English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

VEČEŘA, M., FALTA, D., CHLÁDEK, G., MÁCHAL, L.: The eff ect of low and high barn temperatures on behaviour and performance of Holstein dairy cows. Acta univ. agric. et silvic. Mendel. Brun., 2012, LX, No. 6, pp. 343–350 The experiment was carried out at the University Training Farm in Žabčice (the Czech Republic; location 49°0’51.081”N, 16°36’14.848”E, 179 m.a.s.l) over the period of one year (1st July to 30th June). The assessment of temperature impact was based on data from 16 hottest days (H) and 16 coldest days (L). The experimental group consisted of 70 cows in various stage of lactation (30d–210d) and parity (1–8). The cows were housed in a section (one quarter) of a free-stall barn with 77 stalls in three rows. Row A was located peripherally, close to the side wall, row B was in the middle and row C was situated centrally, close to the feed table. The cows were observed weekly on the same day at 9.00 a.m. The microclimate characteristics were recorded daily: temperature in hot (H) resp. cold (L) period was in average 27.1°C resp. – 1.47 °C, and relative humidity 54.4 % resp. 77.3 %, and THI 75 resp. 33. Behaviour was described by a number of cows standing or lying down, number of cows lying down on their le or right side and row preference (A, B, C) in the resting area. Cow Comfort Index (CCI – a number of cows lying down at given time) was calculated. A total of 1587 observations were analysed. A number of cows lying down (922) was signifi cantly higher than that of standing cows (665). Milk production was signifi cantly higher in hot (H) period (by 1.0–1.7 kg). There was an interaction in milk production between period and standing. In H period the standing cows produced more milk, in L period vice versa. The cows with non-signifi cant tendency towards le -side laterality produced more milk (by 1.2 kg). No interaction was found between period and laterality for milk production. All the observed parameters signifi cantly diff ered between rows A, B and C. Row A was the most preferred, the cows preferring it were young (low number of lactation) with greatest milk production. The cows in row C had the lowest milk production and were in late lactation. The interaction was found between period and row aff ected number of lactation (P < 0.01) and number of cows (P < 0.05). In H period the row A was preferred by older cows (high number of lactation), while in L period it was preferred by younger cows. The cows in H period used row C less while in L period they preferred it. temperature, behaviour, Holstein, cows Although the process of domestication brought about a number of important, or even essential, changes in farm animal performance or exterior, their environmental requirements remained relatively invariable throughout their phylogenesis. The impact of environmental factors on domesticated animals is extremely complex and diffi cult to defi ne. The more altered the original environmental conditions, the greater responsibility of the breeder to provide adequately for animals’ needs (Chládek, 2004). Barn microclimate is, together with nutrition, type of housing and animal handling, one of the main factors aff ecting an animal organism. It aff ects cows’ welfare and performance and consequently herd profi tability. The barn microclimate is defi ned by air temperature, relative humidity, air velocity and content of various components – gasses, dust, 344 M. Večeřa, D. Falta, G. Chládek, L. Máchal microorganisms (Matějka, 1995). According to Bílek (2002) barn temperature is the most infl uential factor. A negative impact of high temperature is enhanced by air humidity Koukal (2001). With increasing relative humidity, heat tolerance and stress resistance of cows decreases (Doležal et al., 2003). Temperature-Humidity Index (THI) accounts for the combined eff ects of temperature and relative humidity (West, 2003). Cow Comfort Index (or Cow Comfort Quotient) was fi rst described more than 10 years ago and is the most common criterion used for a cow welfare assessment. It is calculated as a proportion of cows lying down at given time (Grant, 2009; Rae, 2012). Time spent lying down indicates housing quality and a comfortable lying-down area is one of the most important housing design criteria for dairy cows (Ito et al., 2009). An amount of time spent comfortably lying down is fundamental for cows’ welfare (Thorne, 2008). It can be extended by various means, e.g. provision of an additional bedding (Colam-Ainsworth, 1989; Drissler, 2005). A quality of stall surface, a number of stalls and an area available for each cow are important characteristics aff ecting lying behaviour (Fregonesi et al., 2007). In order to maintain good welfare of cows it is essential to analyse their behavioural responses to barn microclimate changes. In this paper we deal with the hypothesis that hot (H) and cold (L) period will not aff ected by lying, standing, laterality of lying and row preference in free-stall barn. MATERIAL AND METHODS The experiment was designed to assess the eff ect of low and high barn temperatures on behaviour and performance of dairy cows. It was carried out at the University Training Farm in Žabčice (the Czech Republic; location 49°0’51.081”N, 16°36’14.848”E, 179 m.a.s.l.). The observed section of the resting area (1⁄4 of the barn) comprised of 77 comfortable stalls distributed into 3 rows. „Row A (29 stalls; avg. widht cubicle – 114.0 cm; avg. length cubicle – 217.7 cm; avg. length from neck rail – 205.1 cm) was located peripherally, close to the side wall. Row B (24 stalls; avg. widht cubicle – 114.0 cm; avg. length cubicle – 242.5 cm; avg. length from neck rail – 204.0 cm) was in the middle and row C (24 stalls; avg. widht cubicle – 114.0 cm; avg. length cubicle – 241.2 cm; avg. length from neck rail – 205.6 cm) was situated centrally in the building, close to the feed alley.” The studies by Walterová et al. (2009) or Zejdová et al. (2011) were carried out in the same barn. The dairy cows housed in the experimental barn were of Holstein breed. The observed section accommodated 70 cows on average; they were in various stage of lactation (30d–210d) and parity (1–8). There were no dry cows. The data were collected over one year (1st July to 30th June). The assessment of temperature impact was based on data from 16 hottest days (H) and 16 coldest days (L). The cows were observed weekly on the same day at 9.00 a.m., a er milking and before scraping manure in walkways. Behaviour was described by a number of cows standing or lying down, a number of cows lying down on their le or right side and row preference (A, B, C) in the resting area. Cow Comfort Index (CCI – a number of cows lying down at given time) was calculated. The microclimate characteristics (air temperature and relative humidity) were recorded by HOBO data loggers. Their detailed location and function were described in Walterová et al. (2009). THI values were calculated using the following equation Hahn (1999): THI = 0.8 tdb + (tdb − 14.4) × RH/100 + 46.4, where: tdb ...barn temperature RH ...relative humidity. The calculated values were statistically evaluated via GLM procedure and chi-square test (Statistica 9.0.). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Lying and standing behaviour Barn microclimate characteristics are presented in Tab. I. Mean temperature in hot period (H) was 27.1 °C, humidity 54,4 % and THI 75, while in the cold period (L) the respective values were signifi cantly diff erent: −1.47 °C, 77.3 % and 33. Tab. II, presents values of a total 1587 observations, out of which 789 were taken in H period and 798 in L period. The observed cows were either lying down (922) or standing (665). The cows during hot days produced more milk per day (by 1.7 kg, P < 0.01) than in cold days. The cows preferred lying down to standing (P < 0.01). Milk production of the lying cows was non-signifi cantly lower (by 0.4 kg). The diff erences in number and stage of lactation in lying and standing cows were also minor. The combination of lying behaviour and the barn temperature revealed that the cows standing in hot days produced the highest quantity of milk (P < 0.05) while in cold days the lowest. An increase in barn temperature and humidity causes a decrease in dry matter intake (DMI) and thus also in milk production (West, 2003). Igono et al. (1992) claims that heat stress (above 21 °C) reduces milk production compared to thermo neutral environment. However, our results were rather opposite; the cows in hot days (mean of 27 °C) produced more milk. Zejdová et al. (2010) found similar results. They presumed a summer season in general positively stimulated cows’ metabolism and thus enhanced milk production, despite the temporary (few days) heat stress. Cows spend on average 13 h/d lying down (Houpt, 1998). Tucker et al. (2004) specifi ed the range between 9.4–14.7 h/d, with an average lying bout The eff ect of low and high barn temperatures on behaviour and performance of Holstein dairy cows 345 of 0.9–1.4h. The proportion of cows lying down (CCI) should exceed 85% in free stall barns with adequate management (Grant, 2009; Rae, 2012). We found out a considerably lower number of lying cows (CCI = 58 %) which could probably be related to high temperatures. At temperatures exceeding 20 °C the number of cows lying down decreases, thus aff ecting CCI values (Zejdová et al., 2011). It is generally acknowledged that the body of a standing cow off ers a much greater surface for heat loss than that of a lying cow. This corresponds with the fact that our cows standing in the hot period produced more milk than those standing in the cold period. Laterality of lying behaviour The eff ect of environmental heat and cold on laterality of lying behaviour and milk production is described in Tab. III. Cows produced more milk in hot days (by 1 kg, P < 0.05) than in cold days. Cows lying on their le side produced more milk (by 1.2 kg, P < 0.05) than cows lying on their right side. Laterality had n

The effect of low and high barn temperatures on behaviour and performance of Holstein dairy cows