How Do You Know if a Cow Is Lame Who Has a Swollen Hock

Animals (Basel). 2017 Nov; 7(11): 86.

The Consequence of Hock Injury Laterality and Lameness on Lying Behaviors and Lying Laterality in Holstein Dairy Cows

Received 2017 Sep 29; Accustomed 2017 Nov 13.

Abstruse

Simple Summary

Dairy cattle may feel discomfort in a myriad of ways throughout their life wheel, particularly when sustaining hock injuries or suboptimal locomotion. Lactating dairy cattle divide their lying time equally between left and right sides; however, discomfort experienced during pregnancy or post-obit cannulation can cause a shift in the normal lying laterality. The objective of this written report was to determine the effect of hock injuries and lameness on the lying behaviors of dairy cattle, particularly lying laterality. Lying laterality did not differ from the expected 50% (left side lying fourth dimension) in cattle with hock injuries, lameness, or both. The current results advise that lying laterality does not differ between varying levels of hock injury or lameness severity. Going forward, further research could determine if lying laterality shifts over the course of the brute developing a hock injury or lameness.

Abstruse

Lactating dairy cattle divide their lying equally between their left side and their right side. However, discomfort, such as pregnancy and cannulation, tin cause a cow to shift lying side preference. The objective of this study was to determine the upshot of lameness and hock injuries on lying behaviors, particularly lying laterality, of lactating dairy cows. Cows from iv commercial farms in eastern Croatia that had lying behavior data, health score data, and production records were used in the report. Health scores including hock injuries and locomotion were collected once per cow. Severely lame cows had greater daily lying time compared to sound cows and moderately lame cows. Overall, cows spent 51.3 ± 1.2% of their daily lying time on the left side. Maximum hock score, locomotion score, hock injury laterality, or parity did not result in lying laterality differing from fifty%.

Keywords: laterality, lying behavior, moo-cow, hock injury, lameness

1. Introduction

Reducing the prevalence of hock injuries and lameness is key in improving cow welfare due to the discomfort associated with these conditions and the overall high prevalence. Previous research has consistently reported substantial rates of hock injuries globally with rates ranging from 57% in France, 73% in southern British Columbia [1] to 81% in the northeastern United States [2]. The loftier prevalence of hock injuries indicates decreased welfare for cows experiencing severe hock injuries primarily past increasing the likelihood of cows becoming lame [3]. Although severe hock lesions increment the risk of cows developing lameness [3]; lameness may likewise increase the risk for the development of hock lesions [4] by increasing lying time [5] and difficulty standing and lying [6], therefore increasing exposure to the stall surface. Lameness in itself is a common problem on farms; 23.nine% of cows in the United States in 2007 were lame at least once in a 12 month period [7].

The relationship betwixt hock injuries and lameness may exist due to similar ecology run a risk factors such equally housing [1,8,9]. Freestall farms without opportunities for cattle to graze had greater incidence of lameness and knee swellings compared to freestall farms with grazing [eight]. Although these conditions have like risk factors, lying behaviors such as total daily lying time and length of lying bouts differ between lame cows and cows with hock injuries [10,11]. Lame cows have increased total daily lying fourth dimension and increased lying bout durations [10], but cows with hock injuries accept decreased lying bout durations [xi].

Inadequate bedding and overstocking can likewise change normal lying behaviors by decreasing lying time in cows [12,13]. Furthermore, the risk of lameness increases with aberrant lying behaviors and the use of mats or mattresses every bit a stall base of operations [9]. Lying laterality (fourth dimension spent lying on either the left or right side) may be altered past other painful conditions. Lactating dairy cattle spend approximately the same proportion of time lying on their left and correct sides. However, discomfort may bulldoze cows to favor the left side (spending 61% of lying time on the left) during pregnancy [xiv,fifteen] and the correct side (seventy% of time lying on the right side) following rumen cannulation [16]. Currently, a shift in lying laterality appears to occur every bit a reaction to internal or external stimuli [17], and whatsoever upshot of a alter in lying laterality has not been reported. Although a shift in lying laterality has not been establish to occur with lameness the importance of hock injuries in the alteration of lying laterality have nonetheless to be illustrated [18].

This study was a retrospective cross-sectional study. The aim was to determine if hock injuries (in particular, the side of hock injury) or lameness contributed to a shift in lying laterality from the expected 50% per side or an alteration in other lying behaviors. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the impact of hock injuries and lameness on lying behaviors, particularly lying laterality for lactating dairy cows with hock injuries and lameness. Information technology was hypothesized that lying laterality in animals with hock injuries and/or lameness would differ from the expected 50%. Increased lying fourth dimension has as well been associated with college parity [nineteen], therefore it was besides hypothesized that other lying behaviors (lying fourth dimension, bouts, lying tour duration) would be altered in those animals with injuries or lameness, and lying fourth dimension would increment with parity.

2. Materials and Methods

Lactating Holstein dairy cows from iv farms across eastern Croatia were evaluated for this study. Farms were selected due to the Memorandum of Understanding in identify between the farm and the University of Osijek and their role in the Fulbright Scholarship with the intention of measuring welfare of Croatian dairy farms. A breakdown of descriptive moo-cow data is included in Table one. Cows were housed in either freestalls with straw bedding (farms i, 2, and iii) or deep-bedded packs with harbinger (farm iv). Cows on farm 1 were milked in a 40-cow rotary parlor twice daily. Cows on subcontract ii were milked in a 24 double sided herringbone parlor three times daily or twice daily for late lactation cows. Cows on farm 3 were milked using a robotic parlor system (two robots per pen) with free choice milking. Cows on subcontract 4 were milked in a xx double sided parallel parlor twice daily. Based on bachelor freestalls stocking, density on farms 1–3 was beneath 100%. On the bedded pack, less than 9.3 m² was provided per moo-cow, which is the recommended infinite per cow on bedded packs [xx]. All heifers from all farms were raised at a common location with bedded packs and pastures. All farms fed cows twice daily and used Delaval milking equipment (Tumba, Sweden).

Table one

Number of cows for each variable.

Variable	Farm ane	Subcontract 2	Subcontract iii	Farm four	Overall
Cows	32	61	42	60	195
Sound	nineteen	42	25	31	117
Moderately lame	9	xviii	14	20	61
Severely lame	4	1	three	ix	17
Hock score 0
Left hock	0	15	0	31	46
Right hock	0	14	0	31	45
Hock score one
Left hock	fifteen	37	23	27	102
Right hock	17	38	25	28	108
Hock score ii
Left hock	sixteen	six	18	2	42
Correct hock	fifteen	8	13	ane	37
Hock score 3
Left hock	ane	3	ane	0	5
Correct hock	0	one	4	0	five
Bilateral	32	41	42	27	142
Unilateral	0	11	0	iv	15
Neither	0	nine	0	29	38
Multiparous	0	39	xxx	53	122
Primiparous	32	22	12	7	73
Early on lactation	four	36	vi	xvi	62
Mid lactation	19	25	29	32	105
Belatedly lactation	9	0	7	12	28

Lying behaviors (total, left, and correct side lying time (min/d), lying tour durations (min/bout), and number of lying bouts per day (north/d)) were nerveless using Hobo Pendant Grand data loggers (Onset Estimator Corp., Bourne, MA, U.s.) every bit previously validated [21] for a minimum of three days and summarized by day [22]. Lying behaviors were averaged by twenty-four hours and the mean value for the flow in which data loggers were attached (minimum of iii days) were used in the analysis. Locomotion and hock injury scoring were conducted once per cow while the information loggers recording lying behaviors were attached. Locomotion was evaluated using the National Animal Wellness Monitoring System (NAHMS) scoring system [23]. A sound moo-cow was represented by a score of ane (no gait abnormality), a moderately lame moo-cow was represented past a score of 2 (visible gait abnormality), and a score of 3 represented a severely lame cow (prominent head bob with cow visibly favoring one or more limbs). Hocks were scored on a 0–3 scale where 0 indicated no visible injury on the hock, 1 indicated hair loss but no swelling, 2 indicated the presence of swelling (swellings smaller than vii.4 cm in diameter, no bleeding), and a score of three indicated major swelling (greater than 7.4 cm in diameter, may be bleeding) [24]. Right and left hocks were scored separately and recorded for all cows evaluated. Both locomotion and hock injuries were scored by one individual with extensive experience.

Moo-cow records were obtained from each farms' herdsman, translated from Croatian. Private cow data included moo-cow ID, lactation number, days in milk (DIM), pregnancy status, breeding status, days to calving, number of inseminations, days to peak milk, peak milk yield, and milk quality (% fat, % protein, somatic cell count. Even so, not all of the above characteristics were recorded by each farm. Therefore, merely cow ID, DIM and lactation number were used for each farm, every bit these were the only characteristics each subcontract recorded.

Cows used in this study were part of a full general assessment projection where lying behaviors were nerveless from 278 cows and health scores were nerveless from 792 cows. For data analysis in the current study, merely cows with lying beliefs, health scores (locomotion and hock injury scores), and moo-cow records (lactation number and DIM) were used (n = 195). Additionally, five cows that had health scores assessed twice due to existence moved to a different pen were removed from the data set to proceed the number of assessments consistent betwixt cows. Power was calculated to exist 0.61 (alpha = 0.05) due to the fact that only cows on farms with existing relationships with the academy were available for data collection. To achieve a power of 0.lxxx, a total of 306 cows would have been necessary. Unfortunately, the number of available cows was much lower and the minor power may reduce the ability to detect effects. However, the intent of this study was to observe potential behavioral differences using the data and cows made available.

Lying behaviors (total daily lying time, daily lying bout elapsing, and total number of lying bouts per 24-hour interval) were analyzed using a mixed model (SAS, v ix.3, Cary, NC, USA) to determine effect of maximum hock score, hock injury laterality, locomotion score, and parity. Maximum hock scores of 0 and a hock injury laterality of "neither" were the aforementioned population of cows, therefore maximum hock score had to be adjusted. Maximum hock score was analyzed as maximum hock score within hock laterality. Only maximum hock scores of 1 had both bilateral and unilaterally injured groups. All cows with a maximum hock score of 2 were injured unilaterally. The experimental unit of measurement was cow and the random effect was farm. Degrees of freedom were estimated using Kenward-Roger option. One sample t-tests were used to make up one's mind if lying laterality (percent time spent lying on the left side) differed from fifty%. 4 t-tests were performed to determine differences in four variables of interest: maximum hock score, locomotion score, hock injury laterality, and parity. An additional t-examination was performed to make up one's mind if lying laterality differed from 50% in the overall population of cows used in the written report. In order to determine variability of lying behaviors (lying time (h/d), lying bout duration (min/tour), and bouts (n/d)) in relation to maximum hock scores, hock score laterality, locomotion scores, and parity univariate associations of SD (Tabular array ii) were adamant using a univariate analysis (general linear model procedure; SAS v 9.three, Cary, NC, USA).

Tabular array 2

Standard deviation of the herd boilerplate daily lying time (h/d) and lying tour duration (min/bout) with parity and hock injury status. Standard deviation of lying time and lying bout duration increased with multiple parities. Standard deviation of lying tour duration decreased when both hocks were injured or not injured.

Variable	Estimate	SE	R²	p Value
SD of lying time (h/d)
Multiparous	0.31	0.13	0.xxx	0.02
SD of lying duration (min/bout)
Bilateral injury	−14.41	4.44	0.07	0.001
No injury	−17.86	4.99	0.07	0.0004
Multiparous	five.02	2.49	0.02	0.05

Maximum hock scores were determined by using the maximum hock score from each moo-cow. Hock scores of two and 3 were combined into one score (score = ii) due to the limited number of cows with a hock score of three. Hock injury laterality was categorized into three categories: unilateral (cow has only one hock that is scored at one or above), bilateral (cow has both hocks scored at 1 or above), and neither (both hocks were scored as 0). Cows with only a left injury (northward = vii) or right injury (n = viii) were combined into the unilateral category due to the limited number of cows with only left or right hock injuries. Dependent variables included lying time, lying bouts, and lying bout duration. Independent variables included in the model were maximum hock score, hock injury laterality, locomotion score, and parity.

3. Results

Severely lame cows had greater daily lying time than sound (Figure 1; p = 0.003) and moderately lame cows (Figure 1; p = 0.002). No differences in lying fourth dimension were found betwixt hock injury laterality (p = 0.52), max hock score (p = 0.79), or parity (p = 0.27).

Severely lame cows (locomotion score = iii) had greater mean daily lying time than moderately lame cows (locomotion score = 2; p = 0.002) and sound cows (locomotion score = ane; p = 0.003). Differences betwixt audio, moderately lame, and severely lame cows are designated by superscripts "a" and "b."

Sound cows had shorter lying bout elapsing compared to moderately lame cows (Effigy 2; p = 0.004) and severely lame cows (Figure 2; p = 0.01). Lying bout elapsing did not differ between hock injury laterality (p = 0.29), max hock score (p = 0.97) or parity (p = 0.07).

Sound cows (locomotion score = 1) had shorter mean lying bout duration compared to moderately lame cows (locomotion score = two; p = 0.004) and severely lame cows (locomotion score = three; p = 0.01). Differences between audio, moderately lame, and severely lame cows are designated past superscripts "a" and "b."

Audio cows had greater daily lying bouts than moderately lame cows (Figure 3; p = 0.01) just non severely lame cows (Figure 3; p = 0.54). Lying bouts did non differ betwixt hock injury laterality (p = 0.35), max hock score (p = 0.85) or parity (p = 0.31).

Audio cows had higher daily lying bouts compared to moderately lame cows (p = 0.01). Hateful daily lying bouts did not differ between sound cows and severely lame cows (p = 0.54) or between moderately lame cows and severely lame cows (p = 0.37). Differences betwixt sound, moderately lame, and severely lame cows are designated past superscripts "a" and "b."

Overall, cows spent 51.iii ± ane.1% daily lying time on their left side which did not differ from 50% (p = 0.28). The lying laterality did not differ from 50% for cows with varying maximum hock scores (p ≥ 0.twenty), locomotion scores (p ≥ 0.21), side of hock injury (p ≥ 0.xx), or parity (p ≥ 0.14).

Standard difference of lying time was greater in multiparous cows than primiparous cows (Table ii) simply did non differ between the other variables of interest. The SD of lying bout duration decreased between unilaterally injured cows and bilaterally injured cows and unilaterally injured cows and cows without injury (Table 2). The SD of lying tour duration increased betwixt primiparous and multiparous cows (Table 2).

four. Discussion

This study is the beginning investigation of the affect of hock injuries on lying laterality in dairy cows on Croatian farms. In addition, the touch on of lameness and parity on lying laterality were investigated. The influence of these measures on lying fourth dimension, bouts, and bout elapsing were too examined. In this written report, maximum hock score, hock injury laterality, lameness, or parity did not influence lying laterality. Notwithstanding, lameness severity did affect lying fourth dimension, bouts, and bout elapsing.

Severely lame cows spent more than fourth dimension lying down compared to sound and moderately lame cows. Similarly, previous research reports an increase in lying fourth dimension in lame cows (11.ane ± 2.viii h/d) compared to sound cows (ten.5 ± 2.7 h/d) [11]; although in the previous written report moderate and severe lameness were not distinguished from each other. There were no differences in lying time between moderately lame cows and audio cows in the current study. Previously, moderately lame cows on mattresses and severely lame cows housed on deep bedded stalls had increased lying time compared to sound cows [10]. This suggests the effectiveness of this parameter in indicating reduced welfare in cows; therefore, it is likely that severely lame cows in the present study experienced decreased welfare compared to sound cows.

Parity did not influence lying fourth dimension contrary to previous research, which reports increased lying time with increased parity [19,25]. However, the previous study separated parity by primiparous, 2nd lactation, and 3rd and greater lactation [19], where in the present study nosotros chose to carve up parity by primiparous and multiparous cows. Additionally, due to the availability of cows on farms, there were a greater number of multiparous cows (n = 122) than primiparous (n = 73). Both heifers and cows prioritize resting [26,27] and an alteration in normal lying behaviors and college parity increase the likelihood of a cow developing lameness [9].

Overall, mean lying bout duration for multiparous (80.vi ± thirty.eight min/bout), primiparous (71.5 ± 19.viii min/bout), uninjured (75.5 ± 30.9 min/bout), bilaterally injured (76.6 ± 28.4 min/bout), and unilaterally injured cows (87.2 ± 30.nine min/bout) did non exceed the 90 min/bout threshold that was found to be associated with severely lame cows [x]. This suggests that these cows were not experiencing the level of discomfort associated with severe lameness, or changes in lying beliefs are expressed differently in cows with varying hock injury severities and laterality.

Sound cows had a greater number of lying bouts per twenty-four hour period compared to moderately lame cows. This is contrary to previous information that reports no difference in lying bouts betwixt moderately lame and sound cows [10,18]. Previous research [18] reports cows with an average of 9.viii ± 0.49 due north/d and moderately lame cows with 9.iv ± 0.49 n/d compared to the 10.three ± 0.vii north/d for sound cows and 8.9 ± 0.8 northward/d for moderately lame cows in the current study. Daily lying bouts did non differ between severely lame and audio cows. Previous research [10] besides reported no differences in lying bout frequency between audio cows and severely lame cows. Moderately lame cows on mattresses have increased standing time compared to sound cows and moderately lame cows on sand bedded stalls [28], which is thought to be a response to the hurting related to lameness [29] and potential discomfort associated with mattresses [1]. However, the limited number of farms on the current study restricts our power to make conclusions based on housing or bedding type.

Lying laterality did not differ between maximum hock scores, locomotion scores, parity, or hock injury laterality. Previous inquiry reports increased right side laterality with historic period simply non specifically with increased parity and no laterality preference in meaning heifers [thirty]. In that study, laterality data was collected through live observations at xv min intervals during seven 24 h periods with observations occurring between sixteen months [30]. Insufficiently, in the nowadays study, sampling of laterality beliefs was accomplished with a information logger for a minimum of 3 d at one-min intervals. Differences in laterality may be more pronounced long term, rather than brusk term. Additionally, private lying behavior differs from cow to moo-cow [31] which would be expected to exist the case for lying laterality likewise. To the authors' knowledge, no research has been published on the influence of hock injuries on lying laterality.

Evaluating SD of lying behaviors tin can indicate variability of lying behaviors among private cows [32]. Variation in lying behaviors for individual cows within a herd is expected [31], only differences may exist linked to negative wellness weather such equally hoof ulcers [5] or increased parity and historic period [xix]. Multiparous cows had increased SD of lying time and lying bout duration compared to primiparous cows, suggesting that multiparous cows had less uniform lying behaviors than primiparous cows.

v. Conclusions

The current results suggest that lying laterality does not differ betwixt varying levels of hock injury or lameness severity. Withal, farther research could determine if a shift in lying side occurs on an private moo-cow level as hock injuries or lameness progress. The electric current study focused on a short period of time.

Acknowledgments

The authors would similar to admit Goran Vučković and Pero Mijić for providing support for data collection in Croatia and A. Saxton for statistical advice.

Writer Contributions

Nicole L. Eberhart analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. Peter D. Krawczel designed the experiments, collected the data, and provided input on the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of involvement.

References

1. Weary D.Grand., Taszkun I. Hock lesions and free-stall design. J. Dairy Sci. 2000;83:697–702. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)74931-ix. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

2. Von Keyserlingk Grand.A.G., Barrientos A., Ito K., Galo E., Weary D.Grand. Benchmarking moo-cow comfort on north american freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2012;95:7399–7408. doi: 10.3168/jds.2012-5807. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

iii. Klaas I.C., Rousing T., Fossing C., Hindhede J., Sorensen J.T. Is lameness a welfare problem in dairy farms with automatic milking systems? Anim. Welf. 2003;12:599–603. [Google Scholar]

4. Kester E., Holzhauer M., Frankena K. A descriptive review of the prevalence and take chances factors of hock lesions in dairy cows. Vet. J. 2014;202:222–228. doi: x.1016/j.tvjl.2014.07.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

5. Chapinal North., de Passille A.Grand., Rushen J., Wagner S. Automated methods for detecting lameness and measuring analgesia in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2010;93:2007–2013. doi: x.3168/jds.2009-2803. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

half dozen. Brenninkmeyer C., Dippel Due south., Brinkmann J., March S., Winckler C., Knierim U. Hock lesion epidemiology in cubicle housed dairy cows across two breeds, farming systems and countries. Prev. Vet. Med. 2013;109:236–245. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.10.014. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. United States Department of Agronomics . Dairy 2007, Part Four: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the United States, 2007. USDA; Washington, DC, USA: 2009. [Google Scholar]

eight. Haskell M.J., Rennie Fifty.J., Bowell Five.A., Bell M.J., Lawrence A.B. Housing organisation, milk production, and nix-grazing furnishings on lameness and leg injury in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2006;89:4259–4266. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72472-9. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Dippel Southward., Dolezal M., Brenninkmeyer C., Brinkmann J., March Due south., Knierim U., Winckler C. Risk factors for lameness in freestall-housed dairy cows beyond two breeds, farming systems, and countries. J. Dairy Sci. 2009;92:5476–5486. doi: x.3168/jds.2009-2288. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Ito K., von Keyserlingk Grand.A.G., LeBlanc Due south.J., Weary D.One thousand. Lying behavior equally an indicator of lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2010;93:3553–3560. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2951. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

11. Solano Fifty., Barkema H.W., Pajor E.A., Mason S., LeBlanc S.J., Nash C.Grand.R., Haley D.B., Pellerin D., Rushen J., de Passille A.1000., et al. Associations between lying behavior and lameness in canadian holstein-friesian cows housed in freestall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 2016;99:2086–2101. doi: x.3168/jds.2015-10336. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Drissler M., Gaworski K., Tucker C.B., Weary D.Yard. Freestall maintenance: Effects on lying behavior of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2005;88:2381–2387. doi: x.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72916-vii. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

xiii. Krawczel P.D., Klaiber L.B., Butzler R.E., Klaiber 50.Grand., Dann H.Chiliad., Mooney C.Southward., Grant R.J. Curt-term increases in stocking density bear on the lying and social behavior, but not the productivity, of lactating holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2012;95:4298–4308. doi: ten.3168/jds.2011-4687. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Bao J., Giller P.South. Observations on the changes in behavioral activities of dairy cows prior to and after parturition. Irish Vet. J. 1991;44:43–47. [Google Scholar]

15. Forsberg A.Yard., Pettersson G., Ljungberg T., Svennersten-Sjaunja Chiliad. A cursory note almost cow lying behaviour—Do cows choose left and right lying side as? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008;114:32–36. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.02.008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

sixteen. Grant R.J., Colenbrander 5.F., Albright J.L. Event of particle-size of forage and rumen cannulation upon chewing activity and laterality in dairy-cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1990;73:3158–3164. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(ninety)79005-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

17. Tucker C.B., Cox North.R., Weary D.M., Spinka M. Laterality of lying behaviour in dairy cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009;120:125–131. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.05.010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

xviii. Yunta C., Guasch I., Bach A. Short communication: Lying behavior of lactating dairy cows is influenced by lameness especially around feeding fourth dimension. J. Dairy Sci. 2012;95:6546–6549. doi: 10.3168/jds.2012-5670. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

xix. Westin R., Vaughan A., de Passille A.M., De Vries T.J., Pajor Due east.A., Pellerin D., Siegford J.M., Vasseur E., Rushen J. Lying times of lactating cows on dairy farms with automated milking systems and the relation to lameness, leg lesions, and body condition score. J. Dairy Sci. 2016;99:551–561. doi: ten.3168/jds.2015-9737. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

xx. Bewley J.M., Taraba J., Day M., Blackness R.A., Damasceno F. Virtual Guide to Compost Bedded Pack Befouled Pattern & Direction. Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences; University Park, PA, U.s.: 2012. p. l. [Google Scholar]

21. Ledgerwood D.N., Winckler C., Tucker C.B. Evaluation of data loggers, sampling intervals, and editing techniques for measuring the lying beliefs of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2010;93:5129–5139. doi: x.3168/jds.2009-2945. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. University of British Columbia Animal Welfare Program . UBC Animate being Welfare Program: Sop-Hobo Information Loggers. University of British Columbia; Vancouver, BC, Canada: 2013. pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]

23. National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) Nahms Lameness Detection Video. [(accessed on 3 March 2016)]; Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?5=3bOpSrowaJA.

24. Fulwider W.K., Grandin T., Garrick D.J., Engle T.E., Lamm W.D., Dalsted N.50., Rollin B.Eastward. Influence of complimentary-stall base on tarsal joint lesions and hygiene in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2007;xc:3559–3566. doi: 10.3168/jds.2006-793. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Vasseur Eastward., Rushen J., Haley D.B., de Passille A.M. Sampling cows to assess lying time for on-farm animal welfare assessment. J. Dairy Sci. 2012;95:4968–4977. doi: 10.3168/jds.2011-5176. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

26. Jensen Yard.B., Pedersen L.J., Munksgaard L. The result of reward duration on demand functions for residual in dairy heifers and lying requirements as measured by demand functions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005;90:207–217. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

27. Munksgaard L., Jensen M.B., Pedersen Fifty.J., Hansen S.Due west., Matthews L. Quantifying behavioural priorities-effects of time constraints on behaviour of dairy cows, bos taurus. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005;92:3–14. doi: x.1016/j.applanim.2004.11.005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

28. Melt N.B., Nordlund K.Five. The influence of the environment on dairy cow beliefs, claw health and herd lameness dynamics. Vet. J. 2009;179:360–369. doi: x.1016/j.tvjl.2007.09.016. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

29. Whay H.R., Waterman A.E., Webster A.J.F., O'Brien J.Yard. The influence of lesion type on the elapsing of hyperalgesia associated with hindlimb lameness in dairy cattle. Vet. J. 1998;156:23–29. doi: x.1016/S1090-0233(98)80058-0. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Arave C.West., Walters J.L. Factors affecting lying behavior and stall utilization of dairy-cattle. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1980;6:369–376. doi: 10.1016/0304-3762(80)90137-6. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. Ito K., Weary D.One thousand., von Keyserlingk Chiliad.A.G. Lying behavior: Assessing within- and between-herd variation in free-stall-housed dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2009;92:4412–4420. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2235. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

32. Ito K., Chapinal N., Weary D.Grand., von Keyserlingk Yard.A.Thousand. Associations between herd-level factors and lying behavior of freestall-housed dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2014;97:2081–2089. doi: 10.3168/jds.2013-6861. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

jimenezforld1988.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5704115/

Share this post