Short communication: lying behavior of lactating dairy cows is influenced by lameness especially around feeding time.

Lameness is considered one of the most common welfare and productive problems in dairy cattle. The objective of this study was to evaluate differences in lying behavior between moderately lame and nonlame lactating cows under commercial conditions. Data were collected from 10 free-stall commercial herds, which were feeding on exactly the same ration once daily. All lactating cows were scored for lameness according to a 1 to 5 locomotion scoring system. Only cows with a lameness score between 1 and 4 were considered in the study. In each herd, between 10 and 15 lame cows (scored as 3 or 4) were chosen, and for each lame cow, a nonlame cow (scored as 1) within the same parity and similar days in milk was also selected. Pendant data loggers were then placed on the right hind leg of each cow for 10 d to record lying behavior at 1-min intervals. In addition, the time of feed delivery was recorded in each herd on a daily basis. Total daily lying time, daily number of lying bouts, lying bout duration, laterality (side of recumbence), and lying behavior around feed delivery time were evaluated using a mixed-effects model that accounted for the fixed effects of lameness, days in milk, parity, and the interaction between parity and lameness, plus the random effects of herd. Total daily lying time (721±24.2 min/d) tended to increase with days in milk, but it was not affected by lameness or parity. Likewise, no differences were found in the number of lying bouts (9.6±0.49/d) or laterality (47±2.6% of time lying on the right side). However, the mean bout duration was longer in lame (89.3±3.89 min) compared with nonlame (80.7±3.90 min) cows. It is interesting that lame cows stood up 13 min later than nonlame cows relative to the time when the ration was delivered. In addition, lame cows lay down 19 min earlier than nonlame ones after the feed was delivered, which implies that nonlame cows spent more time standing, and probably eating, than did lame cows. It was concluded that lame cows have longer lying bouts than nonlame animals, and that lying behavior around feed delivery time may be an effective proxy to identify moderately lame cows.

[1]  D C J Main,et al.  Assessment of lameness prevalence and associated risk factors in dairy herds in England and Wales. , 2010, Journal of dairy science.

[2]  J. Rushen,et al.  Measures of weight distribution of dairy cows to detect lameness and the presence of hoof lesions. , 2010, Journal of dairy science.

[3]  Jeffrey Rushen,et al.  Effect of lameness on dairy cows' visits to automatic milking systems , 2008 .

[4]  M. Endres,et al.  Prevalence of lameness in high-producing holstein cows housed in freestall barns in Minnesota. , 2006, Journal of dairy science.

[5]  C. Phillips,et al.  Laterality in bovine behavior in an extensive partially suckled herd and an intensive dairy herd. , 2003, Journal of Dairy Science.

[6]  D. Weary,et al.  Laterality of lying behaviour in dairy cattle , 2009 .

[7]  A. Bach,et al.  Associations between lameness and production, feeding and milking attendance of Holstein cows milked with an automatic milking system , 2006, Journal of Dairy Research.

[8]  H. Erb,et al.  Visual locomotion scoring in the first seventy days in milk: impact on pregnancy and survival. , 2007, Journal of dairy science.

[9]  L. Green,et al.  Associations between lesion-specific lameness and the milk yield of 1,635 dairy cows from seven herds in the Xth region of Chile and implications for management of lame dairy cows worldwide , 2010, Animal Welfare.

[10]  A. Bach,et al.  Associations between nondietary factors and dairy herd performance. , 2008, Journal of dairy science.

[11]  D M Weary,et al.  Lying behavior as an indicator of lameness in dairy cows. , 2010, Journal of dairy science.

[12]  R. Esslemont,et al.  The costs of production diseases in dairy herds in England. , 1997, Veterinary journal.

[13]  C. Winckler,et al.  Evaluation of data loggers, sampling intervals, and editing techniques for measuring the lying behavior of dairy cattle. , 2010, Journal of Dairy Science.

[14]  A. Lefcourt,et al.  Comparison of models to identify lame cows based on gait and lesion scores, and limb movement variables. , 2006, Journal of dairy science.

[15]  N. Cook,et al.  Monitoring indices of cow comfort in free-stall-housed dairy herds. , 2005, Journal of dairy science.

[16]  L. Green,et al.  Assessment of the welfare of dairy caftle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records , 2003, Veterinary Record.

[17]  J. Amory,et al.  The effect of lameness on lying behaviour of zero grazed Holstein dairy cattle , 2011 .

[18]  D M Weary,et al.  Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle--key concepts and the role of science. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[19]  D. Sprecher,et al.  A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. , 1997, Theriogenology.

[20]  D. Broom,et al.  The Effects of Lameness on Social and Individual Behavior of Dairy Cows , 2002 .

[21]  M. Coffey,et al.  Changes in feeding behavior as possible indicators for the automatic monitoring of health disorders in dairy cows. , 2008, Journal of dairy science.

[22]  N. Cook,et al.  Comfort zone-design free stalls: do they influence the stall use behavior of lame cows? , 2008, Journal of dairy science.