Breed, parity, and days in milk affect risk of tongue rolling in dairy cows

Do cows with stereotypic tongue-rolling behaviour cope better with their environment?

Introduction

Stereotypic behaviours, especially oral stereotypic behaviours, are frequently expressed in farm animals. Tongue-rolling is the most common oral stereotypic behaviour in dairy cows (Bos taurus). If animals frequently display stereotypic behaviours, this is an indication of poor welfare. It has been suggested that animals express stereotypic behaviours as a way of coping with stress. As a result, animals with stereotypic behaviours may have lower levels of stress hormones than animals without stereotypic behaviours.

Methods

In this study, 916 Holstein cows in the first lactation were subjected to scan sampling behavioural observations 200 times for 10 days. All cows were assigned to either a stereotypic behaviours group (SB) or a control group (CON). The SB group was further subdivided into a tongue-rolling group (TR) and an other-stereotypic behaviours group (OS). The TR group was also split into an only tongue-rolling group (OTR) and a mixed tongue-rolling and other stereotypic behaviours group (TROS). Some cows in the TR group belonged to an extreme tongue-rolling group (ETR). Hair and saliva samples were collected from 601 cows to test cortisol concentrations and dairy herd improvement (DHI) data were collected from a total of 762 cows.

Results

There were no differences in hair or saliva cortisol concentrations between the groups (p>0.05), and the frequencies of tongue-rolling were not associated with cortisol concentrations (p>0.05). For DHI in cows, the milk protein percentage (p = 0.028), milk true protein percentage (p = 0.021) and milk crude protein percentage (p = 0.023) of cows in the ETR group were significantly lower than those in the CON group. For cows in ETR group, as the frequencies of tongue-rolling increased, the milk protein percentage (p = 0.034, r = 0.365), milk true protein percentage (p = 0.022, r = 0.393) and milk crude protein percentage (p = 0.035, r = 0.363) increased.

Discussion

We investigated the relationship between stereotypic behaviours and stress by using a non-invasive sampling method to minimise harm to the cows. We suggest that tongue-rolling may not be a way for cows to cope with stress, at least in terms of cortisol concentrations.

Breed differences in oral behaviors in feed-restricted dairy heifers

Holsteins and Jerseys, the 2 most prominent dairy breeds in the United States, differ in many regards. They have not been evaluated for differences in oral behavior performance, despite anecdotal evidence that Jerseys perform more abnormal behaviors than Holsteins. As abnormal behaviors can indicate compromised welfare, we evaluated whether breed differences existed in year-old heifers. Because many oral behaviors could be expressed in abnormal ways, we also sought to describe performance of a wide range of behaviors and whether these varied among individuals. We studied 42 pair-housed heifers (33 Holstein, 9 Jersey) at 12.8 ± 1.1 mo of age (mean ± SD) that were restricted to 50% of their ad libitum total mixed ration (TMR) intake for 2 d as part of a short-term feed challenge. Using continuous video recording from 0800 to 2000 h on the second day of feed restriction, we scored time spent performing tongue rolling, tongue flicking, self-grooming, allogrooming, intersucking, drinking urine, drinking water, and nonnutritive oral manipulation (NNOM) of rice hull bedding, the feed bin, or other pen fixtures. Eating TMR was recorded at 5-min intervals. We found that Jerseys spent more time tongue rolling (3.3% vs. 0.2% proportion of 12-h observations) and performing all types of NNOM than Holsteins (feed bin: 3.8% vs. 2.4%; bedding: 7.7% vs. 5.4%; other: 7.5% vs. 4.2%; total: 19.0% vs. 12.0%), and tended to spend more time tongue flicking (1.4% vs. 1.1%). Jerseys spent less time allogrooming than Holsteins (1.3% vs. 3.4%). There was no evidence of an effect of breed on self-grooming (2.0%), water drinking (1.0%), eating TMR (16.0%), or intersucking (0.06%). Urine drinking was performed by 9 total heifers and was not compared between breeds. All behaviors were highly variable across individuals, particularly tongue rolling and intersucking. Allogrooming was more variable than self-grooming, and each subcategory of NNOM was more variable than total NNOM. Outliers, or extreme performance of oral behaviors relative to the rest of our population, were present in most behaviors. Heifers who were outliers in one behavior were not consistently outliers in all. Overall, there are breed differences in many oral behaviors in a feed-restricted environment. Despite no difference in proportion of time spent eating, Jerseys often performed higher levels of potentially abnormal behaviors than Holsteins, though both breeds performed many oral behaviors, sometimes at extreme levels, that may indicate a concern.

Changes in dairy cows' behaviour, health, and production after transition from tied to loose housing

BACKGROUND

Transition of dairy cows from a tied to a loose housing system may affect their behaviour, health and production. Such housing system changes have become more frequent in Estonia but knowledge is lacking on how cows adapt to a new system. The aim of this study was to evaluate how cows' behaviour, milk production and composition, and different aspects of their health changed after transition from tied to loose housing.

RESULTS

A herd of 400 dairy cows was moved to a new system on the same farm, so that effects of transport were not confounding factors. Behavioural observations were made for approximately 4 months following transition. Milk production data were recorded from 12 months before to 12 months after transition. Examination for skin alterations and cleanliness, as well as body condition scoring were carried out before transition, and thereafter monthly throughout the study. Significant effects on behaviour were observed just after the transition, with increases in the behaviour indicative of poor welfare, such as vocalisation and aggression, and decreases in those indicative of a good state of welfare, such as ruminating, resting and grooming. These effects were of short duration, with most returning to a steady state after the first week. Milk production declined already before the transition but fell significantly after transition, and this fall lasted longer in older cows. Likewise, somatic cell counts were higher in all cows following transition, but older cows were affected significantly more than cows in the first lactation. The frequency of lameness and skin alterations increased on average after transition. Body condition scores fell after transition but recovered by the second month. Therefore, there were adverse effects on the behaviour, health and production of the dairy cows transferred, although, apart from older cows, of short duration.

CONCLUSION

The transition from tied to loose housing first had negative impacts on the welfare of the cows, although by the tenth day the behavioural indicators had returned to normal values. Impacts were more severe in higher parity cows, indicating that the change was more of a challenge for older cows. The findings of this study suggest that animals' behaviour and health should be more carefully observed within about 2 weeks after transition. It is quite likely that more and more farmers in Estonia and elsewhere will recognize the benefits of keeping their dairy cattle in loose housing, aimed at improving animal welfare and the value of the production chain.