Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bvgqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T07:34:17.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of a simple method for assessment of rising behaviour in tethered dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

S. Chaplin  and
L. Munksgaard
S. Chaplin
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne, Glenormiston Campus, PMB 6200, Terang Victoria 3264. Australia
L. Munksgaard
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Research Centre Foulum, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
Get access

Abstract

Problems with getting up can affect welfare, therefore a simple method for use in assessing rising behaviour was evaluated. Sixty-one Danish Friesian cows housed in two identical tie-stall barns were used. The cows were in their first (no. = 30), second (no. = 16) or third lactation (no. = 15). There were 19 cows in early lactation (<100 days in milk), 18 late lactation cows (>200 days in milk) and 24 dry cows, divided between the age groups. Rising was scored at three times of day for five consecutive days. Two observers scored the cows at 11:30 h and one of these observers scored them at 15:00 and 17:30 h. Cows were encouraged to rise using increasing levels of encouragement but the minimum possible force and were scored for rising (between 1 - normal rising sequence, smooth movement and 5 - rising front first) and the level of encouragement required. The behaviour of each cow was recorded on video for 21·5 h. Total lying time; lying frequency; maximum lying bout length; time to lie down; time for preparatory phase of lying; time to rise, and time for final phase of rising were recorded from the videos and video records of rising were scored. The rising score was repeatable and was unaffected by the different scoring conditions tested (presence of observer, day of scoring, time of day, level of encouragement). Stage of lactation affected total lying time, number of lying bouts, maximum bout length and rising behaviour, while lactation number only had a minor effect on lying behaviour. The proposed score for rising reliably reflected whether the cows in tie-stalls had difficulty rising when at least three observations were included. The proportion of cows in different stages of lactation and of different parities should be included in any assessment of rising behaviour, since stage of lactation and parity significantly affected rising behaviour.

Keywords

animal welfaredairy cowsrising behaviour

Information

Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 191 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andreae, U. and Smidt, D. 1982. Behavioural alterations in young cattle on slatted floors. Hohenheimer Arbeiten 121: 51–60.Google Scholar
Cermák, J. 1987. The design of cubicles for British Friesian dairy cows with reference to body weight and dimensions, spatial behaviour and upper leg lameness. In Cattle housing systems, lameness and behaviour (ed. Wirenga, H. K. and Peterse, D. J.), pp. 119–129. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague.Google Scholar
Chaplin, S. J. 2000. Resting behaviour of dairy cows: applications to farm assurance and welfare. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Dechamps, P., Nicks, B., Canart, B., Gielen, M. and Istasse, L. 1989. A note on resting behaviour of cows before and after calving in two different housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23: 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faull, W. B., Hughes, J. W., Clarkson, M. J., Downham, D. Y., Manson, F. J., Merritt, J. B., Murray, R. D., Russell, W. B., Sutherst, J. E. and Ward, W. R. 1996. Epidemiology of lameness in dairy cattle—the influence of cubicles and indoor and outdoor walking surfaces. Veterinary Record 139: 130–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. 1980. Reproduction in farm animals, fourth edition. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Haley, D. B., Rushen, J. and Passillé, A. M. de. 1998. Behavioral indicators of cow comfort. Journal of Animal Science 76: (suppl. 1) 104.Google Scholar
Herlin, A. H. 1994. Effects of tie-stalls or cubicles on dairy cows in grazing or zero-grazing situations. Studies on locomotion, hygiene, health and performance. Dissertation. Report 228, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Herlin, A. H. 1997. Comparison of lying area surfaces for dairy cows by preference, hygiene and lying down behaviour. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 27: 189–196.Google Scholar
Krohn, C. C. and Munksgaard, L. 1993. Behaviour of dairy cows kept in extensive (loose housing/pasture) or intensive (tie stall) environments. II. Lying and lying-down behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladewig, J. and Smidt, D. 1989. Behaviour, episodic secretion of cortisol, and adrenocortical reactivity in bulls subjected to tethering. Hormones and Behaviour 23: 344–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidfors, L. 1989. The use of getting up and lying down movements in the evaluation of cattle environments. Veterinary Research Communications 13: 307–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidfors, L. 1992. Behaviour of bull calves in two different housing systems: deep litter in an uninsulated building versus slatted floor in an insulated building. Thesis. Report 30, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden. Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W. and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS system for mixed models. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
McFarland, D. F. and Gamroth, M. J. 1994. Freestall designs with cow comfort in mind. In Proceedings of the third international dairy housing conference, 2-5 Feb., Orlando, Florida, pp. 145–158.Google Scholar
Martin, P. and Bateson, P. 1986. Measuring behaviour. Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
Metz, J. H. 1985. The reaction of cows to a short-term deprivation of lying. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 13: 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, B. 1978. Stanchion barn systems for dairy cows: an ethological evaluation. In Proceedings of the first world congress on ethology applied to zootechnics, Madrid, Spain, pp. 181–194.Google Scholar
Müller, C., Ladewig, J., Thielscher, H. H. and Smidt, D. 1989. Behaviour and heart rate of heifers housed in tether stanchions without straw. Physiology and Behavior 46: 751–754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munksgaard, L. and Simonsen, H. B. 1996. Behavioral and pituitary adrenal-axis responses of dairy cows to social isolation and deprivation of lying down. Journal of Animal Science 74: 769–778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, C. J. C. and Leaver, J. D. 1985. Seasonal and diurnal variation in the grazing behaviour of dairy cows. In Grazing (ed. Frame, J.), British Grassland Society occasional symposium no. 19, pp. 98–104.Google Scholar
Sandøe, P., Munksgaard, L., Bådsgaard, N. P. and Jensen, K. H. 1997. How to manage the management factor — assessing animal welfare at the farm level. European Association for Animal Production publication no. 89 (ed. Sørensen, J. T.), pp. 221–231.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. and Castellan, N. J. 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. McGraw-Hill International Editions, New York.Google Scholar