Effect of pen size, group size, and stocking density on activity in freestall-housed dairy cows

Telezhenko, E.; Keyserlingk, M.A.G. von; Talebi, Ali; Weary, Daniel M.

doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4953

Cited by 54 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most studies have focused on overstocking (Falk et al, 2012;Fregonesi et al, 2007;Hill et al, 2009;Krawczel et al, 2008Krawczel et al, , 2012. In agreement with the present study, Telezhenko et al (2012) found a similar small increase in lying with understocking. Epidemiological studies, with both under-and overstocked farms included, have often not identified stocking density as an important risk factor for total lying time (Charlton et al, 2014;Ito et al, 2014;Lombard et al, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of under- and overstocking freestalls on dairy cattle behaviour

Winckler

Tucker

Weary

2015

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…Thirty-nine percent of US freestall farms understock (USDA, 2010) and recent research suggests that this practice could increase lying times beyond those seen when 1 stall is offered for every cow (Telezhenko et al, 2012). However, little is known about the other effects of this practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Effects of under- and overstocking freestalls on dairy cattle behaviour

Winckler

Tucker

Weary

2015

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Frequency of aggression at the feed trough was not affected by treatment, which may be attributed to allowing each calf an ample feeder space allowance by portioning the trough. Results of the present study agree with those of Telezhenko et al (2012), who found that number of displacements at the feed bunk was not affected by group size (6 vs. 12 calves per group). Kundo et al (1989) reported that sufficient space was of greater importance than group size to reduce the occurrence of agonistic behavior in calves.…”

Section: Effect Of Group Size On Behaviorsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Faerevik, 2003), or may be attributed to increased usable space in pens of these groups (Chua et al, 2002). Telezhenko et al (2012) found that group size had no effect on movement of cows. They concluded that pen size may be more important than density or group size because group-housed dairy cows were able to share the space in the pen, and even with the same number of cows per square meter, larger pens provided more free space for cows to move about.…”

Section: Effect Of Group Size On Behaviormentioning

confidence: 94%

Effect of group size on behavior, health, production, and welfare of veal calves1,2

Abdelfattah

Schutz

Lay

et al. 2013

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of group size on behavior, growth, health, and welfare of veal calves. Holstein-Friesian bull calves (n=168; 44±3 d of age) were assigned randomly to 1 of 3 treatments of group housing with 2, 4, or 8 calves per pen. The pens used for housing were 3 by 1.20 m (2 calves per pen), 3 by 2.40 m (4 calves per pen), and 3 by 4.80 m (8 calves per pen), supplying a total pen space allowance of 1.82 m2/calf, regardless of pen size. Behavior was recorded from video data throughout the day from 0700 to 1900 h during a single day each month for 5 mo using scan sampling every 5 min within 30-min observation sessions. On d 0, 1, 5, 14, 42, and 70 after grouping, continuous focal sampling around feeding time (30-min intervals before, during, and after feeding) focused on oral and aggressive behaviors. Calves housed in large groups (4 or 8 calves per pen) showed more (P≤0.001) conspecific contact, walking, and standing and less (P<0.001) manipulation of objects, self-licking, and lying when compared to calves housed in small groups (2 calves per pen). Group size had no effect on play behavior (P=0.11) throughout the experiment. During feeding times group size had no (P≥0.07) effect on any behavioral patterns except for duration of conspecific contact (P<0.01). Aggression at feeding time was not (P>0.23) affected by treatment. Group size treatments were similar for hip height change (P=0.41) and heart girth change (P=0.18) over the duration of the experiment; however, both hip height and heart girth increased (P=0.001) with calf age. During mo 1, calves in groups of 8 or 4 coughed more than calves in groups of 2 whereas calves in groups of 8 coughed more than calves in groups of 4 or 2 in mo 2 (treatment×month, P=0.03). Furthermore, during mo 4, calves in groups of 8 had less nasal discharge than calves in groups of 2 or 4 (treatment×month, P=0.02). Ocular discharge, ears, and fecal scores did not differ (P≥0.05) among treatments. Plasma cortisol was not (P≥0.37) affected by group size. The number of veal calves in a group when given the same space did not affect production and physiological indicators of welfare but had a transient effect on health during the 5-mo finishing period. If increased play and social contact and decreased aggression are considered as primary indicators of welfare, group size did not alter calf welfare.

show abstract

“…Krawczel et al (2012) reported lying time was reduced for stocking densities of 131 and 142% compared with 100 or 113%. Late-lactation cows stocked at 100% of stalls spent less time lying down compared with cows stocked at 25% of stalls (Telezhenko et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of stocking density on social, feeding, and lying behavior of prepartum dairy animals

Lobeck-Luchterhand

Silva

Chebel

et al. 2015

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of prepartum stocking density on social, lying, and feeding behavior of dairy animals and to investigate the relationship between social rank and stocking density. In total, 756 Jersey animals were enrolled in the study approximately 4 wk before expected calving date. This study used 8 experimental units (4 replicates × 2 pens/treatment per replicate), and at each replicate, one pen each of nulliparous and parous (primiparous and multiparous) animals per treatment was enrolled. The 2 treatments were 80% stocking density (80D, 38 animals per pen; each pen with 48 headlocks and 44 stalls) and 100% stocking density (100D, 48 animals per pen). Parous animals were housed separately from nulliparous animals. Animals at 254±3d of gestation were balanced for parity (parous vs. nulliparous) and projected 305-d mature-equivalent milk yield (only parous animals) and randomly assigned to either 80D or 100D. Displacements from the feed bunk were measured for 3h after fresh feed delivery on d 2, 5, and 7 of each week. Feeding behavior was measured for 24-h periods (using 10-min video scan sampling) on d 2, 5, and 7 on wk 1 of every replicate and d 2 and 5 for the following 4 wk. A displacement index (proportion of successful displacements from the feed bunk relative to all displacements the animal was involved in) was calculated for each animal and used to categorize animals into ranking categories of high, middle, and low. Seventy nulliparous and 64 parous focal animals in the 80D treatment and 89 nulliparous and 74 parous focal animals in the 100D were used to describe lying behavior (measured with data loggers). Animals housed at 80D had fewer daily displacements from the feed bunk than those housed at 100D (15.2±1.0 vs. 21.3±1.0 per day). Daily feeding times differed between nulliparous and parous animals at the 2 stocking densities. Nulliparous 80D animals spent 12.4±5.0 fewer minutes per day feeding than nulliparous 100D animals, whereas 100D parous animals tended to spend 7.6±4.5 fewer minutes per day feeding than 80D parous animals. The 2 treatments were not different in the number of lying bouts or lying-bout duration; lying time was longer for 100D on d -33, -29, and -26 and shorter on d -7, -5, and 0 than 80D. The interaction between treatment, parity, and social rank was associated with lying and feeding times. In summary, animals in the 80D treatment had a lower number of displacements from the feed bunk and spent more time lying down near parturition than 100D animals, and 80D nulliparous animals had reduced daily feeding time compared with 100D nulliparous animals. Although these results showed some potential behavior benefits of a prepartum stocking density of 80% compared with 100%, observed changes were small. However, greater stocking density cannot be recommended; more research is needed to evaluate the effects of stocking densities greater than 100% and with other breeds of cattle besides Jersey.

show abstract

Effect of pen size, group size, and stocking density on activity in freestall-housed dairy cows

Cited by 54 publications

References 24 publications

Effects of under- and overstocking freestalls on dairy cattle behaviour

Effects of under- and overstocking freestalls on dairy cattle behaviour

Effect of group size on behavior, health, production, and welfare of veal calves1,2

Effect of stocking density on social, feeding, and lying behavior of prepartum dairy animals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About