Modification in housing system affects the behavior and welfare of dairy Jersey crossbred cows in different seasons

Sahu, Dharma; Mandal, D. K.; Dar, Aashaq Hussain; Podder, Monanki; Gupta, A.

doi:10.1080/09291016.2019.1619130

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been concluded in previous reports that softness of flooring in cow shed substantially increases the time spent lying down (Wechsler et al 2000, Haley et al 2001, Drissler et al 2005, Rushen et al 2007. In a recent study, Sahu et al (2019) also found similar results with respect to sand bed floor as found in our study.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Effect of flooring system on maintenance behaviours of cows

Upadhyay

Singh

Gaur

et al. 2021

Indian J of Anim Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate the effect of floor on maintenance behaviours of cow in loose housing system, four groups, viz. T0 (concrete in covered and brick-paved in open area), T1 (concrete in covered and sand bed in open), T2 (rubber mat in covered and sand bed in open) and T3 (rubber mat in covered and brick-paved in open) were studied. Feeding was the major activity (39â€“44%) of day, with significant difference between groups. In covered area, lying and standing rumination, while in open area idling, were significantly different between groups during day. During night lying-rumination was major activity (62â€“69%). Night idling, standing-rumination, lying and lying-rumination behaviour, were significantly different between groups. Overall most of the time in each group was devoted to lying-rumination (45â€“53%) and feeding (18â€“21%). Area wise, open area was more occupied and posture wise sitting posture dominated in all the groups. Overall feeding, idling and standing-rumination in open, lying-rumination (in open or covered area), sleeping, total standing time and total sitting time were significantly different between groups. Feeding time showed positive trend in rubber matted floor (T2, T3). More lying-rumination and sleeping time was seen in rubber matted covered area. Sand bedding in open area reduced the standing and standingrumination activity, while promoting the sitting/lying time. Rubber matting in covered area and sand bedding in open area, was found favourable for maintenance behaviour of dairy cows.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Effect of flooring system on maintenance behaviours of cows

Upadhyay

Singh

Gaur

et al. 2021

Indian J of Anim Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The choice of bedding material can also affect the ability of the animal to express natural behaviour, which also impacts animal health and production (Calamari et al, 2009). Compared to cows housed on other bedding materials, cows housed on sand have longer lying times (Sahu et al, 2021) in both summer and winter seasons. Increased lying time has several positive effects on milk production of dairy cows by reducing stress.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of loose house dairy cattle barn modification on udder health and production performance of Jersey crossbred cows in tropical lower Gangetic plains

Sahu

Mandal

Podder

2022

Journal of Dairy Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results reported in this research communication aimed to reduce the housing discomfort and mastitis incidence of lactating Jersey crossbred cows through modifications to the roof and floor of loose housing stalls. The experiment was conducted on twenty Jersey crossbred cows and they were distributed equally into two different types of housing: (i) existing shed/control group (T0) – concrete floor and asbestos roof and (ii) modified shed/treatment group (T1)- sand flooring (4–6 inch deep; 38% of total area) and a thatch ceiling (4″ thick) under an asbestos roof. Under-roof surface temperature differed significantly (P < 0.01) between the two sheds during both the winter season but a greater difference was observed in the summer (modified sheds were 5–9 °C cooler than the control shed during peak hours (10 am to 3 pm) of the day. The milk yield (kg/d) in both seasons was significantly higher in the treatment group than in the control group (P < 0.01). The overall milk fat and total solid percentage were significantly higher in the treatment than the control group (P < 0.01) but solids not fat (SNF) did not show any difference between the groups. The percentage of milk fat did not differ significantly between the seasons, while the SNF and total solids were also significantly higher in the winter than the summer season (P < 0.01). There was a significantly lower subclinical mastitis test score (MCMT grade: P < 0.05) in the treatment group than in the control group. In the treatment group, the somatic cell count (SCC) was numerically but non-significantly less than in the control group. No differences in MCMT and SCC were observed between seasons (P > 0.05). It was concluded that the provision of sand as stall flooring and an under-roof thatch ceiling as a heat insulator was significantly associated with increased milk yield, milk composition and possibly, lower somatic cell count in dairy Jersey crossbred cows. However, since the study was limited to a single replicate of each housing system with analysis done at individual cow level, further work is needed to confirm these conclusions.

show abstract

“…In both studies, a higher lying time occurred in the more favourable conditions (large pens and deeper bedding), thus confirming the validity of this positive indicator to assess cow comfort during resting. The time spent lying was also observed to increase in cows, sheep, and in dairy calves provided with a more insulating substrate (e.g., sand bed vs concrete floor in cows [30]; straw bed rather than concrete or slatted flooring in shorn ewes [35]; sawdust rather than river stones in calves [29]), demonstrating lying time to be a good positive indicator for the evaluation of bedding quality and of thermal comfort. Another example that supports the validity of lying time for the evaluation of cows’ comfort in relation to the environment is provided by [31], who observed an increase of the time spent lying on more comfortable lying substrates (i.e., rubber mats vs concrete or sand).…”

Section: Promising Indicators In the Five Domainsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Can We Assess Positive Welfare in Ruminants?

Mattiello

Battini

Rosa

et al. 2019

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple SummaryThe concern for better farm animal welfare has been greatly increasing among scientists, veterinarians, farmers, consumers, and the general public over many years. As a consequence, several indicators have been developed to assess animal welfare, and several specific protocols have been proposed for welfare evaluation. Most of the indicators developed so far focus on the negative aspects of animal welfare (e.g., lameness, lesions, diseases, presence of abnormal behaviours, high levels of stress hormones, and many more). However, the lack of negative welfare conditions does not necessarily mean that animals are in good welfare and have a good quality of life. To guarantee high welfare standards, animals should experience positive conditions that allow them to live a life that is really worth living. We reviewed the existing indicators of positive welfare for farmed ruminants and identified some gaps that still require work, especially in the domains of Nutrition and Health, and the need for further refinement of some of the existing indicators.AbstractUntil now, most research has focused on the development of indicators of negative welfare, and relatively few studies provide information on valid, reliable, and feasible indicators addressing positive aspects of animal welfare. However, a lack of suffering does not guarantee that animals are experiencing a positive welfare state. The aim of the present review is to identify promising valid and reliable animal-based indicators for the assessment of positive welfare that might be included in welfare assessment protocols for ruminants, and to discuss them in the light of the five domains model, highlighting possible gaps to be filled by future research. Based on the existing literature in the main databases, each indicator was evaluated in terms of its validity, reliability, and on-farm feasibility. Some valid indicators were identified, but a lot of the validity evidence is based on their absence when a negative situation is present; furthermore, only a few indicators are available in the domains of Nutrition and Health. Reliability has been seldom addressed. On-farm feasibility could be increased by developing specific sampling strategies and/or relying on the use of video- or automatic-recording devices. In conclusion, several indicators are potentially available (e.g., synchronisation of lying and feeding, coat or fleece condition, qualitative behaviour assessment), but further research is required.

show abstract

Modification in housing system affects the behavior and welfare of dairy Jersey crossbred cows in different seasons

Cited by 7 publications

References 24 publications

Effect of flooring system on maintenance behaviours of cows

Effect of flooring system on maintenance behaviours of cows

Effect of loose house dairy cattle barn modification on udder health and production performance of Jersey crossbred cows in tropical lower Gangetic plains

How Can We Assess Positive Welfare in Ruminants?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About