Short communication: Evaluation of an eating time sensor for use in pasture-based dairy systems

Opportunities and limits of commercial farm data to study the genetic determinism of feed efficiency throughout lactation in dairy sheep

The collective economic and environmental interest of the whole dairy sheep sector is to reduce feed costs and the negative impact of milk production on the environment. Thus, this study focused on the characterisation and genetic selection potential of feed efficiency in the Lacaune breed. Estimates for feed efficiency in dairy ewes are limited, mainly due to a lack of individual feed intake measurements in the sheepfold or in the pasture. We estimated the genetic parameters for two approximated (not entirely based on individual data) feed efficiency traits (lactation feed conversion ratio (LFCR) and residual energy intake (REI)) and daily milk yield (DMY) at different stages of lactation and throughout lactation. The accuracy of the efficiency traits was first evaluated on samples from Lacaune dairy ewes that were monitored individually, especially for their feed intake. Then, feed efficiency estimation methods were applied on eight commercial farms corresponding to 4 680 Lacaune dairy ewes over two milk lactations (30 854 records). Animals were collectively (for a large part of feed intake) or individually (for milk performance and dynamics of body fat reserves) monitored at different lactation stages. The heritabilities of LFCR and REI were estimated over lactations at 0.10 ± 0.01 and 0.11 ± 0.01, respectively. High genetic correlations were observed between the two efficiency traits and milk production traits, with a genetic correlation between LFCR and DMY of 0.74 ± 0.04 and between REI and DMY of -0.79 ± 0.04. A strong influence of environmental factors such as farm, year of milk production and lactation stage affected the genetic link between REI and milk production traits. Efficiency values observed in early lactation when animals were bred in the sheepfold were less genetically correlated with values obtained later in lactation when animals were grass-fed. However, individual characterisation of feed efficiency remains difficult due to the collective feeding context in dairy ewe farms.

Heat stress in a temperate climate leads to adapted sensor-based behavioral patterns of dairy cows

Most research on heat stress has focused on (sub)tropical climates. The effects of higher ambient temperatures on the daily behavior of dairy cows in a maritime and temperate climate are less studied. With this retrospective observational study, we address that gap by associating the daily time budgets of dairy cows in the Netherlands with daily temperature and temperature-humidity index (THI) variables. During a period of 4 years, cows on 8 commercial dairy farms in the Netherlands were equipped with neck and leg sensors to collect data from 4,345 cow lactations regarding their daily time budget. The time spent eating, ruminating, lying, standing, and walking was recorded. Individual cow data were divided into 3 data sets: (1) lactating cows from 5 farms with a conventional milking system (CMS) and pasture access, (2) lactating cows from 3 farms with an automatic milking system (AMS) without pasture access, and (3) dry cows from all 8 farms. Hourly environment temperature and relative humidity data from the nearest weather station of the Dutch National Weather Service was used for THI calculation for each farm. Based on heat stress thresholds from previous studies, daily mean temperatures were grouped into 7 categories: 0 = (<0°C), 1 = (0-12°C, reference category), 2 = (12-16°C), 3 = (16-20°C), 4 = (20-24°C), 5 = (24-28°C), and 6 = (≥28°C). Temperature-humidity index values were grouped as follows: 0 = (THI <30), 1 = (THI 30-56, reference category), 2 = (THI 56-60), 3 = (THI 60-64), 4 = (THI 64-68), 5 = (THI 68-72) and 6 = (THI ≥72). To associate daily mean temperature and THI with sensor-based behavioral parameters of dry cows and of lactating cows from AMS and CMS farms, we used generalized linear mixed models. In addition, associations between sensor data and other climate variables, such as daily maximum and minimum temperature, and THI were analyzed. On the warmest days, eating time decreased in the CMS group by 92 min/d, in the AMS group by 87 min/d, and in the dry group by 75 min/d compared with the reference category. Lying time decreased in the CMS group by 36 min/d, in the AMS group by 56 min/d, and in the dry group by 33 min/d. Adaptation to daily temperature and THI was already noticeable from a mean temperature of 12°C or a mean THI of 56 or above, when dairy cows started spending less time lying and eating and spent more time standing. Further, rumination time decreased, although only in dry cows and cows on AMS farms. With higher values for daily mean THI and temperature, walking time decreased as well. These patterns were very similar for temperature and THI variables. These results show that dairy cows in temperate climates begin to adapt their behavior at a relatively low mean environmental temperature or THI. In the temperate maritime climate of the Netherlands, our results indicate that daily mean temperature suffices to study the effects of behavioral adaptation to heat stress in dairy cows.

Twelve Threats of Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) for Animal Welfare

Research and development of Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) is booming, partly due to hopes and claims regarding the benefits of PLF for animal welfare. These claims remain largely unproven, however, as only few PLF technologies focusing on animal welfare have been commercialized and adopted in practice. The prevailing enthusiasm and optimism about PLF innovations may be clouding the perception of possible threats that PLF may pose to farm animal welfare. Without claiming to be exhaustive, this paper lists 12 potential threats grouped into four categories: direct harm, indirect harm via the end-user, via changes to housing and management, and via ethical stagnation or degradation. PLF can directly harm the animals because of (1) technical failures, (2) harmful effects of exposure, adaptation or wearing of hardware components, (3) inaccurate predictions and decisions due to poor external validation, and (4) lack of uptake of the most meaningful indicators for animal welfare. PLF may create indirect effects on animal welfare if the farmer or stockperson (5) becomes under- or over-reliant on PLF technology, (6) spends less (quality) time with the animals, and (7) loses animal-oriented husbandry skills. PLF may also compromise the interests of the animals by creating transformations in animal farming so that the housing and management are (8) adapted to optimize PLF performance or (9) become more industrialized. Finally, PLF may affect the moral status of farm animals in society by leading to (10) increased speciesism, (11) further animal instrumentalization, and (12) increased animal consumption and harm. For the direct threats, possibilities for prevention and remedies are suggested. As the direction and magnitude of the more indirect threats are harder to predict or prevent, they are more difficult to address. In order to maximize the potential of PLF for improving animal welfare, the potential threats as well as the opportunities should be acknowledged, monitored and addressed.

Sensor based time budgets in commercial Dutch dairy herds vary over lactation cycles and within 24 hours

Cows from 8 commercial Dutch dairy farms were equipped with 2 sensors to study their complete time budgets of eating, rumination, lying, standing and walking times as derived from a neck and a leg sensor. Daily sensor data of 1074 cows with 3201 lactations was used from 1 month prepartum until 10 months postpartum. Farms provided data over a 5 year period. The final models (lactational time budget and 24h time budget) showed significant effects of parity, farm and calving season. When primiparous cows were introduced in the lactational herd, they showed a decrease in lying time of 215 min (95% CI: 187–242) and an increase in standing time of 159 min (95% CI: 138–179), walking time of 23 min (95% CI: 20–26) and rumination time of 69 min (95% CI: 57–82). Eating time in primiparous cows increased from 1 month prepartum until 9 months in lactation with 88 min (95% CI: 76–101) and then remained stable until the end of lactation. Parity 2 and parity 3+ cows decreased in eating time by 30 min (95% CI: 20–40) and 26 min (95% CI: 18–33), respectively, from 1 month before to 1 month after calving. Until month 6, eating time increased 11 min (95% CI: 1–22) for parity 2, and 24 min (95% CI: 16–32) for parity 3+. From 1 month before calving to 1 month after calving, they showed an increase in ruminating of 17 min (95% CI: 6–28) and 28 min (95% CI: 21–35), an increase in standing time of 117 min (95% CI: 100–135) and 133 min (95% CI: 121–146), while lying time decreased with 113 min (95% CI: 91–136) and 130 min (95% CI: 114–146), for parity 2 and 3+, respectively. After month 1 in milk to the end of lactation, lying time increased 67 min (95% CI: 49–85) for parity 2, and 77 min (95% CI: 53–100) for parity 3+. Lactational time budget patterns are comparable between all 8 farms, but cows on conventional milking system (CMS) farms with pasture access appear to show higher standing and walking time, and spent less time lying compared to cows on automatic milking system (AMS) farms without pasture access. Every behavioral parameter presented a 24h pattern. Cows eat, stand and walk during the day and lie down and ruminate during the night. Daily patterns in time budgets on all farms are comparable except for walking time. During the day, cows on CMS farms with pasture access spent more time walking than cows on AMS farms without pasture access. The average 24h pattern between parities is comparable, but primiparous cows spent more time walking during daytime compared to older cows. These results indicate a specific behavioral pattern per parameter from the last month prepartum until 10 months postpartum with different patterns between parities but comparable patterns across farms. Furthermore, cows appear to have a circadian rhythm with varying time budgets in the transition period and during lactation.