feed during a longer first visit to the bunk after fresh feed delivery was correlated with being less feed efficient. Overall, when given the choice of feeding from bins shared with cows of the same or mixed parities at a 2:1 stocking density, primiparous cows showed differences in behavior between those bin types, with implications for feed efficiency; these effects are perhaps an unintended consequence of compensatory strategies to avoid direct competition with multiparous cows.

Comparison of behavior, thermoregulation, and growth of pair-housed versus individually housed calves in outdoor hutches during continental wintertime.

Cold stress negatively affects the welfare of calves in outdoor hutches. No studies have examined the potential benefits of pair housing calves to buffer against cold stress. Our study evaluated the effects of pair versus individual housing on thermoregulatory, behavioral, and growth performance responses of calves in outdoor hutches during a Wisconsin continental winter. Forty-eight Holstein-Friesian heifer calves were enrolled into 1 of 2 housing treatments: individually (n = 16 calves) or pair housed (n = 16 pairs; 32 calves). Calves were fed milk twice daily, with ad libitum access to starter and water. Step-down weaning began on d 42 of life, and all milk was removed on d 54. Data collection continued through d 59. Calves were restricted inside a hutch (pair-housed calves in the same hutch) for 1 h during wk 4, 6, and 9 of life; internal hutch air temperature (T) was recorded with data loggers, and rectal temperature (RT) was recorded outside the hutch before and after restriction. On the subsequent 3 d in those weeks, calves' locations (outside or inside a hutch) were recorded at 15-min intervals using time-lapse cameras. Linear mixed models (change in T and RT after 1 h) and generalized linear mixed models with a ß distribution (proportion of time spent inside hutches) were used to evaluate the fixed effects of housing treatment, week of life, and their interaction. For pair-housed calves, preference to be together was evaluated using one-sample t-tests comparing the proportion of time they were observed in the same location against 50% (chance, no preference), separately for each week of life. Predicted dry matter intake (DMI) of starter and body weight (BW) were standardized by day of life using regression models and used to calculate average daily gain (ADG) and feed conversion ratio (FCR; DMI of starter/ADG). Linear mixed models were constructed for each measure, separately for the preweaning, weaning, and postweaning periods, with a fixed effect of housing treatment; the models for BW included birth weight as a covariate. All mixed models included a random term for housing unit (individual or pair of calves) nested within treatment. Hutch T increased more after 1 h with pair-housed calves inside than with those housed individually (+2.3 vs. 1.4°C, respectively; standard error of the mean = 0.26°C). However, no treatment differences were detected in RT. Individually housed calves spent more time inside the hutches than pair-housed ones (93.9 vs. 90.7% of total time, respectively; standard error of the mean = 0.8%), and the latter chose to be together most of the time, regardless of location (90.0 ± 1.3%, 88.6 ± 1.2%, and 79.4 ± 4.2% in wk 4, 6, and 9 of life, respectively). After weaning, there was some evidence suggesting that pair-housed calves had greater starter DMI than those housed individually. No effects of housing type were found on FCR, BW, or ADG. Our study is the first to explicitly examine the potential benefits of pair housing for alleviating cold stress in outdoor-housed dairy calves, and we found limited evidence in support of our hypotheses.

Thermal comfort and ventilation preferences of dairy calves raised in paired outdoor hutches during summertime.

Dairy calves are social creatures who are highly motivated for access to a companion. Additionally, heat stress negatively affects the welfare and productivity of calves housed in outdoor hutches. However, no studies have examined the potential tradeoffs pair-housed calves face between competing motivations for social contact and thermal comfort. We evaluated the effects of hutch ventilation on thermoregulatory and behavioral responses of pair-housed calves in outdoor hutches during a Wisconsin summer. Fifty Holstein-Friesian heifer calves were pair-housed (n = 25 pairs) in adjacent hutches with a shared outdoor area. In each pair of hutches, 1 was ventilated (V) with 2 windows at the rear base and the rear bedding door propped open; the other had no rear windows and a closed bedding door (nonventilated, NV). Calves were exposed to 4 conditions for 1 h each (1100-1200 h and 1230-1330 h on 2 consecutive days during wk 4, 6, and 9 of life) in a 2 × 2 factorial design in a balanced order: individually or in pairs in the NV or V hutch. Immediately before and after the 1 h hutch restriction period, respiration rate (RR) and rectal temperature (RT) were recorded while calves were outside. On the subsequent 3 d in those weeks, the locations of each calf (outdoors or inside a hutch) were recorded at 15-min intervals using time-lapse cameras. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate the fixed effects of ventilation, number of calves inside the hutch, week of life, and their interactions, on change in temperature-humidity index (THI), RR, and RT after 1 h; pair of calves was the subject of the repeated statement. Within weeks, the proportion of time calves spent in each hutch and together were averaged across the 3 d of observation. One-sample t-tests were used to evaluate preferences compared with 50% (chance, no preference): (1) for the V (vs. NV) hutch and (2) to be together (or separate) in either the V or NV hutch as well as overall. The THI gain inside the V hutch after 1 h with calves present was lower relative to the NV hutch (0.90 vs. 1.79 units, respectively, standard error of the mean [SEM] = 0.16). Calves in wk 9 of life increased the hutch THI more than in wk 6 of life (1.81 vs. 0.72 units respectively, SEM = 0.16). After 1 h, RR decreased versus was unchanged, respectively, when calves were in the V versus NV hutch (-14.4 vs. -0.9 breaths/min, respectively, SEM = 1.4 breaths/min). No differences were detected in RT. Calves chose to be together most of the time regardless of location (wk 4, 6, and 9, respectively: 83.1% ± 2.4%, 80.3% ± 2.1%, and 78.0% ± 3.1%). Calves had no hutch preference during wk 4 but developed a preference for the V hutch as they aged (wk 4, 6, and 9, respectively: 47.3% ± 4.5%, 61.2% ± 5.1%, and 72.8% ± 4.3%). This is the first study to demonstrate passive ventilation improves animal welfare by reducing heat stress in pair-housed dairy calves in outdoor hutches.

Effect of different air speeds at cow resting height in freestalls on heat stress responses and resting behavior in lactating cows in Wisconsin.

Heat abatement (e.g., soakers, fans) effectively reduces the negative physiological and production effects of heat stress, but no previous studies have documented effective interventions for the reduced lying times observed in response to hot weather. Although likely adaptive for heat dissipation, the reduction in motivated lying behavior may be an animal welfare concern. We evaluated the effect of air speed from fans with variable frequency drives on the heat stress responses of cows in a naturally ventilated freestall barn. Eight groups of lactating Holsteins (16 cows/group) were exposed to 3 treatments in a replicated crossover design: control (fans off, 0.4 ± 0.2 m/s, measured 0.5 m above the stall surface to represent cow resting height) versus 60% (1.7 ± 0.5 m/s; ≥1 m/s in all stalls) and 100% (2.4 ± 0.8 m/s) fan power. Each treatment was applied for 3 d of acclimation and 4 d of data collection. The effects of treatment on daily maximum vaginal temperature (VT) and lying time (LT; both measured with data loggers), respiration rate (RR; recorded from video), unshaved scapular skin temperature (ST), milk yield (MY), and dry matter intake (DMI) were analyzed using linear mixed models. All models included the fixed effect of treatment and a repeated term for treatment day within group of cows, with group as the subject. The models for LT, VT, and RR also included a fixed effect for same-day temperature-humidity index (THI; recorded in the pens with data loggers) and the THI × treatment interaction. The models for DMI and MY, using data from the latter 3 d of each treatment period, also included a fixed effect for the previous day's THI and the -1 d THI × treatment interaction. Lying time differed among treatments (100% vs. 60% fan power vs. control: 14.2 vs. 13.9 vs. 13.2 h/d, respectively, SEM = 0.15 h/d), but both fan treatments prevented the reduction in LT observed in the control treatment as THI increased. Relative to the control, both fan treatments effectively reduced ST, RR, and VT and increased DMI and MY. In the control, average values were elevated for both RR (68.7 ± 1.5 breaths/min, mean ± SEM, greater than a common benchmark of 60 breaths/min) and VT (39.3 ± 0.05°C) but remained in the normal range in both fan treatments (54.2 vs. 50.7 breaths/min in the 60% vs. 100% fan power treatments; 39.0°C in both fan treatments). Both fan treatments resulted in greater overall MY (42.6 vs. 43.0 ± 0.4 kg/d in the 60% vs. 100% fan power treatments) relative to the control (41.0 kg/d) and similarly avoided the reduction in MY when -1 d THI increased. Compared with natural ventilation alone, fans delivering air speeds of at least 1 m/s at cow resting height were effective not only for reducing thermoregulatory responses, but also for maintaining lying time, DMI, and MY in heat stress conditions. This is the first study to demonstrate an intervention to improve animal welfare by maintaining lying times during periods of heat stress.

Social interactions, feeding patterns, and feed efficiency of same- and mixed-parity groups of lactating cows.

Social dynamics in group-housed animals can have important effects on their welfare, feed efficiency, and production potential. Our objectives were to: (1) evaluate the effects of parity and social grouping on competition behavior, feeding patterns, and feed efficiency, and (2) investigate cow-level relationships between competition and feeding behavior, production, and feed efficiency. Fifty-nine Holstein cows (144.5 ± 21.8 starting days in milk, mean ± SD) were housed in a freestall pen with 30 Roughage Intake Control (RIC) bins. We evaluated the effects of parity (primiparous [PR, n = 29] vs. multiparous [MU, n = 30]) and group composition at the feed bunk (same-parity [SM, n = 39] vs. mixed-parity [MX, n = 20, 50% of each parity]) with a 2 × 2 factorial design (SM-MU: n = 20; SM-PR: n = 19; MX-MU: n = 10; MX-PR: n = 10) on competition behavior, feeding patterns, and feed efficiency. Within the pen, groups of 9 to 10 cows were considered subgroups and assigned to treatments defined by sets of 5 assigned bins (2:1 stocking density). Feed bunk competition and feeding patterns were recorded via continuous video in the first hour after morning feed delivery and 24-h RIC data, respectively. Residual feed intake (RFI) was calculated as the difference between predicted and observed dry matter intake (DMI) after accounting for known energy sinks. Linear models were used to evaluate the effects and interactions of parity and group composition on competition, feeding behavior, and feed efficiency. Within-cow correlations were performed between competition, feeding behavior, and RFI. Cows in MX, compared with SM, were involved in more competitive interactions [mean (95% CI): competitive contacts: 11.5 (8.1, 16.3) vs. 7.2 (5.5, 9.3) events; displacements: 4.0 (3.0, 5.3) vs. 2.1 (1.7, 2.7) events, and replacements: 3.5 (2.6, 4.7) vs. 1.9 (1.5, 2.5) events]. Cows in MX vs. those in SM had more bunk visits/meal ( 4.3 [3.9, 4.8] vs. 3.7 [3.4, 3.9] visits/meal) and longer meals (31.2 vs. 27.4 ± 0.9 min/meal) and tended to have higher RFI (0.41 ± 0.3 vs. -0.21 ± 0.2) and were therefore less feed efficient. Multiparous versus PR cows had greater DMI per day (29.3 ± 0.6 vs. 25.5 ± 0.4 kg/d) and per meal (4.2 [4.0, 4.4] vs. 3.4 [3.2, 3.6] kg/meal), faster eating rates (0.14 [0.13, 0.15] vs. 0.12 [0.11, 0.13] kg/min), and fewer bunk visits/d (26.6 [24.0, 29.4] vs. 32.8 [29.7, 35.9]). Regardless of grouping or parity, cows with shorter latencies to first visit the bunk after feed delivery were involved in more competition and tended to be less feed efficient. Overall, individual cow- and group-level relationships among competition, feeding behavior, and feed efficiency play an important role in feed bunk social dynamics. At a competitive 2:1 stocking density, mixed-parity groups for lactating cows may have potentially negative animal welfare and feed efficiency implications that should be considered when selecting grouping strategies on the farm.

Impact of Stationary Brush Quantity on Brush Use in Group-Housed Dairy Heifers.

Our objectives were to evaluate the effect of stationary brush quantity on brush use and competition in weaned dairy heifers naïve to brushes. Sixty-three Holstein heifers (95 ± 5.7 days old) were housed in groups of eight (with the exception of 1 group of 7) with two or four stationary brushes (n = 4 groups/treatment). Brush-directed behaviors of grooming, oral manipulation, and displacements were recorded continuously for all heifers 0-6, 18-24, 120-126 and 138-144 h after brush exposure. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate the effects of brush quantity and exposure duration. Total brush use and competition were not affected by brush quantity, but heifers with access to more brushes used them for longer bouts, suggesting greater opportunity for uninterrupted use. Total brush use was greater in the first and final 6 h observation periods, which was driven by the greatest duration of oral manipulation and grooming in those respective periods. The continued use of brushes by all heifers in the final period indicates the importance of providing appropriate outlets for these natural behaviors to promote animal welfare. The effect of brush quantity on bout characteristics suggests that brush use was less restricted with four compared to two brushes per eight heifers.

Ontario Dairy Producers' Perceived Barriers and Motivations to the Use of Pain Control for Disbudding and Dehorning Calves: A Qualitative Study.

Canadian dairy farmers are required to use a local anesthetic and analgesic prior to all disbudding and dehorning procedures. This study was done to investigate the opinions of Ontario dairy farmers on the use of pain control for disbudding and dehorning calves and their perspectives on the current requirements of the quality assurance program. Interviews were conducted with 29 dairy farmers across Ontario. All participants used a cautery iron to disbud or dehorn their calves and some form of pain control (i.e., NSAID and/or local anesthetic). Of the 29 producers that were interviewed, 22 (76%) were in compliance with the proAction requirements for pain control. Many participants felt positive about the use of pain control for these practices. Education from veterinarians was one of the most commonly listed resources to reduce barriers to pain control use by producers. A farmer's attitude was highly referenced as an influence on producer behaviour. Although participants had positive views of pain control use, full compliance with national quality assurance requirements for disbudding and dehorning was not met by all. Producer education through veterinarians is a potential avenue to encourage the adoption of pain control use for disbudding and dehorning practices.

Stationary brush use in naive dairy heifers.

Weaned dairy heifers are often housed in environments with few appropriate outlets for grooming or oral manipulation. Our objective was to characterize brush use by naive heifers, including patterns over time. In phase 1, groups of 4 heifers (n = 13 groups, 146.4 ± 9.1 d old, mean ± standard deviation; SD) were introduced to a bedded pack pen with 4 wall-mounted brushes (25.4 × 6.0 cm with 3.8-cm-long bristles). On d 1, 2, and 6 of exposure, continuous video recordings were used to observe 2 focal heifers per group for brush use (oral manipulation, grooming, and the sum of total brush use; all averaged at the group level). Latency to use a brush upon entering the pen was 3.4 ± 4.9 min (mean ± SD; range: 0.1 to 17.8 min among individuals). Heifers used the brushes for oral manipulation (39.7 ± 17.5% of brush use, mean ± SD) and grooming (60.3 ± 17.5%), primarily of their heads (89.9 ± 5.4% of grooming). In phase 2, heifers were moved in pairs (n = 13 pairs/treatment) to freestall pens either with (brush treatment) or without (control) brushes mounted inside the stalls for the first 5 d of phase 2 (d 8-12 of the study); on the last day (d 13 of the study), brushes were provided in both treatments. On d 8 (brush treatment) and 13 (both treatments), one focal heifer/pen was recorded for the same behaviors as in phase 1. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate brush use patterns across days (phase 1: d 1, 2, and 6; phase 2 brush treatment: d 8 vs. 13) and between treatments on d 13. In phase 1, brush use was greatest on d 1 [45.9 min; 95% confidence interval (CI): 33.2-63.3 min, back-transformed from natural-log values], decreased on d 2 (25.0 min, 95% CI: 18.4-34.0 min), but then remained steady until d 6 (21.0 min, 95% CI: 15.4-28.5 min); the initial reduction in total brush use was due to changes in grooming, but oral manipulation remained relatively static. In phase 2, heifers in the brush treatment showed similar usage on d 8 versus d 13 (3.8 vs. 3.7 min, 95% CI: 1.9-6.8 vs. 1.9-6.5 min). Compared with heifers with continuous brush access on d 8-12, those in the control treatment showed more brush use on d 13, both for oral manipulation (6.6 vs. 2.5 min, 95% CI: 3.8-11.1 vs. 1.3-4.5 min) and grooming (3.5 vs. 1.2 min, 95% CI: 1.9-5.7 vs. 0.5-2.3 min). Our study is the first to characterize stationary brush use in weaned dairy heifers. We conclude that, despite lacking previous experience, heifers use brushes for both grooming and oral manipulation.

Disbudding and dehorning practices for preweaned dairy calves by farmers in Wisconsin, USA.

Many dairy farmers in North America disbud or dehorn their cattle to improve human and animal safety. The Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM v. 4.0) program requires that disbudding be performed before 8 wk of age with pain-control medication. The objective of this observational cross-sectional study was to quantify disbudding and dehorning practices of Wisconsin dairy producers to target future extension programming. Responses from 217 Wisconsin dairy producers and calf raisers were collected via digital surveys distributed at extension events and through industry contacts. Of the 217 respondents, 188 performed on-farm disbudding themselves. Most respondents (61%) used caustic paste as their primary method, which was most commonly applied on the day the calf was born (53%). Hot iron was used by 32% of respondents, and surgical methods (gouge, scoop, or wire saw) were used by 6% of respondents. Hot-iron disbudding was most commonly performed at 4 to 8 wk of age (41%) and 1 to 4 wk of age (33%), whereas surgical methods were most commonly performed at 8 wk or older (73%). Pain-control medication was used by 43% of respondents. Specifically, 35% used an anti-inflammatory, and 21% used a local nerve block. Veterinary involvement in creating the disbudding protocol was associated with increased odds of using pain control. Respondents with a target weaning age of ≥10 wk had greater odds of complying with FARM disbudding requirements and were also more likely to use polled genetics. Respondents aged 18 to 34 and respondents with >60 calves were more likely to have made changes to their disbudding or dehorning protocol in the last decade. Although use of pain control was higher than in previous US studies, full adoption of pain management requires further extension efforts. Veterinarians appeared influential on adoption of pain control, and their involvement may encourage adoption of pain management. Further research should investigate how the implementation of new FARM v. 4.0 standards will change the disbudding and dehorning practices of American dairy producers.

Milk- and starter-feeding strategies to reduce cross sucking in pair-housed calves in outdoor hutches.

Social housing of preweaned calves can benefit their welfare, but housing and cross sucking are potential barriers to adoption for farmers. For farms using outdoor hutches, an option is to pair adjacent hutches with a shared fence. Our objective was to investigate milk- or starter-feeding strategies to mitigate cross sucking in this system. Holstein heifers were housed in pairs (n = 32 pairs) and divided into 4 treatments (n = 8 pairs each) in a 2 × 2 factorial design: milk in an open bucket with starter in only a bucket (OB-SB), milk in an open bucket and starter in both a bucket and a specialized teat bottle (Braden bottle; OB-BB), milk in a slow-flow teat bucket with starter in only a bucket (TB-SB), or milk in a slow-flow teat bucket and starter in both a bucket and a specialized teat bottle (TB-BB). When starter was first offered (d 6 ± 1 of life, mean ± SD), calf latency to approach was recorded, averaged within pairs, and compared between starter treatments using a linear mixed model with fixed effect of treatment and random effect of pair within treatment. Calves were initially bottle fed; milk treatments began on d 14 ± 1 of life and ended when calves were completely weaned (d 53 ± 1). Calves were observed for behaviors such as drinking milk and cross sucking twice weekly for 30 min during the afternoon milk meal using continuous video, with values averaged within pairs. Linear mixed models were run separately before (wk 3-6) and after (wk 7-8) weaning, with fixed effects of milk- and starter-feeding treatments, week, and the 2- and 3-way interactions, with week as repeated measure and pair as subject. Pairs with Braden bottles and buckets approached starter sooner than those with only buckets (Braden bottles vs. no Braden bottles: 13.1 ± 6.1 vs. 33.2 ± 6.1 min, LSM ± SEM). Before weaning, pairs with open buckets for both milk and starter cross sucked for at least twice as long (OB-SB: 2.9 ± 0.3 min) as all other treatments (OB-BB: 1.5 ± 0.3 min; TB-SB: 0.4 ± 0.3 min; TB-BB: 0.5 ± 0.3 min). This pattern held during weaning, when cross sucking increased overall (OB-SB: 3.9 ± 0.4 min; OB-BB: 1.8 ± 0.4 min; TB-SB: 0.9 ± 0.4 min; TB-BB: 1.6 ± 0.4 min). Regardless of starter treatment, calves spent less time cross sucking when fed milk in teat buckets, which extended the milk meal relative to open buckets (teat bucket vs. open bucket: preweaning = 7.0 ± 0.2 vs. 1.6 ± 0.2 min; weaning = 3.0 ± 0.1 vs. 0.6 ± 0.1 min). When calves are fed milk in open buckets, a novel option for reducing cross sucking is to provide starter through a specialized bottle. Nonetheless, providing milk in slow-flow teat buckets had the greatest effect on reducing cross sucking by directing suckling to the teat instead of another calf or pen objects.

Strategies to encourage freestall use in dairy heifers.

Dairy cattle can experience problems adjusting to freestalls when first introduced, resulting in a marked reduction in lying time and increased abnormal behaviors such as lying in the alley or lying backward in a stall. Our objective was to evaluate 2 strategies to ease the transition of heifers to freestalls: using an older, experienced heifer as a social model [experiment (Exp.) 1] or using brushes mounted in the stalls as an attractant (Exp. 2). In Exp. 1, 44 naïve heifers (129 ± 37 d of age, mean ± standard deviation) were assigned in pairs (n = 11 pairs/treatment) to either the control or social model (with an older heifer, 200 ± 24 d of age, as an experienced social companion) treatments. In Exp. 2, 52 naïve heifers (146 ± 9 d of age) were preassigned in pairs (n = 13 pairs/treatment) to either control or brush treatments. In both studies, heifers were initially housed in pens with a bedded pack (for 5 and 7 d in Exp. 1 and 2, respectively) before moving to pens in the same barn with sand-bedded freestalls. On d -2, 0, and 4 relative to the move to the freestalls, standing, perching (with the front hooves on the bedding and rear hooves in the alley), and lying (location: bedding vs. alley; direction in stall on d 0 and 4: forward or backward) were recorded at 5-min intervals. In addition, starting on d 0 relative to the move, latency to first lie down in a stall was recorded continuously. In both studies, time budgets did not differ between treatments. On the day heifers were moved, they spent less time lying relative to d -2 [Exp. 1: -1.8 h/d, standard error (SE): 0.4 h/d; Exp. 2: -3.0 h/d, SE: 0.3 h/d] and more time standing and perching. By d 4, lying and standing returned to d -2 baseline levels, although heifers continued to spend more time perching. When heifers moved to freestalls, no treatment differences were observed in the latency to lie down in a stall, but latencies differed between Exp. 1 (averaging approximately 3.8 h across treatments) and Exp. 2 (averaging 31.4 h across treatments). After moving to freestalls, the percentage of total lying time that heifers spent facing forward in a stall increased (Exp. 2: 53 vs. 77%, SE: 7%) or tended to (Exp. 1: 84 vs. 92%, SE: 3%) between d 0 and 4 of exposure, with no effect of treatment. Although lying behavior improved with days of exposure to freestalls, some heifers continued to lie down in the alley or backward in a stall, suggesting the need for additional work to ease the adjustment to freestall housing.

Sampling strategies for assessing lameness, injuries, and body condition score on dairy farms.

Our objective was to evaluate how sampling strategies (i.e., how many cows to sample and which animals to include) used in 4 dairy cattle welfare assessment programs affect the classification of dairy farms relative to thresholds of acceptability for animal-based measures. We predicted that classification performance would improve when more cows were sampled and when selecting from all lactating cows versus when some pens were excluded. On 38 freestall farms, we assessed all 12,375 cows for lameness, injuries on the tarsal (hock) and carpal joints, and body condition score and calculated the farm-level prevalence for each measure. Based on approaches used in the industry, we evaluated 6 sampling strategies generated using formulas with precision (d) of 15, 10, or 5% applied to either a single high-producing pen or all lactating cows; an additional sample was included with d = 10% applied to the entire herd, selecting lactating cows in proportion to their representation in the herd. For each sampling strategy, cow records were selected randomly (in 10,000 replicates) to calculate prevalence. The strategy of assessing all cows in the high-producing pen was also compared. Farms were classified as meeting (below) or failing to meet (above) thresholds of ≤15% moderate lameness; ≤20% moderate carpal or hock injuries; <10, <5, and ≤1% severe lameness; or injuries on the carpus or hock; and <5, <3, <1, or 0% thin cows. For each measure and threshold, we calculated pooled percent agreement, kappa, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value for each sampling strategy using true prevalence as the gold standard for herd classification. Across measures and thresholds, classification performance increased with the number of cows sampled [i.e., when narrower precision values (d = 5 vs. 10 vs. 15%) were used in the sample size calculation]. Because narrower precision values can dramatically increase sample size, assessment programs may need to consider both feasibility and the degree of misclassification they will accept. Applying the formula directly to lactating cows performed better than applying it to the entire herd and then selecting lactating cows in proportion to their representation in the herd. Farm classifications were similar whether cows in the hospital pen were included or excluded from the sample. Selecting all cows from the high-producing pen resulted in classifications similar to when including all lactating cows, suggesting that assessing cows from the high-producing pen may serve as an acceptable proxy for all lactating cows on the farm.

Considerations for Cooling Dairy Cows with Water.

Heat stress results in substantial economic losses to the dairy industry and is problematic for animal welfare. Soaking cattle with water is an effective form of heat abatement. This technique cools cattle when water evaporates from the skin and drips from the animal, and cools the microclimate. To evaluate cooling effectiveness and make appropriate adjustments to heat abatement, animal-based indicators should be recorded in addition to environmental measures. Ideally, heat abatement should be provided to all life stages of dairy cattle and soakers should be combined with shade.

Domestic cattle (Bos taurus taurus) are motivated to obtain forage and demonstrate contrafreeloading.

Domestic cattle (Bos taurus taurus) are adapted to digest high-roughage diets, but in confinement they are commonly fed low-roughage, high-energy diets. This practice may leave cattle with an unfulfilled need to consume forage. A way to quantify motivation is to require animals to work to access a resource. Using this method, we evaluated cattle motivation to obtain forage when fed high- or low-roughage diets during and 30 d before the study. Individual heifers were fed Sudan grass (Sorghum × drummondii) hay (high roughage, n = 6) or a diet with 12% forage (as fed, low roughage, n = 6) in an open feed trough. In a second trough, 200 g/d of Sudan grass hay were fed behind a push gate, to which additional weight was added daily until heifers no longer pushed. We predicted heifers would push heavier weights, show a shorter latency, and spend more time pushing the gate when fed a low- vs. high-roughage diet. Indeed, heifers fed a low-roughage diet pushed the gate immediately after hay delivery (1.7 min) and much sooner than those fed a high-roughage diet (75.7 min). On the day before they no longer pushed the gate, latency for heifers in the low-roughage treatment remained only 3.2 min after hay delivery. The suddenness with which they ceased pushing the next day suggests they were unable to move heavier weights to express their motivation. This may explain why maximum weight pushed and time spent pushing the gate did not differ between treatments. The gate pushing by heifers with unrestricted hay access is the first demonstration by cattle of contrafreeloading: performing work to obtain a resource that is simultaneously available for free. In conclusion, consuming forage is important to cattle and is affected by both their primary diet and an internal motivation to work to obtain feed.

Reliability of sampling strategies for measuring dairy cattle welfare on commercial farms.

Our objective was to evaluate how the proportion of high-producing lactating cows sampled on each farm and the selection method affect prevalence estimates for animal-based measures. We assessed the entire high-producing pen (days in milk <100; range = 81-241 cows) on 10 California farms using measures from the Welfare Quality Protocol for Cattle. Cows were restrained in head locks and visually evaluated for body condition, dirtiness, skin alterations (hair loss, lesions, or swelling), discharge (ocular, nasal, vulvar), diarrhea, and impaired respiration. Lameness was scored upon release. Prevalence was calculated as a percentage of assessed cows. The most common conditions were dirty hindquarters (33.5 ± 10.7%, mean ± standard deviation) and lesions or swelling on the carpal joint (34.4 ± 7.0%) and hock (26.4 ± 16.7%). Diarrhea (8.0 ± 5.8%), lameness (moderate = 7.3 ± 4.7%, severe = 2.2 ± 2.2%), and neck (5.8 ± 12.6%), flank (4.5 ± 5.0%), or hindquarter alterations (5.5 ± 3.9%) were less common. Very fat cows, vulvar discharge, and impaired respiration were rare (≤1%) and were excluded from further analysis. Four sampling strategies were used to generate 20 estimates for each animal-based measure. The strategies were (1) selecting every 10th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 2 of 3, or 3 of 4 cows at the feed bunk (7 estimates/measure); (2) randomly selecting 7 matching proportions of the pen; (3) randomly selecting cows using 3 sample size calculations from the Welfare Quality Protocol; and (4) selecting the first, middle, or final third of cows exiting the milking parlor. Estimates were compared with true values using regression analysis and were considered accurate if they met 3 criteria: the coefficient of determination was ≥0.9 and the slope and intercept did not differ significantly from 1 and 0, respectively. All estimates met the slope and intercept criteria, whereas the coefficient of determination increased when more cows were sampled. All estimates were accurate for neck alterations, ocular discharge (22.2 ± 27.4%), and carpal joint hair loss (14.1 ± 17.4%). Selecting a third of the milking order or using the Welfare Quality sample size calculations failed to accurately estimate all measures simultaneously. However, all estimates were accurate when selecting at least 2 of every 3 cows locked at the feed bunk. Using restraint position at the feed bunk did not differ systematically from computer-selecting the same proportion of cows randomly, and the former may be a simpler approach for welfare assessments.