Frequency of Feed Delivery Affects the Behavior of Lactating Dairy Cows

DeVries, T.J.; Keyserlingk, M.A.G. von; Beauchemin, K. A.

doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(05)73040-x

Cited by 206 publications

(147 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

122

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Differences between indoor AMS voluntary traffic across time are likely related to feed bunk activity as per where feed bunk activity was evenly distributed throughout 24 h alongside milking robot utilization. This hypothesis is supported by DeVries et al (2005) who found an increase in feeding activity and diurnal feeding pattern during the early morning when PMR was offered four times per day as compared with two times per day. Though, the evenly distributed milking robot utilization achieved in the study was likely influenced by the 6 h (four feeding periods per day) concentrate feeding regime, along with the PMR offered in this system, whereby each animal could access a new allocation of concentrate in each of the four feeding periods.…”

Section: Feed Factorsmentioning

confidence: 65%

Review: Milking robot utilization, a successful precision livestock farming evolution

John

Clark

Freeman

et al. 2016

animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automatic milking systems (AMS), one of the earliest precision livestock farming developments, have revolutionized dairy farming around the world. While robots control the milking process, there have also been numerous changes to how the whole farm system is managed. Milking is no longer performed in defined sessions; rather, the cow can now choose when to be milked in AMS, allowing milking to be distributed throughout a 24 h period. Despite this ability, there has been little attention given to milking robot utilization across 24 h. In order to formulate relevant research questions and improve farm AMS management there is a need to determine the current knowledge gaps regarding the distribution of robot utilization. Feed, animal and management factors and their interplay on levels of milking robot utilization across 24 h for both indoor and pasture-based systems are here reviewed. The impact of the timing, type and quantity of feed offered and their interaction with the distance of feed from the parlour; herd social dynamics, climate and various other management factors on robot utilization through 24 h are provided. This novel review draws together both the opportunities and challenges that exist for farm management to use these factors to improved system efficiency and those that exist for further research.Keywords: automatic milking system, feeding behaviour, robot idle time, grazing, PLF (precision livestock farming) ImplicationsMilking robots have revolutionized the dairy industry with farmers achieving high levels of robot utilization obtaining greater returns on asset. The first installations were typically associated with 'indoor' systems and nearby grazing fields. Nowadays there is an increasing interest regarding the integration of robots into larger scale pasture-based dairy systems. This review explores the published literature on both 'indoor' and 'pasture-based' dairy systems in relation to milking robot utilization. IntroductionRobotic milking systems have revolutionized the dairy industry. The first dairy cow was milked, more or less without traditional human involvement, in 1986 with a robotic milking box at the experimental farm de Waiboerhoeve, Lelystad, the Netherlands by Gascoigne Melotte, following the US Patent 4010714A (Notsuki and Ueno, 1977). A system from the company Prolion was installed on the experimental farm IMAG-DLO Duiven, the Netherlands, in 1990 and on a commercial dairy in 1992. More institutes and companies became active in the development of robotic milking systems in the nineties as described by Kuipers and Rossing (1996). Since that time until 2011, automatic milking systems (AMS) have been installed on over 10 000 farms worldwide (de Koning, 2011). These installations are predominantly for 'indoor' systems where cows are generally 'housed' in barns and offered a partial mixed ration (PMR) in the feeding alley and grain-based concentrate supplement either in the milking unit or in a nearby concentrate self-feeder. While there have been numerous AMS installations in indoo...

show abstract

Section: Feed Factorsmentioning

confidence: 65%

Review: Milking robot utilization, a successful precision livestock farming evolution

John

Clark

Freeman

et al. 2016

animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reduced sorting is considered beneficial because it diminishes diurnal variation of nutrient intake (DeVries et al, 2005). The results of this experiment suggest that a ration with a particle size distribution similar to the Medium ration minimizes sorting activity and does not compromise DMI.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Effects of particle size and moisture levels in mixed rations on the feeding behavior of dairy heifers

Khan

Bach

Castells

et al. 2014

Animal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments on replacement heifers (175 ± 12 days of age) assessed the effects of forage particle length and moisture on feeding behavior. Both experiments used a replicated 3 × 3 Latin square design, with nine heifers per replication and three periods of 9 days each. Each group of nine heifers was housed in one pen with access to three electronic feed bins. In Experiment 1, hay chopped at different lengths was incorporated into three total mixed rations (TMR) all having the same ingredient and nutrient composition but differing in the percentage of long particles (>19 mm): 60% (Short), 64% (Medium) and 72% (Long). In Experiment 2, heifers were fed a TMR with the same ingredient and nutrient composition but differing in moisture content: 65% DM (Dry), 50% DM (Moderate), and 35% DM (Wet). In both experiments, feeding behavior during the last 5 days of each period was analyzed using a mixed model accounting for the fixed effects of treatment and period, and the random effects of replication and animal. In Experiment 1, dry matter intake (DMI) and eating rate (DMI/min) tended to increase, whereas daily eating time decreased as the feed particle size decreased. Heifers fed the Long diet selected in favor of long particles (>19 mm) and against Short (1.18 to 8 mm) and fine (<1.18 mm) particles; heifers fed the Short diet selected against long particles and in favor of short and fine particles. Heifers fed the Medium diet showed a preference for medium particles with no preference for the other particle sizes. In Experiment 2, heifers fed the Dry diet tended to consume more feed than those fed the Moderate and Wet diets, with no differences in feeding behavior or sorting activity. In conclusion the Medium diet minimized sorting without reducing eating rates and intake, and adding water to TMR to achieve a dry matter less than 65% tended to decrease DMI without reducing sorting.Keywords: feeding management, dietary preference, TMR, forage, Holstein ImplicationsThis study examined how forage particle length and the moisture content of the total mixed ration (TMR) affected feed consumption and feed sorting by dairy heifers. A TMR with medium particle size (where 65% of the particles >19 mm and 6% of particles <1.18 mm) minimized feed sorting. Adding water to the diet such that dry matter was lower than 65% (DM ≤ 35%) tended to decrease consumption but did not reduce sorting of the TMR. Results of this study will help improve feeding management of heifers raised on high forage diets. IntroductionPhysical attributes of feeds can affect feeding behavior of replacement heifers. Heifers are fed in a variety of ways in the months after weaning; for example, some farms feed concentrate and forage separately, other top-dress forage with concentrates and other feed a total mixed ration (TMR). Feeding methods are intended to meet production goals and minimize health disorders, competition and hunger (Bach and Ahedo, 2008). Feeding a TMR has some advantages over providing concentrate and forage separately. For example, TMR redu...

show abstract

“…The self-feed treatment differed from the other treatments with regard to the feed delivery system. It is possible that reduced competition at the feed face (O'Driscoll et al, 2008c) could have improved access to feed for all cows in this treatment (DeVries et al, 2005), and thus helped to maximise performance post partum. However, further work is necessary to investigate whether this feeding strategy could provide benefits for cow production performance in general.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of dry cow winter management system on feed intake, performance and estimated energy demand

O’Driscoll

Hanlon

Buckley

et al. 2010

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research compared three wood-chip out-wintering pad (OWP; an unsheltered OWP; a sheltered OWP (both with a concrete feed apron); and an unsheltered OWP with silage provided directly on top of the wood-chip bedding (self-feed OWP)) designs and cubicle housing with regard to dairy cow performance during the pre-partum period, and for 8 weeks post partum. Data were compared during 2 years. In Year 1, the unsheltered (space allowance 5 12 m 2 per cow) and sheltered (6 m 2 per cow) OWPs were compared with cubicle housing (n 5 49 cows per treatment). In Year 2, all three OWP designs (12 m 2 per cow) were compared with cubicle housing (n 5 24 cows per treatment, split into two replicates). Animals were dried off and assigned to treatment in the autumn, and remained there until calving in spring. Subsequently, they were managed at pasture during lactation. Outcome measures for analysis during the pre-partum period were feed intake, live weight, body condition score (BCS), heat production and heat loss, and post-partum were live weight, BCS, milk yield and milk composition. In Year 1, all cows had a similar live weight, but both pre-partum and at calving cows on the unsheltered OWP had a lower BCS than cows in cubicles ( P , 0.05). However, in Year 2, there were no differences in either live weight or BCS. In Year 1, cows in the unsheltered OWP produced less heat than in cubicles ( P , 0.05), but in Year 2, there was no treatment effect. In both years, cows in unsheltered OWPs lost more heat than cows in the sheltered OWP ( P , 0.001). Treatment had no effect on milk composition either year. However, in Year 2, cows in the self-feed OWP had higher milk yields than the other treatments ( P , 0.05). The lower BCS and heat production values in unsheltered treatments during Year 1 were probably because of higher rainfall and wind-speed values of that year. However, in both years, live weight in all treatments increased pre partum, and BCS did not decrease, indicating that unsheltered cows did not need to mobilise body reserves. Thus, OWPs could be a suitable pre-partum alternative to cubicle housing for dry dairy cows with regard to some aspects of dairy cow productive performance. However, further research should be carried out to investigate longer-term effects.

show abstract

Frequency of Feed Delivery Affects the Behavior of Lactating Dairy Cows

Cited by 206 publications

References 24 publications

Review: Milking robot utilization, a successful precision livestock farming evolution

Review: Milking robot utilization, a successful precision livestock farming evolution

Effects of particle size and moisture levels in mixed rations on the feeding behavior of dairy heifers

The effect of dry cow winter management system on feed intake, performance and estimated energy demand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About