Where Does the Time Go Where Does the Time Go Foundational research - PDF document

Where Does the Time Go Where Does the Time Go Foundational research in management and cow behavior … Current Research on Current Research on … by Dr. Carl Polan Time Budget Behaviors Time Budget Behaviors and Cow Comfort and Cow Comfort  Social Rank, Feeding Behavior, and Free Stall Utilization by Dairy Cattle  Free Stall and Feed Bunk Requirements Relative Rick Grant Rick Grant to Behavior, Production and Individual Feed Intake in Dairy Cows W. H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute W. H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute  Milk Production Response to Shifting Cows Chazy, NY , NY Chazy Between Intra-herd Groups  Change in Adrenal Response from Free Stall Competition Environment, Time Budget Behaviors, and Cow Performance Physical Environment Social Environment stalls, feed area, grouping floors, ventilation, stocking density THI competition Time Budgeting & Natural Behaviors Will this management Resting Feeding Ruminating environment affect response to diet? Productivity and Health $$$ Non-dietary factors and herd Stalls per cow and milk production in performance (Bach et al., 2008) 47 herds fed same TMR (Bach et al., 2008)  47 herds with similar genetics were fed same TMR  Milk yield varied by ±29 lb/d  Mean milk yield=65 lb/d  Non-dietary factors accounted for 56% of variation in milk yield Milk yield = 20.4 +  Age at first calving 7.5 x stall/cow  Feeding for refusals (64.1 vs 60.6 lb/d) R 2 =0.32  Feed push-ups (63.7 vs 55 lb/d)  Stalls per cow 1

Typical time budget of dairy Common ways to disturb time cow (free-stall environment) budget on-farm …  Excessive time outside pen  5.0 h/d eating  Mixing of primi- and multiparous cows  12-14 h/d lying (resting)  >1 h/d in headlocks, esp. fresh cows  2.0-3.0 h/d standing, walking,  Short pen stays during transition; grooming, agonistic, idling regrouping – social turmoil  0.5 h/d drinking  Lack of exercise  20.5 to 21.5 h/d total needed  Uncomfortable stalls – tie or free stalls  2.5 to 3.5 h “milking” = 24 h/d  Inadequate feed availability  Overcrowding, excessive competition Mattress Sand stalls Lame cows Healthy cows  Inadequate heat stress abatement Time away from pen and cow response: Do time budgets Do time budgets Time Budget Behaviors: matter? Primi- versus Multiparous Cows matter?  Numerous natural behavioral differences  3 h/d versus 6 h/d outside pen  Heifers take smaller bites, eat more  Adjusted pen size versus parlor capacity slowly, spend more time feeding  Mixed primi- and multiparous cows  Heifers typically less dominant, more  100% stocking density easily displaced from manger, stalls, and  Comparing 3 versus 6 h/d: water  Cows gained 2.6 h/d rest, 5.0 lb/d milk  Heifers avoid stalls previously occupied by  First-calf heifers gained 4.1 h/d rest, 7.9 dominant cows and ruminate less lb/d milk  Neophobia – fear of new environment  Lasts ~10-14 days (Matzke, 2003) Question: Which is more Effect of competition with older important - eating or resting? cows on first-calf heifers . . .  Environments similar to ~100% stocking density:  DMI reduced by 10%  Resting reduced by 20%  Milk reduced by 9% (Kongaard and Krohn, 1980)  Greater loss of BW by 30 DIM  Reduced FCM/DMI by 30 DIM (Bach et al., 2006)  Less drinking, rumination, and milk fat % (Bach et al., 2007) 2

Cows have strong Lying deprivation and cow behavioral need to rest … welfare, stress level  Cows sacrifice feeding  Increased cortisol response to make up lost  Reduced Growth Hormone, reduced resting milk yield (Munksgaard and Simonsen, 1996)  Cows sacrifice 1 minute of  Less blood flow to mammary gland and eating for every 3.5 minutes gravid uterine horn of lost rest  Cows spend more time  Reduced feeding time, reduced waiting in alleys to lie rumination, increased standing down than eating when  Predisposes cows to sole hemorrhages, overstocked lameness  Negative effects of short Resting: ~12 h/d periods of deprivation are “Vitamin R” cumulative Stall surface, resting, and Relationship between resting and milk yield (Calamari et al., 2009) milk yield (Miner Institute data base) 34  Increased Milk yield (kg/d) 32 resting time with 30 greater DIM, milk Milk yield (lb/d) 28 yield (Bach et al., 110 Straw 26 2010) Sand 100 24 Rubber mat 22 90 Mattress 20 ~3.7 lb/d -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 80 more milk for each extra Week of study 70 y = 49.2 + 3.7 x hour  Reduction in milk during last 3 wk r 2 = 0.31 60  11.6 lb/d actual 7 10 13 17  3.2 h/d less resting time predicts ~11.8 lb/d Resting time (h) less milk (3.2 h/d x 3.7 lb) (Grant, 2005) Make smart bedding What stimulates feeding decisions (Tucker et al., 2009) behavior?  +3 min/d lying time for each  Feed accessibility & periods of empty bunks additional 2 lb sawdust shavings  Feed push-up  More important during the day rather than at night (DeVries et al., 2005)  +12 min/d lying time for each  Feeding frequency, delivery of fresh feed additional 2 lb straw  Biggest driver of feeding behavior is  +12 min/d lying time for each delivery of fresh feed (DeVries et al., 2003; 2005) additional 1/2 inch of sand 3

Cows naturally have Ruminating Behavior and aggressive feeding drive … Management Environment  Mixed parity groups  Cows willingly exert reduce rumination by >500-lb pressure ~16% against feed barrier  Overcrowding reduces while eating rumination by 10-20%  225 lb causes tissue  Excessive head-lock time damage reduces rumination by  Defines “aggressive ~14% feeding drive”  Uncomfortable resting surfaces reduce  Tie and free stalls rumination by up to 15%  Heat stress reduces (Hansen and Pallesen, 1999) rumination up to 22% Plasma glucocorticoid response to ACTH increases with stall overstocking (Friend et al., 1979) .50 stalls/cow .37 stalls/cow Stocking Density and Stocking Density and Behavioral Responses Behavioral Responses Stocking Density and Fecal cortisol metabolites and Feeding Behavior stocking density (Krawczel et al., 2010)  As stocking density increases: 28 28 26 26  Greater aggression and displacements 24 24  Time of eating shifted (Huzzey et al., 2006) 11-Oxoaetiocholanolone, ng/g of dm manure 11-Oxoaetiocholanolone, ng/g of dm manure 22 22  Fewer meals 20 20  Eating rate increased 18 18  Greater potential for sorting 16 16  Largest effect on subordinate cows 14 14  Within limits, cows can adjust feeding 12 12 behavior in response to variable SR 10 10 100 100 113 113 131 131 142 142 Stocking Density, % Stocking Density, % 4

Stocking density and Bunk Space and DMI DMI (Friend et al., 1977) 40 Bunk length (in/cow) y = 5.5x + 18.0 35 R 2 = 0.05 30 DMI (kg/d) 20 16 12 8 4 25 20 Time at bunk, h 3.82 3.73 3.73 3.76 2.57* 15 10 Correlation of time 0.46 0.32 0.30 0.67* 0.71* 5 with social 0 dominance 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 % of time at bunk 21.5 26.9 34.6 51.9 70.6 Manger space (m/cow) DMI, lb/d 35.9 38.8 39.2 37.3 34.6  Weak short-term relationship between stocking density or manger space and DMI Stocking density and Stocking density and eating rate DMI by parity in mixed groups Dry matter intake (kg/d) Dry matter intake (kg/d) 29 29 160 Eating rate (g DM/min) y = -76.4x 2 + 79.2x + 4.5 y = -76.4x 2 + 79.2x + 4.5 27 27 140 R 2 = 0.82 R 2 = 0.82 MP MP 25 25 120 23 23 100 y = -90.9x 2 + 109.0x - 8.6 y = -90.9x 2 + 109.0x - 8.6 21 21 PP PP R 2 = 0.85 R 2 = 0.85 80 19 19 y = -80.9x + 134.5 60 17 17 R 2 = 0.43 40 15 15 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 Manger space (m/cow) Manger space (m/cow) Manger space (m/cow)  Eating rate increases with increased stocking  Interaction between parity and stocking density density, reduced feeding space  Component of future models Stocking density and Overstocking and Lying Time relative resting response (Fregonesi et al., 2007)  Free-stall stocking rates: 1.1 Exp 1 1  100, 109, 120, 133, or 150% Relative response Exp 2 0.9 Exp 3 Variable 100% 109% 120% 133% 150% 0.8 Exp 4 Exp 5 0.7 Lying, h 12.9 12.1 12.0 11.5 11.2 y = -0.003x + 1.30 Exp 6 0.6 R 2 = 0.59 Displacements, 0.7 0.9 1.6 2.1 1.9 Exp 7 0.5 n/5 h Exp 8 0.4 Latency to lie, 39 34 38 28 26 60 80 100 120 140 160 min Stocking density (%)  Overstocking creates more uniform use of stalls at expense of reduced lying for individual cows (Winkler et al., 2003; Fregonesi et al., 2007; Wierenga and Hopster, 1990; Matzke and Grant, 2002; Hill et al., 2009; Krawczel, 2008; 2009; 2010) 5