Behavioural adaptation of crossbred cows in automatic concentrate feeding station

MANI ARUL PRAKASH; SHIV PRASAD; TUSHAR KUMAR MOHANTY; ARUMUGAM KUMARESAN; AYYASAMY MANIMARAN; PARVENDER SINGH OBEROI; SIDDHARTHA SHANKAR LAYEK; SREELA LATHIKA

doi:10.56093/ijans.v88i3.78369

Authors

MANI ARUL PRAKASH Ph.D Scholar, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
SHIV PRASAD Additional Director General (Coordination), ICAR, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi
TUSHAR KUMAR MOHANTY Principal Scientist, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
ARUMUGAM KUMARESAN Senior Scientist, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
AYYASAMY MANIMARAN Scientist, Livestock Research Centre, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
PARVENDER SINGH OBEROI Senior Scientist, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
SIDDHARTHA SHANKAR LAYEK Ph.D Scholar, Livestock Production Management, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
SREELA LATHIKA Ph.D Scholar, Livestock Production Management, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v88i3.78369

Keywords:

Automatic feeding system, Behavioural adaptation, Crossbred cows, Feeding behaviour

Abstract

The present study evaluated the adaptation behaviour of crossbred cows (46) in Automatic Concentrate Feeding Station (ACFS). The adaptation behaviour was studied over a period of 6 weeks. The percentage of adaptation was calculated based on the average concentrate allotted divided by average number of rewarded visits. After adaptation, duration of rewarded and unrewarded visits under three feeding windows (FW1: 12.01 AM - 7.59 AM; FW2: 8.00 AM - 3.59 PM; FW3: 4.00 PM -11.59 PM) in 2 ACFS (FS1 & FS2) was studied over a period of 72 h using software. Significant difference in the duration of rewarded visits was observed between stations (FS1 and FS2) and between feeding windows (FW1 and FW3 differed with FW2). The average duration of rewarded visit was 247.3±7.97 sec, 192.46±7.29 sec and 239.47±8.21 sec during FW1, FW2 and FW3, respectively, while the corresponding values for unrewarded visits were 44.49±3.77 sec, 46.73±2.9 sec and 59.84±3.32 sec, respectively. Overall mean duration of time spent for a single visit in rewarded and unrewarded visits was 218.56±3.82 sec and 49.93±1.85 sec, respectively, for 72 h irrespective of feeding stations and feeding windows. It was concluded that adaptation period of crossbred cows with automatic concentrate feeding station was shorter for older animals than younger ones, and the duration of unrewarded visits influenced the learning behaviour of animals.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Cassel E K, Merrill W G, Bui T V, Milligan R and Guest R. 1984. Evaluation of systems for feeding supplemental concentrates to cows in a group. Journal of Dairy Science 67(3): 560–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(84)81339-9

Collis K A. 1980. The effect of an automatic feed dispenser on the behaviour of lactating dairy cows. Applied Animal Ethology 6: 139–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(80)90065-6

Gibb D J, McAllister T A, Huisma C and Wiedmeie R D. 1998. Bunk attendance of feedlot cattle monitored with radio frequency technology. Journal of Animal Science 78: 707– 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4141/A98-032

Glock R D and DeGroot B D. 1998. Sudden death of feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 76: 315–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.761315x

Herlin A H and Frank B. 2007. Effects of protective gates at concentrate feed stations on behaviour and production in dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103: 167–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.03.019

Ketelaar-De Lauwere C C, Ipema A H, Metz J H M, Noordhuizen J P T M and Schouten W G P. 1999. The influence of the accessibility of concentrate on the behaviour of cows milked in an automatic milking system. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47: 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18174/njas.v47i1.475

Livshin N, Maltz E and Edan Y. 1995. Regularity of dairy cow feeding behavior with computer-controlled feeders. Journal of Dairy Science 78: 296–304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(95)76638-3

Metz-Stefanovska J and Spahr S L. 1989. Behavioural Observations on a Group of Cows Using a Dual Computer- Controlled Concentrates Dispenser. Research Report. Institute of Agricultural Engineering. Wageningen, Netherlands. Pp 1– 89.

National Research Council. 2001. Nutrient Requirement of Dairy Cattle. 7th Revised edn. National Academic Science, Washington, DC.

Pirkelmann H. 1992. Feeding strategies and automatic milking. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prospects for Automatic Milking. Pudoc Scientific Publishers, Wageningen, Netherlands, 23 - 25 November. EAAP Publication No. 65. p 289.

Pritchard D E, Eastridge M L and Winkler J E. 1999. Computerized concentrate feeders for dairy cows. Ohio State University Factsheet. http://ohioline.osu.edu/as-fact/0004.html.

Schwartzkopf-Genswein K S, Beauchemin K A, Gibb D J, Crews D H, Hickman D D, Streeter M and McAllister T A. 2003. Effect of bunk management on feeding behavior ruminal acidosis and performance of feedlot cattle: A review. Journal of Animal Science 81: 149–58.

Sigma Plot version 11. Systat Software Inc., San Jose, California, USA. http://systatsoftware.com.

Shultz A Thomas. 1989. Computerized corral feed stations for dairy cows. California Agriculture 43: 26–27.

Tennessen T. 1989. Coping with confinement features of the environment that influence animals’ ability to adapt. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(89)90050-6

Wierenga H K and Hopster H. 1990. The significance of cubicles for the behaviour of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 309–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(90)90032-9

Wierenga H K and Hopster H. 1991. Behaviour of dairy cows when fed concentrates with an automatic feeding system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 223–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(91)90130-P