Effects of bedding with recycled sand and season on lying behaviors, hygiene, and preferences of late-lactation Holstein cows were studied. It was hypothesized that recycled sand will decrease lying time and increase hygiene scores due to increased moisture content and organic matter, and thus a preference for the control sand will be evident. Cows (n = 64) were divided into 4 groups (n = 8 per group) per season. In summer (August to September), cows were balanced by days in milk (268.1 ± 11.9 d) and parity (2.0 ± 0.2). In winter (January to February), mean DIM was 265.5 ± 34.1 d. Cows were assigned to 1 of 2 treatments using a crossover design with each treatment lasting 7 d (no-choice phase): bedding with recycled sand (RS; n = 32) or control (CO; clean sand; n = 32). Stocking density was maintained at 100%. The choice phase allowed cows to have access to either treatment with stocking density at 50%. Accelerometers recorded daily lying time, number of lying bouts per day, lying bout duration (min/bout), and total steps per day. Teat swabs, milk, sand samples, and udder hygiene scores were collected on d 0, 3, and 7 of each experimental week. Samples were cultured for streptococci, staphylococci, and gram-negative bacteria. Video data were used to assess bedding preferences. All data were analyzed using the MIXED and GLIMMIX procedures of SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Lying time was not affected by treatment, but cows did take more steps during winter. Bacterial counts were elevated for cows on recycled sand. A preference was observed for clean sand during the summer, but no preference was observed for sand during the winter. Regardless of bedding, the most commonly observed behavior was lying in the stalls, which suggested either bedding might be suitable. Caution should be used with this interpretation of preference, as sand was recycled only once. This limited reclamation was still sufficient to potentially alter the composition of sand, driving the observed preference. If these changes in composition continue, then the strength of the preference may also change. However, considering all variables within the current study, recycled sand is a viable bedding source to use for dairy cows.
The objective was to determine the effects of sleep or lying deprivation on the behavior of dairy cows. Data were collected from 8 multi- and 4 primiparous cows (DIM = 199 ± 44 (mean ± SD); days pregnant = 77 ± 30). Using a crossover design, each cow experienced: 1) sleep deprivation implemented by noise or physical contact when their posture suggested sleep, and 2) lying deprivation imposed by a grid placed on the pen floor. One day before treatment (baseline), and treatment day (treatment) were followed by a 12-d washout period (with the first 7 d used to evaluate recovery). Study days were organized from 2100 to 2059. During habituation (d -3 and -2 before treatment), baseline (d -1), and trt (d 0), housing was individual boxstalls (mattress with no bedding). After treatment, cows returned to sand-bedded freestalls for a 7-d recovery period (d 1 to 7) where data on lying behaviors were collected. Following the recovery period, an additional 5-d period was provided to allow the cows a 12-d period between exposures to treatments. Daily lying time, number lying bouts, bout duration, and number of steps were recorded by dataloggers attached to the hind leg of cows throughout the study period. Data were analyzed using a mixed model including fixed effects of treatment (sleep deprivation vs. sleep and lying deprivation), day, and their interaction with significant main effects separated using a PDIFF statement ( P ≤ 0.05). Interactions between treatment and day were detected for daily lying time and the number of bouts. Lying time was lower for both treatments during the treatment period compared to baseline. Lying time increased during the recovery period for both lying and sleep deprived cows. However, it took 4 d for the lying deprived cows to fully recover their lying time after treatment, whereas it took the sleep deprived cows 2 d for their lying time to return to baseline levels. Results suggest that both sleep and lying deprivation can have impact cow behavior. Management factors that limit freestall access likely reduce lying time and sleep, causing negative welfare implications for dairy cows.
The objective of this study was to describe the effect of penetrating or non-penetrating captive bolt using an occipital approach in 4–5 month old, Holstein steers weighing between 100–200 kg. Twelve calves were divided into two treatment groups; penetrating captive bolt (PCB; n = 6) and non-penetrating captive bolt (NPCB; n = 6). This sample size was chosen out of convenience and in conjunction with a separate study. Each calf was sedated with xylazine hydrochloride, then a captive-bolt device, outfitted with a standard penetrating bolt or a non-penetrating bolt, was placed flush on the dorsal midline of the cranium at the external occipital protuberance and aimed downward as though to intersect the intermandibular area. Following impact, indicators for loss of consciousness, such as respiration, righting response, corneal reflex, movement and vocalisation were recorded and characterised along with electrocardiogram and electroencephalogram recordings. After a 5-min observation period, all calves were administered potassium chloride. All calves experienced immediate and sustained loss of consciousness. The mean (± SEM) time to cessation of respiration was 60 (± 53.67) and 0 (± 0.0) s for PCB and NPCB, respectively. The mean time to cessation of convulsions was 310.4 (± 79.74) and 180.0 (± 60.24) s, respectively, and the mean number of convulsions was 2.75 (± 1.03) and 2.0 (± 0.837) for PCB and NPCB, respectively. Isoelectric EEG patterns were observed in 3/5 PCB and 3/4 NPCB with mean time to onset of isoelectric pattern in 69.0(± 52.24) and 113.5 (± 56.87) s. Both treatments induced a successful stun, which suggests these techniques are appropriate for humane euthanasia in calves of this age.
29The objective was to determine the effects of sleep or lying deprivation on the behavior 30 of dairy cows. Data were collected from 8 multi-and 4 primiparous cows (DIM = 199 ± 44 31 (mean ± SD); days pregnant = 77 ± 30). Using a crossover design, each cow experienced: 1) 32 sleep deprivation implemented by noise or physical contact when their posture suggested sleep, 33 and 2) lying deprivation imposed by a grid placed on the pen floor. One day before treatment 34 (baseline), and treatment day (treatment) were followed by a 12-d washout period. Study days 35 were organized from 2100 to 2059. During habituation (d -3 and -2 before treatment), baseline (d 36 -1), and trt (d 0), housing was individual boxstalls (mattress with no bedding). After treatment, 37 cows returned to sand-bedded freestalls for a 7-d recovery period (d 1 to 7) where data on lying 38 behaviors were collected. Daily lying time, number lying bouts, bout duration, and number of 39 steps were recorded by dataloggers attached to the hind leg of cows throughout the study period. 40 Data were analyzed using a mixed model in SAS including fixed effects of treatment (sleep 41 deprivation vs. sleep and lying deprivation), day, and their interaction with significant main 42 effects separated using a PDIFF statement (P ≤ 0.05). Interactions between treatment and day 43 were detected for daily lying time and the number of bouts. Lying time was lower for both 44 treatments during the treatment period compared to baseline. Lying time increased during the 45 recovery period for both lying and sleep deprived cows. However, it took 4 d for the lying 46 deprived cows to fully recover their lying time after treatment, whereas it took the sleep deprived 47 cows 2 d for their lying time to return to baseline levels. Results suggest that both sleep and lying 48 deprivation can have impact cow behavior. Management factors that limit freestall access likely 49 reduce lying time and sleep, causing negative welfare implications for dairy cows.50 3 51 52 53 Lying time is critical for biological function for dairy cows, however, there are various 54 factors on-farm that reduce a cow's ability to lie down or influence how she uses her lying space. 55 Management factors such as overstocking (Krawczel et al., 2012) or heat stress (Cook et al., 56 2007) decrease lying time, either by reducing access to lying spaces or altering the cow's 57 motivation to lie down. Additionally, facility factors such as bedding type (Fregonesi et al., 58 2007a) and stall design (Fregonesi et al., 2009), can influence how a cow uses a lying stall. The 59 impact of facility design on lying time has been well-studied, but less is known about the quality 60 of rest cows are able to maintain while lying down. A measurement of rest quality in cattle and 61 other species is sleep, but very little research has assessed sleep in dairy cattle. 62 Within their time budget, dairy cows lie down between 11 and 13 h/d in confinement 63 housing systems (Tucker and Weary, 2004, Jensen et al., 2005, It...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.