Search

As humans, we recognize the importance of exercise. We go to the gym, walk our dogs, and ride our horses. Even our hamsters get a wheel to run on. Considering this, it is surprising that, when it comes to the production animals that make up the bulk of domestic animals, the concept of ‘exercise’ becomes more muddled. There is empirical evidence of improvements to health and behavior that have been linked to what has been perceived in the literature as the provision of exercise to dairy cows as well as of the preference for cows to access environments like pasture often associated with exercise. More unclear is whether these benefits and preferences are a direct result of exercise or due to the increased movement opportunity provided by the housing and management methods that are implemented in these studies. To address this conceptual quandary, it is necessary to look at the methods used to measure exercise in the literature. For quantitative evaluations of exercise, researchers turn to measures of the cow’s locomotor activity, looking at the distance, speed, and or duration of time spent moving, often with the aid of technologies such as GPS and pedometers to obtain a more comprehensive analyses of locomotor activity. Equally important to the method of measurement of locomotor activity are the qualitative factors associated with exercise and locomotor activity in the literature, including: 1) changes to characteristics of the cow’s housing environment (e.g. space allowance/cow, walking surface, stall hardware), and 2) changes to the duration of time/frequency that cows are managed under certain housing options (e.g. provision of outdoor access). Moreover, providing a cow with an environment in which she can exercise does not guarantee that she will utilize the resources provided to do so. Considering all of the existing knowledge, it becomes more apparent that the positive outcomes of these studies cannot be attributed to exercise, per se, but to the level of movement opportunity provided to the cow. Furthermore, level of movement opportunity may be dependent on the preferences and needs of individual cow, but is also ultimately limited and/or facilitated by the cow’s housing system and characteristics therein. This change in perspective can lead to an improved ability to make suitable recommendations to producers on how to keep their cows healthy, fulfill a wider range of behavioral needs, and keep their cows in motion.

Dairy housing systems can have major implications on how freely cows move within their environment and how fully they can express their behavioral repertoire, impacting overall welfare. To ensure housing systems are meeting the needs of the dairy cow, more information is needed on the best method of loose-housing for dairy cows. The objectives of this study were to 1) determine whether cows express different locomotor activity, lying behaviors, and time budgets when housed in two different housing types (strawyard - SY vs. free-stall - FS) that provide similar space and 2) measure whether similar locomotor activity and time budgets are expressed in a SY and FS under winter confinement versus under summer conditions with outdoor access. Twenty-four cows were randomly allocated into six groups (n = 4 per group), balanced for parity and DIM. Groups were subjected to the FS and SY housing treatments for one week each in a crossover design, with each treatment applied three weeks apart. The same design and procedure was repeated twice: at the end of the winter housing period and at the start of summer after a 6-week grazing period. Locomotor activity and lying data was collected by pedometers and live observation of cow behavior were carried out 2x/wk for 2 h/observation period. The findings revealed no difference in number of steps between treatments or seasons. In summer, more visits to pasture was positively correlated with a higher number of steps in both the FS (r = 0.59, p

Acute mastitis is one of the most common diseases of high-producing dairy cows. However, there is still lack of knowledge on which precise behaviours change first at the beginning of acute mastitis, and whether behavioural changes might serve as a tool for early detection of clinical mastitis. In addition, mastitis can cause motivational conflict in the behavioural priorities of a cow, and thus blur the classical patterns of sickness behaviour: cows’ increased lying behaviour which may be uncomfortable or painful due to the sore udder. To study this, we monitored the behaviour of six cows after induction of acute endotoxin mastitis. Cows served as their own controls. Their behaviour was filmed from 1 day before the induction (control day) to 24 h after the induction (induction day). To follow-up on the inflammation, milk samples were taken and the cows’ health status was checked at regular intervals. Mean daily durations were determined for all behaviours, except stepping and body care, for which mean daily frequencies were counted. For standing and lying behaviours, also mean bout durations were analyzed. To examine the effects of time since the induction of mastitis, data were accordingly divided in 2-h periods. We analyzed the effect of induction on overall behaviour and behavioural rhythms with linear mixed models, taking repeated observations into account. Overall cows spent less time lying on the induction day than on the day before, and less on the side of the inflamed udder quarter. Cows also spent longer time overall for eating silage during the induction day, and they also stepped more than during the previous day. Cows spent less time lying and ruminated and drank less when the udder was severely swollen and when they had high fever. We concluded that unlike in typical sickness behaviour, cows did not increase their time spent lying, but instead stood more, and avoided lying on the side of the inflamed udder quarter. We suggest that pain experienced in the udder overrides the motivational the state of the cows’ sickness behaviour. In the future, novel mastitis detection tools should therefore be able automatically detect and combine changes on both physiological parameters (i.e. fever) and complete behavioural patterns consisting of resting, standing and eating behaviours.

Piglet crushing remains a major problem in pig production and is partly related to sow behavioural traits. The sows’ responses to the presence of humans around farrowing could partly contribute to piglet crushing through increased reactivity and getting up and lying down behaviour. The aim of the study was to determine if the sows’ behaviour observed during standard management procedures during gestation and after farrowing can be related with their reproductive performance including crushing levels. One hundred sows originating from a selection unit were observed before expected farrowing on their fear (withdrawal) response to human presence at feeding and their ease of transfer to the farrowing unit. After farrowing, their reaction was observed (latency to change position, number of postural changes) during a 5 min period of piglet handling (tattooing, tail cutting) and through the number of postural changes for the next 3 h. Parity influenced most of the behaviour observed during gestation, but not after farrowing. A high withdrawal response of sows tended to be correlated with higher transfer speed to the farrowing unit (P = 0.10), was correlated with a shorter latency to change position and with more postural changes during piglet handling (P

Weaning in suckler calves influences performance in a learning task. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the improved performance after weaning, including relocation, is due to differences in motivation for the reward or in learning abilities. Forty Aubrac calves were used; half of them were weaned from their dams at around eight months, the other half were weaned one month later. After weaning, calves were housed in groups of four in a new setting. From the day after weaning of the last group of calves, the animals were subjected to two tests: (1) an arena test, (2) a T-maze test where one arm led to either a social or a food reward. The T-maze test consisted of three sessions: in Session 1, trials were conducted until the animal acquired the task (i.e. did not take the unrewarded arm on three consecutive trials); in Session 2, the motivation for the reward was assessed via the walking time of the animal to reach the reward; in Session 3, the place of reward was reversed and the animals were trained until they acquired the new task. Calves weaned for one day explored more (P