Effect of stocking density on the short-term behavioural responses of dairy cows

Hill, Christopher T.; Krawczel, P.D.; Dann, H.M.; Ballard, C.S.; Hovey, Russell C.; Falls, William A.; Grant, Richard

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.12.012

Cited by 38 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Experimental studies of freestall availability report that lying time is always reduced when fewer stalls are provided. 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.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…Cows spend less time lying down (Fregonesi et al, 2007;Hill et al, 2009;Krawczel et al, 2008Krawczel et al, , 2012 and less time standing partially in the stall (Hill et al, 2009;Lombard et al, 2010) when fewer freestalls are available. These changes in time budgets, particularly lying time, are robust; they are apparent regardless of the method used to experimentally overstocking freestalls, by either blocking stalls or adding new individuals to the group (Krawczel et al, 2012) or the method used to record stall usage, either through continuous monitoring over 24-h periods (Fregonesi et al, 2007;Hill et al, 2009;Krawczel et al, 2012) (Krawczel et al, 2008;Ito et al, 2009). However, lying time is not consistently affected by stocking density in on-farm research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…DeVries et al (2004 reported reduced aggressive interactions and increased feeding activity after fresh feed delivery when feed bunk space was increased from 0.5 to 1.0 m per cow. Hill et al (2009) did not notice an increase in displacements from the feed bunk with 4 stocking densities ranging from 100 to 142%. They maintained pen size, but blocked access to stalls and headlocks to achieve the desired stocking density.…”

mentioning

confidence: 65%

“…These results could indicate that cows normally compete and gain access to the stalls when stocked at higher densities, but near parturition when lying times normally are reduced, under stocking is protective and allows cows to maintain lying time for a longer period. Hill et al (2009) reported as pen stocking density (headlocks and stalls) of a mixed pen of multiparous and primiparous cows increased from 100 up to 142%, the percentage of cows and time spent lying decreased. Similarly, Fregonesi et al (2007) reported lying time was reduced by 2 h/d when stocking density of stalls was increased from 100 to 150%.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

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

“…However, the social environment in large-scale dairy herds of hundreds of animals is fragile and demanding: It is well documented that husbandry routines, namely regrouping, large group-size, and high stocking density, lead to an increase of agonistic interactions combined with a decrease in feeding and lying time (Raussi et al, 2005;DeVries and von Keyserlingk, 2006;Huzzey et al, 2006;Gupta et al, 2008;von Keyserlingk et al, 2008;Hill et al, 2009), have effects on fertility (Dobson et al, 2001), weight gain and health in calves (Pedersen et al, 2009), and productivity (Arave and Albright, 1976;Brakel and Leis, 1976;von Keyserlingk et al, 2008). On the other hand, results of regrouping experiments comparing single versus pair-or groupwise integration into a herd provide evidence that the presence of familiar peers positively influences behaviour and helps to alleviate stress (Bøe and Faerevik, 2003;for calves: Faerevik et al, 2007;O'Connell et al, 2008;Gygax et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%