Human-animal interactions and machine-animal interactions in animals under human care: A summary of stakeholder and researcher perceptions and future directions.

Animals under human care are exposed to a potentially large range of both familiar and unfamiliar humans. Human-animal interactions vary across settings, and individuals, with the nature of the interaction being affected by a suite of different intrinsic and extrinsic factors. These interactions can be described as positive, negative or neutral. Across some industries, there has been a move towards the development of technologies to support or replace human interactions with animals. Whilst this has many benefits, there can also be challenges associated with increased technology use. A day-long Animal Welfare Research Network workshop was hosted at Harper Adams University, UK, with the aim of bringing together stakeholders and researchers (n = 38) from the companion, farm and zoo animal fields, to discuss benefits, challenges and limitations of human-animal interactions and machine-animal interactions for animals under human care and create a list of future research priorities. The workshop consisted of four talks from experts within these areas, followed by break-out room discussions. This work is the outcome of that workshop. The key recommendations are that approaches to advancing the scientific discipline of machine-animal interactions in animals under human care should focus on: (1) interdisciplinary collaboration; (2) development of validated methods; (3) incorporation of an animal-centred perspective; (4) a focus on promotion of positive animal welfare states (not just avoidance of negative states); and (5) an exploration of ways that machines can support a reduction in the exposure of animals to negative human-animal interactions to reduce negative, and increase positive, experiences for animals.

Assessing the Accuracy of Leg Mounted Sensors for Recording Dairy Cow Behavioural Activity at Pasture, in Cubicle Housing and a Straw Yard.

The accuracy of CowAlert IceQube sensors (IceRobotics Ltd., Edinburgh, UK) for recording lying duration, standing and lying transitions and number of steps when dairy cows where at pasture, in cubicle housing and in a straw yard, was investigated. Holstein Friesian cows at Harper Adams University, UK were fitted with IceQube sensors; one on the back left (BL) leg and one on the front left (FL) leg. Cows at pasture (n = 48), in cubicle housing (n = 46) and in a straw yard (n = 45) were visually observed. Data were analysed in two stages: (1) an initial exploratory phase determined the correlation level between sensor measurements andvisual observations. Subsequently, (2) a mixed effects modelling framework was used to check whether sensors provide significantly different measures of cow's activities compared to the observations. Results indicate that lying and standing times are similar between the observed and recorded times, in all three locations. In terms of sensor placement, significant differences were found between the number of steps recorded between BL and FL on straw and pasture, but all other activities were similar, in each location. The accuracy of CowAlert IceQube sensors on the BL leg gives them the potential to be used as lifelong sensors.

Bedding system influences lying behaviour in dairy cows.

BACKGROUND: The nature and depth of bedding material have an important influence on cow lying behaviour and comfort. Increasing use of recycled manure solids (RMS) as bedding led to an investigation of the influence of this material on cow lying behaviour. METHODS: Leg mounted accelerometers were used to estimate daily lying time and number and duration of lying bouts in four groups of 40 cows. Each group spent two 2-week periods on each of four bedding systems: deep sand, deep RMS, sawdust on mattresses and RMS on mattresses. RESULTS: Total daily lying times were significantly shorter on both RMS treatments than on sawdust. Number of lying bouts per day was greater on sawdust than any other treatment, while lying bouts were 2.6 min longer on deep RMS and 9.3 min longer on sand, than on sawdust. CONCLUSIONS: Greater depth and apparent softness of bedding material does not necessarily result in longer total daily lying times. RMS may have some characteristics that reduce its attraction as a bedding material for cows. The influence of bedding system on number and duration of lying bouts and the resulting total lying time appear complex.

Cows with paratuberculosis (Johne's disease) alter their lying behavior around peak lactation.

Paratuberculosis or Johne's disease (JD) is a fatal chronic enteritis that causes detrimental effects on production and health and significantly reduces the welfare of cattle. Control of JD is highly desirable, but single milk ELISA testing may not be sensitive enough to identify all affected animals, particularly in the early stages of the disease. The objective of this study was to compare the activity of JD-positive (JD5) to JD-negative (JD0) cows from calving until wk 20 of lactation. The study was conducted at Harper Adams University, United Kingdom, using 42 multiparous [3.1 ± 0.22 (mean ± standard error of the mean); range: 2-7 lactations] Holstein Friesian cows, fitted with an IceQube accelerometer (IceRobotics Ltd., Edinburgh, UK) on the back left leg. The sensors recorded data on lying and standing time, steps, and motion index with a granularity of 15 min. In addition, start and stop times for lying bouts, and exact lying bout durations were recorded, which permits calculation of the number of lying bouts. Every 3 mo the cows were milk sampled and subsequently tested for JD using an ELISA. Cows in the infection group JD0 were classed as JD negative and cows in the infection group JD5 were classed as JD positive. Johne's-positive cows [JD5; n = 21 (repeat ELISA positive)] were matched to negative cows [JD0; n = 21 (repeat ELISA negative)] based on lactation number and age. Around peak lactation we found differences in lying behavior. The JD5 cows spend less time lying/d during wk 7 to 11 of lactation. The largest difference observed was around wk 8 of lactation, with JD5 cows spending, on average, 2 h/d less time lying down than JD0 cows (9.3 ± 0.33 vs. 11.3 ± 0.61 h/d, respectively). The JD5 cows also had fewer lying bouts per day from wk 7 to 15 of lactation (excluding wk 13), and during wk 11 and 12 average lying bout duration was longer for JD5 cows compared with JD0 cows. No differences were observed in steps per day, milk yield, BCS, and mobility score between JD5 and JD0 cows from calving to wk 20 of lactation. As far as we are aware, this is the first study to show changes in activity of JD-positive cows. The results show that activity data from leg-mounted accelerometers has the potential to help identify JD-positive cows, although more research is required.

The motivation of dairy cows for access to pasture.

Several factors influence whether dairy cattle prefer to be indoors or at pasture, including weather conditions and milk yield, but it is unclear how motivated cows are for access to pasture. One way to measure motivation is to require the animal to work (e.g., walk different distances) for access to a resource. This study investigated whether pasture access located 60, 140, or 260m from the indoor housing would affect the proportion of time dairy cows spent at pasture. Thirty-two Holstein-Friesian dairy cows were used during the study, which took place in the United Kingdom from May to July 2010. The experiment consisted of four 18-d experimental periods, with 8 cows in each period, which were further divided into 2 groups of 4 cows. Following a training period, the cows were randomly allocated to distances of 60, 140, or 260m to pasture over three 4-d measurement periods. A video camera was used to record time spent indoors and outdoors 24h/d, and manual behavior observations (0700 to 2200h) took place 6 times during each period to record how the cows spent their time in each location. The video data showed that cows spent, on average, 57.8% (±3.44) of their time outside (either at pasture or on the track). One-sample t-tests revealed that this value was different from 0% (t=16.80), 50% (t=2.26), and 100% (t=-12.28). Analysis of the percentage time spent outside revealed that distance did not influence nighttime pasture use (2100 to 0430h; F2,8=0.16; 81.0% vs. 81.0% vs. 76.7%, for 60m vs. 140m vs. 260m, respectively). In contrast, during the day (0700 to 2100h; from behavior observations), time spent at pasture declined as distance increased; that is, cows spent more time at pasture when they had to walk 60m (F2,80=10.09) than when they had to walk 140 or 260m (45.3% vs. 27.4% vs. 21.2%, respectively). Time spent at pasture decreased on rainy days (y=-1.0672x + 59.646, R(2)=0.09, n=48d), but the indoor temperature-humidity index (THI), the outdoor THI, and body condition score did not influence time spent outside. Under the climatic conditions of the current study in the United Kingdom, cows had a partial preference for pasture, which was influenced by distance to pasture during daytime but not at night. This shows that dairy cows were more motivated to access pasture at night compared with during the day.