Research articleA comparison of the estrous behavior of Holstein-Friesian cows when cubicle-housed and at pasture
Introduction
In dairy herds using artificial insemination, efficient and accurate detection of estrus (as an indicator of ovulation) is essential to maintain good reproductive performance [1]. Poor estrus detection can result in financial losses for the farmer and an increase in the number of cows culled due to infertility [2]. The fertility of dairy cows has declined during recent decades and a contributing factor is a decline in estrus expression, which makes estrus detection more difficult [3]. Although there are now many estrus detection aids available [4], the most widespread method of estrus detection is still visual observation by farm staff. In a recent review of estrus in cows, the authors stated that ‘detection of estrus remains a major problem despite enormous progress in the knowledge of reproductive physiology of the cow and in development of estrus detection aids’ [4].
The primary behavioral sign of estrus is that the cow stands to be mounted by another cow or a bull [5]. The period between the first and last time the cow stands to be mounted is known as standing estrus. Many estrus detection methods use standing to be mounted as the only criterion signalling that a cow is in estrus, however there are also a number of other notable behavioral changes around this time [6], [7], [8]. These include increased chin resting, ano-genital licking and sniffing, aggressive interactions [8], an increase in mounting other cows [6], and increased activity [7].
The expression, and hence detection, of standing estrus is affected by a number of factors. These include the number of animals in estrus simultaneously [9], lameness [10], [11], age, lactation [12], [13], and genetic factors [14]. Estrus expression is also affected by aspects of the animals' environment [15]. Mounting behaviour in particular is likely to be reduced indoors for a number of reasons. Firstly, studies have shown that mounting behavior is reduced on concrete surfaces compared with dirt surfaces [16], [17]. Furthermore, space is generally limited indoors and this reduces the possibility of safe mounting and dismounting particularly if the stocking density is too high [18], [19]. Conversely, higher stocking densities in barns and cubicle houses compared with pasture increases the chances of animals meeting and interacting sexually [20]. Also, because of the higher energy content of the diet fed indoors, housed animals tend to spend less time feeding than those kept at pasture, leaving them more free time for sexual behavior [21]. These two factors suggest that the frequency of non-mounting sexual behaviours could be higher for animals in cubicle housing compared with those at pasture.
This study was carried out as part of a project comparing the welfare and production characteristics of dairy cows kept in a year-round cubicle housing system (zero grazing) with those of cows managed in a pasture-based system [22]. The aim of this study was to compare the sexual ethogram of cows in the 48 h around standing estrus kept in a pasture-based system with those kept in a cubicle housing system. It was hypothesized that the frequency of estrous behaviors that involved mounting (attempted mounting, mounting and standing to be mounted) would be decreased, while the frequency of other non-mounting sexual behaviors such as ano-genital licking and sniffing, chin resting and head-to-head butting would be increased in the cubicle house compared with at pasture.
Section snippets
Animals and treatments
This study was conducted between 26th March and 1st June 2008 at Moorepark Research Farm, Teagasc, Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork in the South of Ireland (55°10′ N, 8°16′ W). A total of 46 (12 primiparous, 34 pluriparous) spring-calving Holstein-Friesian cows were selected from the Moorepark herd. The pregnant animals were blocked and paired according to genetic merit for milk production, parity, expected calving date and body condition score and assigned randomly
Results
Table 2 shows the median frequency of each behavior in seven observation sessions around standing estrus for 12 standing estrus events in each treatment. There was no difference between the two treatments in the parity of the twelve animals used (mean ± SD; HOUSED = 3 ± 1.47, PASTURE = 2.5 ± 1.38; P = 0.401) or the mean rank of ovulation preceding the standing estrus event (HOUSED = 1.8 ± 0.84, PASTURE = 2.0 ± 0.74; P = 0.610). In the HOUSED treatment there were significant changes over the seven
Discussion
During the 48 h around standing estrus there were two behaviors for which there was a change of frequency in the pastured animals but not the housed animals—mounting other cows and receiving ano-genital sniffs. Although there was no increase in mounting in the 48 h around standing estrus by the housed animals, there was an increase in attempted mounts. This may indicate that a higher proportion of the mounts that were initiated in the cubicle house were unsuccessful, not necessarily because the
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the Irish Dairy Levy Research Fund. The authors thank John Paul Murphy and Jonathon Kenneally of Teagasc and Catia Lourenco from Oporto University, Portugal for their technical assistance and the Moorepark farm staff for their care of the experimental animals.
References (33)
- et al.
Factors affecting reproductive performance in Ontario dairy herds
Theriogenology
(1998) - et al.
Time of ovulation in relation to mounting activity in dairy cattle
J Dairy Sci
(1996) Temporal trends in reproductive performance in Irish dairy herds and associated risk factors
Ir Vet J
(2004)- et al.
When is a cow in estrus?Clinical and practical aspects
Theriogenology
(2010) - et al.
Reproduction in Cattle
(2004) - et al.
Mounting behavior as affected by stage of estrous cycle in Holstein heifers
J Dairy Sci
(1985) - et al.
The increase in activity during oestrus in dairy cows
Appl Anim Behav Sci
(1994) - et al.
A proposition for an updated behavioral characterisation of the oestrus period in dairy cows
Appl Anim Behav Sci
(2004) - et al.
Estrous and related behavior in postpartum Holstein cows
Appl Anim Ethol
(1975) - et al.
Effect of lameness on estrous behavior in crossbred cows
Theriogenology
(2006)
Chronic stress, hormone profiles and estrus intensity in dairy cattle
Horm Behav
Interrelationships with estrous behavior and conception in dairy cattle
J Dairy Sci
Walking activity at estrus and subsequent fertility in dairy cows
Theriogenology
Genetic and environmental correlations among female fertility traits, and between the ability to show oestrus and milk production in dairy cattle
Acta Agric Scand A
Estrus detection and subsequent reproduction in dairy cows continuously housed indoors
J Dairy Sci
Determinants of Estrous Behavior in Lactating Holstein Cows
J Dairy Sci
Cited by (23)
Occurrence and greater intensity of estrus in recipient lactating dairy cows improve pregnancy per embryo transfer
2022, Journal of Dairy ScienceCitation Excerpt :However, this behavior in lactating dairy cows is reduced (Rivera et al., 2010). The decrease in this behavior has been associated with high milk production (Lopez et al., 2004), freestall systems and the size of the herd (Britt et al., 1986; Palmer et al., 2012; Stevenson and Britt, 2017). Estrus behavior is induced once E2 concentrations reach an individual threshold.
Dairy farmers’ heterogeneous preferences for animal welfare-enhancing flooring properties: A mixed logit approach applied in Sweden
2021, Livestock ScienceCitation Excerpt :Claw and leg disorders associated with lameness are considered to be one of the most important animal welfare issues in dairy production , and is the major cause of mortality due to on-farm euthanasia (Alvåsen et al., 2014). Slippery floors impede the cows' movement and the dissipation of heat (Palmer et al., 2012; Telezhenko et al., 2017). Thus, inappropriate flooring systems may cause both lameness and impair reproduction, contributing to major economic losses in milk production (Hogeveen et al., 2017).
Monitoring estrous activity in pasture-based dairy cows
2021, TheriogenologyCitation Excerpt :The relative differences in activity between the studies may be explained by differences in genetics, environment and milk production. Mounting behaviour during estrus is reduced in cows managed in free-stall housing compared with pasture [9] and in cows producing ≥ 39.5 kg milk per d compared with cows producing < 39.5 kg milk per d [10]. In support of this, total milk yield during the first five weeks of lactation was negatively associated with duration of FlashMate activity (P = 0.04) and with duration of MooMonitor activity (P = 0.05).
How German dairy farmers perceive advantages and disadvantages of grazing and how it relates to their milk production systems
2018, Livestock ScienceCitation Excerpt :Increasing herd sizes is another concern and grazing of large grazing herds is challenging and can cause damage to the sward and paths, particularly in areas with heavy soils and high rainfall. Advantages of grazing include better animal health (Washburn et al., 2002), in particular less incidences of mastitis (Hanson et al., 2013), less claw diseases (Armbrecht et al., 2018), and fewer problems with fertility (Palmer et al., 2012); generally, animal welfare is improved which was confirmed by Burow et al. (2013) who applied the welfare quality protocol (Welfare Quality, 2012). In addition, grazing farms have lower labor costs (Dartt et al., 1999; White et al., 2002) and lower feed costs (White et al., 2002; Tozer et al., 2003; Fontaneli et al., 2005).
Gait of dairy cows on floors with different slipperiness
2017, Journal of Dairy Science