Effect of milking frequency on the behavior and productivity of lactating dairy cows

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of milking frequency on the behavioral patterns and productivity of lactating dairy cows. Twelve freestall-housed, lactating Holstein dairy cows (7 primiparous and 5 multiparous) were exposed to each of 2 treatments (over 21-d periods) in a replicated crossover design. Treatments were milking frequency of 2× /d (at 0600 and 1800 h) or 3× /d (at 0600, 1400, and 2200 h). Milk production, feeding, lying, and rumination behavior were monitored for each animal for the last 7d of each treatment period. Milk samples were collected for the last 3d of each period for milk component analysis. The results indicated that cows milked 3× /d produced 2.9 kg/d more milk than those milked 2× /d. Primiparous cows consumed 3.9 kg/d less dry matter (DM) than did multiparous cows. The extra time (14.6 min/d) required for milking 3× /d altered the distribution of cow behavioral activity throughout the day. Although this did not affect total daily lying or rumination time, we observed a tendency for cows milked 2× /d to spend less time (224.6 vs. 237.5 min/d) feeding and, thus, those cows tended to consume their feed at a faster rate (0.13 vs. 0.12 kg of DM/min) than cows milked 3× /d. For multiparous cows, the increase in feeding activity was facilitated through having longer (40.1 vs. 36.8 min/meal) and numerically larger meals (4.8 vs. 4.6 kg of DM/meal) when milked 3× /d. Alternatively, primiparous cows consumed smaller (2.9 vs. 3.2 kg of DM/meal) and more frequent meals (9.1 vs. 7.7 meals/d) throughout the day when milked 3× /d, resulting in a tendency for greater DM intake (24.7 vs. 23.6 kg/d) compared with primiparous cows milked 2× /d. These results indicate that under 3× /d milking schedules, primiparous cows will positively adjust their feeding behavior to achieve similar production increases as multiparous cows. In summary, milking 3× /d can be used to improve production; however, greater milking frequency elicits varying effects on the behavior of primiparous and multiparous cows, suggesting that grouping and management of cows based on parity may be beneficial.

Anaerobic digestion and milking frequency as mitigation strategies of the environmental burden in the milk production system

“…In comparison with the baseline scenario, the different milking scheme entailed: an increase of 15% of milk yield per year according with Erdman and Varner (1995) and Smith et al (2002); a decrease of percentages of fat (− 2.45%) and protein (−0.64%) of milk and an increase of heifers and calves due to a higher culling rate as reported by Smith et al (2002); an increase of farm electricity use for the milking system (+11.8%). Feed intake of milking cows was not modified in 3MS in comparison with baseline scenario as reported by De Peters et al (1985) and Barnes et al (1990) and, more recently by Andersen et al (2003) with an experiment with lactating cows in the first 16 weeks of lactation and by Hart et al (2013) in a cross over experiment in the middle of lactating period. Detailed inventory data for 3 M strategy are shown in Table 5.…”

Effet de la fréquence de traite sur la production laitière de la vache Zébu Peulh

“…Ce qui est très important pour les zones à rendement laitier toujours très faible dont l'objectif central est l'augmentation de la productivité des vaches locales plus adaptées aux conditions d'élevages et au climat. Cependant, l'ampleur de la réponse diminue quand le stade de lactation augmente (Hart et al, 2013). Cependant, il faudra aussi retenir que nonobstant le stade de lactation et la race de la vache, une bonne alimentation des animaux est une condition préalable à l'accroissement de la quantité journalière de lait produite en cas de multiplication de la fréquence de traite (Murney et al, 2015).…”

“…Cependant, il faudra aussi retenir que nonobstant le stade de lactation et la race de la vache, une bonne alimentation des animaux est une condition préalable à l'accroissement de la quantité journalière de lait produite en cas de multiplication de la fréquence de traite (Murney et al, 2015). Par ailleurs, des études effectuées sur des races à fort rendement laitier ont également observé une production plus élevée dû à l'augmentation de la fréquence de traite (Smith et al, 2002;Hart et al, 2013 ;Atashi, 2015). Les présents résultats sont applicables aux fermes de production traditionnelle car la multiplication de la traite est un moyen d'augmenter instantanément la production journalière ou même saisonnière sans investissements supplémentaires au niveau de la taille du troupeau sauf sur les trayeurs dont la rémunération sera couverte par la vente du lait obtenu.…”

Synchronization of Dairy Cows Does Not Limit the Behavioral Response to Treatment in Mixed Treatment Experimental Designs

“…The possibility that social facilitation could influence feeding patterns and limit the ability of heterogeneous treatment groups to stimulate behavioral responses was previously proposed (15). With the results of the current study and the known advantage of heterogeneous treatment experimental designs, whereby cows are exposed to both treatments under identical environmental conditions (15), it is appropriate to continue using heterogeneous experimental designs in future studies with predicted behavioral outcomes. Alternatively, homogenous treatment groups (where treatment is assigned at the cow level) should not be utilized because they potentially confound treatment with time and/or location and create more opportunity for systematic error.…”

“…Researchers often house cows on different treatments adjacent to each other (e.g., in tie-stall facilities) or individually assign cows to different treatments within a single group (e.g., in free-stall groups). In these situations, it is possible that the behavior of one animal, within a group or housed adjacently, can influence the behavior of those on the other treatment, especially when treatments are intended to stimulate different behavioral responses throughout the day (15). This could minimize the predicted behavioral response to treatments or increase variability in response, making it more difficult to detect differences between treatments and thus reduce the efficacy of such experimental designs.…”