Effect of reduced water intake by lactating dairy cows on behaviour, milk yield and blood composition

Little, W.; Collis, K.A.; Gleed, P. T.; Sansom, B. F.; Allen, W. M.; Quick, Armand J.

doi:10.1136/vr.106.26.547

Cited by 30 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this system the majority of the participating farms had one water bowl per two cows and according to Andersson et al [49] one water bowl per cow is recommended because the submissive cow drinks less and gives less milk than the dominant animal in every cow pair. Restricting the water intake of cows with 50% will result in 74% lower milk yield and more aggressive behaviour [50]. Furthermore, in 60% of the farms with both housing types, the water flow rates were low.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dairy cows welfare quality in tie-stall housing system with or without access to exercise

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTie-stall housing of dairy cows is used extensively worldwide, despite of the welfare concerns regarding the restriction of voluntary movement and limitation of expression of the cows’ natural behaviour. The aim of this study was to compare the welfare quality of dairy cows kept in two types of tie-stall housing systems: with regular outdoor exercise and without access to exercise. In addition, the study investigated the relationship between different welfare measures of dairy cows kept in tie-stalls.Methods3,192 lactating cows were assessed using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle in 80 commercial dairy farms, half of the farms providing outdoor access for the animals to exercise. The descriptive statistical indicators were determined for the assessed measures and for the welfare criteria and principle scores. The data obtained in the two housing types were compared and the correlation coefficients were calculated between the different welfare measures.ResultsThe significant differences found between the two housing systems for the majority of the animal based measures indicate the positive effect of exercise on the welfare of tethered cows. Many of the animal welfare parameters correlated with each other. For the farms allowing the cows’ turnout in a paddock, pasture or both, the mean scores for the welfare criteria and principles were higher than for the farms with permanent tethering of the cows, except the criteria absence of prolonged hunger and expression of social behaviours. The lowest scores were obtained for the criterion positive emotional state, in both housing systems. With regard to the overall classification, none of the farms were considered excellent. In the not classified category were only farms with all-year-round tethering of the animals and in the enhanced category only farms where the cows had outdoor access.ConclusionsThe welfare quality of the investigated dairy cows was significantly better in the tie-stall farms which allow exercise for cows (paddocks, pasture or both) than in those which do not. In the light of our results we consider that dairy cattle welfare is not necessarily poor in tie-stall housing systems, its quality depending on the management practices.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dairy cows welfare quality in tie-stall housing system with or without access to exercise

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In case of insufficient water intake, milk yield decreased (Little and Shaw, 1978;Little et al, 1980;Andersson et al, 1984;Andersson, 1987;Steiger Burgos et al, 2001;Bjerg et al, 2005). When drinking water intake was restricted by 10, 40, or 50% of the normal intake, milk yields decreased after approximately 1 d by 3, 16, and 27% (Little and Shaw, 1978;Little et al, 1980;Steiger Burgos et al, 2001). With regard to milk composition, temporary water restriction was associated with a decreased freezing point of milk and an increased milk fat content (Bjerg et al, 2005).…”

Section: Absence Of Prolonged Thirstmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invited review: Associations between variables of routine herd data and dairy cattle welfare indicators

Vries

Bokkers

Dijkstra

et al. 2011

Journal of Dairy Science

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As farm animal welfare is high on the political and societal agendas of many countries, considerable pressure exists to establish audit programs in which farm animal welfare is routinely monitored. On-farm assessment of animal welfare, however, is time-consuming and costly. A promising strategy to monitor animal welfare more efficiently is to first estimate the level of animal welfare on a farm based on routine herd data that are available in national databases. It is not currently known which variables of routine herd data (VRHD) are associated with dairy cattle welfare indicators (WI). Our aim was to identify VRHD that are associated with WI in a literature review. The 27 VRHD used in this review included the main types of data that are currently collected in national herd databases of developed countries, and related to identification and registration, management, milk production, and reproduction of dairy herds. The 34 WI used in this review were based on the Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Cattle. The search yielded associations in 146 studies. Twenty-three VRHD were associated with 16 WI. The VRHD that related to milk yield, culling, and reproduction were associated with the largest number of WI. Few associations were found for WI that referred to behavioral aspects of animal welfare, nonspecific disease symptoms, or resources-based indicators. For 18 WI, associations with VRHD were not significant (n=5 WI) or no studies were found that investigated associations with VRHD (n=13 WI). It was concluded that many VRHD have potential to estimate the level of animal welfare on dairy farms. As strengths of associations were not considered in this review, however, the true value of these VRHD should be further explored. Moreover, associations found at the animal level and in an experimental setting might not appear at the farm level and in common practice and should be investigated. Cross-sectional studies using integrated welfare scores at the farm level are needed to more accurately determine the potential of VRHD to estimate levels of animal welfare on dairy farms.

show abstract

“…The vegetation is often sparse in the desert and camels graze large areas to satisfy their nutritional needs and have to walk considerable distances to find water (Dahlborn, 2000). Water restriction for more than 24 h decreases food intake in ruminants, leading to lower milk volume in high-yielding cows (Little et al, 1980;Steiger Burgos et al, 2001) and goats (Dahlborn, 1987). In contrast to true ruminants, camels maintain food intake for 10 d during water deprivation (Yagil and Etzion, 1980a,b), whereas others find that food intake decreases sooner even if camels are not lactating (Schroter et al, 1987;Ben Goumi et al, 1993).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Milk production and feeding behavior in the camel (Camelus dromedarius) during 4 watering regimens

Bekele

Lundeheim

Dahlborn

2011

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Camels survive and produce milk during recurrent prolonged hot and dry periods. The objective was to evaluate how different watering intervals affected milk production and feeding. Eight lactating camels (Camelus dromedarius) were recruited and subjected to 4 watering regimens in a Latin square design experiment performed at Haramaya University in Ethiopia. Each regimen lasted 16 d with 5 d of daily watering between periods: water was offered at 1,315 h once daily (W1); on d 4, 8, 12, and 16 (W4); on d 8 and 16 (W8); and on d 16 (W16). One camel became sick in the second period and its results were excluded. Camels were kept in a pen with minimal shade and a noon temperature of 30.9±0.1°C. They had free access to hay and were offered 2 kg of concentrates 3 times daily. At noon on d 1, 4, 8, 12, and 16, a blood sample was taken from the jugular vein before watering. All calves were kept together in a separate pen. Morning and afternoon calves stimulated milk let-down before the camels were hand-milked, after which the calves suckled, emptying the udder. Camels maintained the milk volume during water deprivation for about 1 wk, but they produced less milk during the second week during W16. Morning milk osmolality increased from 315±3 on d 1 to 333±3 mosm/kg on d 4 during W4 and from 321±3 on d 1 to 342±3 mosm/kg on d 8 during W8. After watering at 1315 h, milk osmolality decreased to 316±3 and 323±3 mosm/kg, respectively, the same afternoon and then increased during recurrent water deprivation to 338±3 (W4) and 347±3 mosm/kg (W8) on d 16, respectively. During W16, osmolality increased from 318±3 to 336±3 mosm/kg during the first 4 d of water deprivation, but during the remaining 12 d the further rise in osmolality was not higher compared with that on d 4. The change in milk osmolality was linearly correlated to plasma osmolality (r=0.8), but milk lactose content did not increase. Contrary to widespread belief, camels did not dilute their milk when dehydrated. Instead milk osmolality increased in parallel to blood osmolality. This study provides further support to earlier observations on camels' adaptation to their environment.

show abstract

Effect of reduced water intake by lactating dairy cows on behaviour, milk yield and blood composition

Cited by 30 publications

References 0 publications

Dairy cows welfare quality in tie-stall housing system with or without access to exercise

Dairy cows welfare quality in tie-stall housing system with or without access to exercise

Invited review: Associations between variables of routine herd data and dairy cattle welfare indicators

Milk production and feeding behavior in the camel (Camelus dromedarius) during 4 watering regimens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About