Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Assessing cow comfort using lying behaviour and lameness Ito, Kiyomi 2009

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
ubc_2010_spring_ito_kiyomi.pdf [ 1.16MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0068714.json
JSON-LD: 1.0068714+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0068714.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0068714+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0068714+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0068714+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0068714 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0068714.txt
Citation
1.0068714.ris

Full Text

   ASSESING COW COMFORT USING LYING BEHAVIOUR AND LAMENESS   by  Kiyomi Ito B.Sc., The University of British Columbia, 2006  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FUFILLMENT OF T REQIREMNS FOR THE DGRE  ASTER OF SCIENCE in The Faculty of Graduate Sudies (Animal Scinc)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)   Decmber 2009 © Kiyomi Ito, 2009 ii  !"#$%&'$(Over the past deca, there has been growth in scientfic research on welfare in modern dairy production systems.  T isue ofcow omfort and how itrelts o the risk of lenes has received considerabl interest.  The objectives ofthis theis were to establish reliabl mthods ofusing lying behaviour as measure ofow comfort, to describe the varition in lying behaviour  individual cows within frm nd betwen farms, and to evaluate  relationship twen stal comfort, lying behaviour, almnes.  Across-f smnt ws conducted on 43 cmercil dairy farms in the Fraser Valey region of British Columbia.  Eletroni data loggers reorded lying behaviour of 2033 cows t1-min ntervals for 5 days.  The first sudy established tha monitoriat lest 30 s per farm for 3 days provides an curate stimate ofthe lying beviour of the lcting cows that ime.  Cows averaged 11 h/d lying down, separatd into 9 bouts/d with an verage duration of 88 in/bout.  Cows were scored for lamnes using a 5-point Numericl Rating System (NRS) in which 1 = sound and 5 = severely le.  Asubsmple of1319 ows from 28 farms using either deep-bedded stl (n = 11) or matres tals (n = 17) wre used for the second study.  Overal, 21% of the cows were scored as NRS = 3 nd 7% as NRS = 4; no cow was oared as NRS = 5.  Matres farms had higher prevalenc of = 4 compared to deep-bedded frms (9 vs. 4%, respectively).  Cows with NRS = 4 housed on deep-bedded stal spent 1.6 h/d more lying, and had longer bouts compared to cows with NRS !3, but there were no behavioural diferencs mong cows with diferent degrees oflamenes housed on matres tals.  Extrem lying behaviour, partiularly the high lying tis ("14 h/d) and long lying bouts ("99 in/bout) were asocited with ncresed odds of lamenes, regardles ofstal surface.  Stal comfort, lying behaviour, and lmnes are intrlinked, and should al be integratd as msure of cowomfort.  iii  )&"*+(,-.,/$+/$#(Abstrac................................................................................................................................................ii Table ofContes................................................................................................................................iiiListbl.......................................................................................................................................iv  fFigurs ......vstoAbbreviatons..........................................................................................................................vi Acknwldmens ............................iCo-authorship Statement.................................................................................................................vi CHAPTER 1: General Itroductin.................................................................................................1 1. Introduction................................2.Scientfic Assessment of Cow omfort.....................................................................................2 1.3. Lameness....................................................................................................................................64.On-farm ent..................................................................................................................9 1.5. bjectives.................................................................................................................................116.References12 CHAPTER 2: Lying Behaviour fFre-stall-housed Dairy Cows..............................................19 2.1. Introducton..............................................................................................................................Materials and Methods.............................................................................................................21 2.3. Results......................................................................................................................................254.Discussion................................................................................................................................27 2.5. Conclusions ..............................306.eferences................................................................................................................................36 CHAPTER 3: Lying Behaviour asn Idicator fLamenes.....................................................40 3.1. Introducton..............................................................................................................................2.Materials and Methods.............................................................................................................42 3. Results......................................................................................................................................464.Discussion................................................................................................................................48 3.5. Conclusions ..............................516.eferences................................................................................................................................60 CHAPTER 4: General Discuion..................................................................................................66 4.1. Assessing Cowomfort...........................................................................................................2.LinkiStall , Behaviour, and Lameness...................................................................68 4.3. Future Research........................................................................................................................70Practical pplicaton................................................................................................................71 4.5. eferences................................................................................................................................73Appendix 1:SAS codes....................................................................................................................76 The SURVEYSELECT Procedur..................................................................................................TTEST Procedur ....................................................................................................................77  GLIMIX  – Mixdoels ..................TheFREQ ......................................................................................................................78  I Procedur  Logistic Rgresion ..........................................................................Appendix 2:Exampl ofPrducer Report ....................................................................................79 iv  01#$(,-()&"*+#(Table 3.1. Parity nd stage oflaction (DIM) (mean ± SD) of cows with NRS !2, NRS = 3, NRS= 4 11 farms using dep-bedded tal(DB) and 17 frms using mtres stls (MAT).........................................................................52 Table 3.2.  Leat quare means (95% confidence intrvals) of lying time (h/d), bout frequency(no./d), bout duraton (mn/bout), and SD ofboutduration (min/bout) for cows with NRS!2, NRS = 3, NRS= 4 on 11 farms usng deep-bedded al (DB) and 17 farmsusing tres tals (MAT). Values re from liner regresion model countng for pariy, DIM, nd  randomctof frm.  Dferentsupersripts indicte significant diferenc at P < 0.05 contrastd acros row.........................................................53 Table 3.3. Numbers ofcows with NRS "3 and NRS !2 in each of the cut-off categoris, for 11 farm using deep-bedded stal(DB) nd 17 farmsusing mre tal (MAT), senstviy specify of h ut- point, and odds raios(OR) for lmnes timated by logisticregresion includiparity and DIM as covariat in al models............................................................54 Table 3.4.  Numbers ofcow with NRS = 4 and NRS !3 in each of the cut-off categoris, for 11 farms using deep-bedded stal(DB) nd 17 farmsusing mre tal (MAT), enstviy specify of h ut- point, and odds raios(OR) for lmnes timated by logisticregresion includiparity and DIM as covariat in al models............................................................55 Table 3.5. Numbers ofcow ith NRS =3 and NRS !2 in each of the cut-off categorisfor 11 farms using deep-bedded stal(DB), snsivity and speifcty  eh cut-offpoint, odds raios (OR) for lmenes tmd by logisti regresion including parity nd DIM ascovaritin al models...............................................................................................................56 ! (v  01#$(,-(2134%+#(Figure 2.1. The relationship (R2) betwen (A) mean lying time (h/d) and (B) mean boutfquency (no./d) basd on 5 d per cow nd sts derived from 4, 3, 2, or 1 d randomly amplfor h (n = 1,818 cow; 38 rms).  The SDs across the 10 random sapling events are too sal to be viible!.........31 Figure 2.2.  relationship (R2) betwen (A) mean lying time (h/d) nd (B) man boutfquency (no./d) basd on 44 cows on ach frm aestites derived rom 40, 30, 20, 10, 5 and 1 (s) randomly spld on ch farm (n =38 farms; 1,818 cows).  The error bars repreent ±1 SD ofthe men generated from 10 random smpling events.................................................32 Figure 2.3. Asociaton betwn Cow Comfort Index (CCI), derived from apoint-count observaion of theasentgroup on each of 43 rmst 2 h beforthe ftrnoon milking, nd (A) mean lying tim(h/d;R2 = 0.00, P= 0.10), (B) an bout frequency (no./d; R2 = 0.16, P = 0.009), and (C) mean bout duration (min/bout; R2= 0.09, P0.05), based on continuous onitoring over 5 d of focal cows (n = 2,033) from the sa groups..................33 Figure 2.4. Mean (#), maxium nd minium ($) lying time (h/d) on each of 43 frms.  The error bars represent ± 1 SD of the mans...........................................34 igure 2.5. ean (), axi and ini ($) bout frequency (no./d) on each of 43 frms.  The error bars represent ± 1 S of the means......................................35 Figure 3.1. Percntage ofcows with NRS !2, NRS = 3, nd NRS = 4 on 11 farms using deep-bedded al nd 17 farmsusing matrestals.  * indictesgnifcnt difrence atP < 0.05...........................................................................57 Figure 3.2. Mean lying tim (h/d) of cows with NRS !2, NRS = 3, and NRS = 4 on 11 frms usdeep-bedded al nd 17farmsusing mtrestals. * indict significant difrence atP < 0.05............................................................58 Figure 3.3. Percntage distributions ofcows with NRS !2, NRS = 3, and NRS = 4 for (A) lying tme (h/d), (B) boutduraon (log min/bout), (C) SDofbout duration (log in/bout).  Cut-off points for extree behaviour weredefned as the value heredistributionsRS "3 and RS !2 intersctd..............................................................................................................59  vi  01#$(,-(!""%+51&$1,/#(BCS = body condition score CCI = cow comfort index DB = deep-bedded DHIA = Dairy Herd Improvement Asociaton DIM = days in milk MAT = matres NAHMS = Ntional Animal Helth Monitoring System NRS = numerical rating syst PMR = partil mixed ration SD = standard deviati SE = strd error of the mean SUI = stal use index TMR = totl mixed ration USDA = United Staes Dpartment of Agriculture   vii  !'6/,7*+83+9+/$#( First and foremost I want to hank my supervisors, Drs. Marina (Ni) von Keysrlingk and Dan Wery or introducing e tdairy cow and opening up  whole ne world for me. I especily thank Nina for alys being patient with e nd haviconfidenc in e to pursue my Master’s. I am grateul to Dn for the unwavering ncouragement to push myslf; I live by the dvic heonc gave : ‘stop thinking nd just do it!’ I a lsthankful to Dr. Stephen LeBlanc for t ost houghtful advice throughout my dat nalysi, and r. oug Vira for commnts on y thesi. I acknowldge al the ebers ofthe Animl Welfare Program being part ofa stimulting, supportive, nd extraordinarily productive nvironmnt tha cannot  atched. I pecily thank Trevor DVris and Julie Huzzefor being the best eors nd trused frinds, inspiring e to follow in their footstps. I also thank Katy Proudfoot and Nuria Chapinal who were always wilng to share tir nerdy enthusim for SAS and lame cows.   My projct s mde possible by the warm support from the B.C. dairy industry, especialthe brave producers ho wlcomd us to heir farms depite our peculiar plns, and the dedited nutritionist alys gave t lp e ned. The suces ofthe project was lrgely due to my partner-incrime, Aljandra Barrintos, who stood by m through fun and chalenging ties with her honest frindship that helped me find a giggle in every situaion.  Agaiz wa place where I could truly cal hom ay from hom, giving e non-stop amusent, nd triking m into thinking tha working 12-hour-days covered in cow manure ws drea come true. I a thank Nely-son Dinn for pretending to enjoy our giddines from being up y too rly, Uncle Barr Thompson his persistnt fort to get back at ustha never succeded, Bradly Jams Duncan for being the rfect arget or our creative des, Teddy-bear Tonders for secretly being on our side, and Billy-boy Kramer fthe sparkling grin tha never failed to make usile back. I alo thank Mrinne Viltaz or r unconditional support in nd out ofwork, nd for her love for cows t I truly dmire. Lstly, pecial thanks to my beautiful 5086 who alays sved me the corner of her stal when I needed a moment to relax.  I acknowledge tha I ow abig part ofmy complishmnt to my faily; without their open-minded cptance nd unquestioning support tha gave e the freedom to follow my spontaneous life hois, I would not have found y path o wre I a now. I thank Grandma nd Grandpa or being blindly proud of me no ater hat I did, nd Tkanobu for holding the fort at home. Congratulaions Mom and Dad - your stubborn black sheep has made it this far! vii  .,:&4$;,%#;1<(=$&$+9+/$(Kiyomi Ito, and Drs. Marina von Keyslringk and Dan Weary designed the project collaboratively.  Dat collection, dat alis, interpretion, and mnuscript preparation was performed by Kiyomi Ito under the supervision of Drs. Marina von Keysrlingk, Dan Wery (Chaptrs 2 and 3), and Stephen LeBlanc (Chapter 3).  1  .>!?)@A(BC(D+/+%&*(E$%,84'$1,/(BFBF(E/$%,84'$1,/(Dairy production has become increasingly intensifd.  The number of dairy farms in Canada decresed from 24,603 farms in 1995 to 13,214 farms in 2009, while the number of cows remained relatively consistent (1.3 milon to 1.0 milon) and the production of milk increased from 7.2 bilion to 7.6 bilion litres per year (Canadian Diry Information Centre, 2009).  This increasing farm size and production per cow has been supported by technological changes in indoor housing systms where cows are kept inside the barn year around and fed a high energy ration to met the nutritional requirements of high producing dairy cows.  Two main dairy systems ud in Canada are fe-stal housing and tie-stal housing.  In free-stl housing, more comon in the westrn Canada, cows ared in groups in indoor pens with aces to a lying are and a fding area.  In tie-stal housing, more typical in the eastern Canada, cows are tied by  chain around the neck to the stl where ty are fed and milked individualy.  Other types of intensive production systems include dry lot and bedded pack, in which cows are group housed, as in fre-stal systes, but have an open area for lying down instead of stals.  Such intnsive systems alow for betr control over mnagement and production compared to more extei sts, but arelso aociated with a number of problems with regards to the health and welfare of the dairy cows.  Conceptions of animal welfare stem from three ethical questions over the quality of life of animals: 1) is the anil functioning wl (biological functioning); 2) is t animal feling wel (afective stae); and 3) is the animal able to live a natural life (natural living) (Frasr et al., 1997)?  The crit for judging t welfre of an animal depend on the priorities people plac on each of tse questions.  Traditionaly, producers and veterinaans have judged the wlfre of 2  the animals baed primarily on health conditions, as injuries and ilnese compromise production, which directly afects the viability of the farm.  However, many peopl arelso concerned about the emotional sta of t animal, including negati emotions such as pain, far, and distre, and t ability to experienc positve eotions such as pleasure from opportunities to play and socialze.  Furthermore, some people also question the ‘unnaturalnes’ of the modern production systms, explaining s of the growth in the organic systems that are perceived to be more natural.  The three questions are often overlapping.  For instanc, dairy cows that are kept under intensive production systems (unnatural living) may become lm (compromised biological functioning) which likely causs dicomfort and pain (negative afective sta) (von Keysrlingk et al., 2009). Or the past decade, there has been growth in scientfic research on welfare in modern dairy production systems, providing practial solutions that addres al thre aspect of animal welfare (von Krlingk et al., 2009).  Among these, t isue of cow comfort and how it relts to the risk of lamenes ha received considerabl interest.    BFG(='1+/$1-'(!##+##9+/$(,-.7(,9-%$( Cow comfort is an emotional stae; in other words, it reflects how cows fel.  Any factor related to how the barn is deigned and mnaged, including but not limted to the lying are, influencs how comfortabl cows may be.  For example, a cowan stnd more comfortably on pasture than on concrete; a het sresed cow may fl uncomfortbly hot; and a lme cow is likey les comfortabl than a healthy c.  Producers may spend milons of dollars building housing systms, with the aim of providing a comfortbl environment for their animls - one tha ensures protection from cliatic extremes, ensures adequat rest, and miniizes the risk of injuries and disa.  Despit the efort, housing systems do not always function wl from the 3  cows’ perspective.  Asemnts of cowomfort typicaly involve one of three mthods:  1) preferenc testing, 2) detaild analysis of behaviour, and 3) asemnt of injuris and disea.    !"#"$%&'('&')*'$+',-).$ Prefenc testing is a reearch method used to ase the subjective experiencs of animls (i.e. how they fl about their environmnt).  For instanc, evaluating the amount of tie cows spend using free-stal with diferent features cn help identify which features are important and which option cows prefr given the choice.  When given free as to diferent stl surfces, cows preferred deep-bedded stals (snd or sawdust) over poorly bedded matres stal, spending over 90% of their tm lying on their frst choice (Tucker et al., 2003).  Furthermore, cows alo preferred aple bedding to bare matres (Tr and Weary, 2004) and dry bedding to wet (Fregonesi et al., 2007b).  In contrast, cows’ preferenc for stl configuration was l clar; cows showed no clear preferenc for the positon of the neckrail (Tucker et al., 2005) or stl size (Tucker et al., 2004) with individual cows preferring diferent options.  These findings indicat that the lying surface of the free-stal is a particularly important feature of stal comfort from the cows’ perspetive. !"#"$/)012,-,$3(12-).$4'506-37&$An alternative approach is to analyze the cows’ behaviour when ty have only one option.  The first sp in using behaviour to as comfort is to etablish what beviours change wn cows are comfortable and uncfortable.  Haley et al. (2000) demonstraed that ows housed in individual lrge box pens with a mtres flooring bedded with sraw lay down 4.2 h more per d and stood up and lay down more often than cows housd in conventional tie-stal with concrete flooring also bedded with sraw.  Simlarly, cs spent 12.2 h/d lying down 4  when provided with softer geotextil matres compared to 10.4 h/d on hard concrete surface; ty also changed positon from lying to stnding more frequently on matres than on concret (Haley et al., 2001).  These studies identifed the amount of time cows spend lying and the frequency of lying evnts a snsitve behavioural measure of stal comfort.!!!A seris of experiments ha established that sl fetures such as the lying surface and configuration afct sal usge and behaviour, including thos indicative of stal comfort.  For example, cows spent more time lying down and had higher frequency of lying events on their prefrred lying surfaces: wl bedded stals over poorly bedded matrese (Tucker et al., 2003; Tucker and Wery, 2004), suggesting that the cows are choosing the option that is more comfortabl.  Drislr et al. (2005) found tt lying time decreased progresively when sand bedded stls were poorly maintned; supporting the ide that apl bedding contributes to stl comfort.  Moreover, when t stl was bedded with dry sawdust, cows spent 13.8 h/d lying down which reduced to 8.8 h/d when t bedding ws wet (Fregonesi et al., 2007b).  Cows alo spent les tim lying down and had shorter lying bouts in narrow stals and in stals with brisket board, suggesting that the contact wih stal partitons while lying down causes dicomfort and consequently reduce t duration of lying bouts (Tucker et al., 2004; 2006).  Cows’ lying behaviour also reponds to changes in management.  For instance, ireasing stocking density from 100% (1 cow: 1 stal) to 150% (1.5 cows: 1 stal) resultd in a reduced lying time from 12.9 h/d to 11.2 h/d (Fregonesi et al., 2007a).   Free-stal provide not only a place to li down but also a place to stand, away from the concret aly.  The positon of the nekrail did not afect lying tim, but it restriced cows f standing with al four fet inside t stal, increasing the ti cows spent standing with only two fet inside the stal (Bernardi et al., 2009; Fregonesi et al., 2009).  Understng cows’ 5  behaviour in relation to facilty design and management esentialy provides a way to evaluate the housing environment from the cowomfort perspective.     !"#8"$9):7&-',$0);$-,'0,',$ Features of the free-stal are important risk factors for hock lesions and knee injuries.  or exampl, Weary and Tszkun (2000) found that 73% of lacting dairy cows housd in fre-stal in British Columbia had at least one hock lesion, but these lions were the most prevalent on frms using matrese (91% of cows) and last prevalnt on farms using sand bedding (24% of cows).  Mtres stls have been repeatedly asocited with higher prevalenc of hock lesions (Wechslr et al., 2000; Fulwider et al., 2007).  In addition, a concrete sal surfac cn caus swolln knees due to impact when cows lie down (Rushen et al., 2007).  These injuries directly reduce cowomfort, and may have long-trm consequences iluding lamnes. Fre-stal systems in general aresociatd with higher rates of les (Cook and Nordlund, 2009).  For exaple, Cook (2003) found that lamnes prevalnc (during winter when t prevalenc is highest) was 20% in tie-stals compared to 28% in free-stal.  Haskel et al. (2006) reportd a lamenes prevalenc of 17% in herds housed in fre-stl but alowed seonal aces to pasture compared to 39% irdsd stricly in free-stal.  Straw yards (Somrs et al., 2003) and bedded backs (Barberg et al., 2007) also tend to have lower rats of lamenes.  Within free-stal systems, laenes prevalenc was 28% in herds using non-sand stl compared to 17% in herds using snd stals (Epejo et al., 2006).  Furthermore, lmenes was more prevalent when cows were exposed to concrete flooring (e.g. Somers et al., 2003; Vnegas et al., 2006).  More specifaly, lm cows recovered in a few wks aftr alowed aces to pasture (Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007) and when t neckrailas removed from fre-stl (Bernardi et al., 2009).  Thes studies showed that t design and mnageent of housing 6  systems could afect the risks of injuries and lamenes.  Thus, evaluating the prevalenc of injuris and disa is alo a promisng thod of asing the housing environmnt with respect to cow comfort. BFH(0&9+/##((!"8"$<5'$=&341'>$Lamenes i widely recognized as a serious production and animal welfare isue in the dairy industry.  Recent studies have estimatd that about 25% of lacting dairy cows in North America are clinialy lm.  For exaple, the prevalenc of lmenes was 28% during the wintr and 23% during the sumer among 15 fre-stal herds in Wisconsin (Cook, 2003), and 25% among high production cows housed in free-stl in Minnesota, ranging from 3 to 57% across farms (Epejo et al., 2006).  Further, Cramr et al. (2008) found that 47% of cows in free-stl herds had lesions in at least one foot, and Bicalho et al. (2007a) ft 13% of cs in a free-stal herd had a painful lsion (i.e. reaction to digitl presure applied to the lesion).  A recnt study estimated lenes prevalenc to be as high as 48%, ranging from 0 to 81%, among 33 free-stal herds in Grmany (Dippel et al., 2009).  Lamenes i a significant eonomic problm as it result in reduced milk yield (Warnick et al., 2001; Green et al., 2002; Bialho et al., 2008), reduced frtilty, and increasd risk of premature culling (Garbarino et al., 2004; Biclho et al., 2007b).  Lamenes i often considered the biggest welfre concern for dairy cows due to pain asociated with the injuris and its high prevalenc (Whay et al., 2003).   !"8#"$?-,@$(0*+3&,$Lamenes a multi-dimensional problem triggered by a combination of factors:  nutrition, hormonal changes around calving, extrnal trauma, and infectious disea of the hoof (Cook 7  and Nordlund, 2009).  In the past 20 years, considerable work has gone into identifying risk fctors for lamenes aociated with housing systms and management practies.  Hrd-level risk fators for ls, within the free-stal ste, include: stl ftures (Philipot et al., 1994; Espejo and Endres, 2007), lying surfc (Cook, 2003; Espejo et al., 2006), overcrowding (Leonard et al., 1996), increased time spent away from the pen for milking (Espejo and Endres, 2007), and the use of automtic aly scrars (Barker et al., 2007).  Dippel et al. (2009) found tha reduced lying cfort, measured by the frequency of abnormal lying down and rising beviours (i.e. interruptd movemnts, lying down or standing up tking longer than 20 s, lying down with hindquartrs fit, or rising with forequarters fit), was alo a risk factor flamenes.  It is generaly understood that increasd exposure to hard flooring surfes betwen periods of rest, combid with reduced rest due to an uncomfortable lying environmnt, colletively contribute to lamenes (Cook and Nordlund, 2009).  Within the sa housing environment, some individuals are more susceptibl to lamenes than otrs.  Older cows are generaly at higher risk (Epejo et al., 2006; Haskel et al., 2006; Bicalho et al., 2007b; Dippel et al., 2009), and incidee of lamenes peaks at 3 to 4 months into ltaion (Green et al., 2002).  Thinner digital cushion (Biclho et al., 2009), higher ilk production at the beginning of laction (Green et al., 2002; Bialt al., 2008), and low body condition (BCS < 3.0) before and at calving (Hoedemarker et al., 2009) have also been identifed as cow-level risk factors for lmenes.  Low body condition (BCS < 2.5) has ben repeatdly asociatd with incresed risk of las, though it is unclear whetr this i a risk fctor or a consequence of lamnes (Epejo et al., 2006; Dippel et al., 2009).  In a study examining behavioural risks for les, Galindo et al. (2000) found that cows that became la spent more time standing with only two front fet in the stal compared to cs tt did not 8  become lam (6.2% vs. 5.6% of the day, respectively).  Galindo and Broom (2000) also found tha the incidee of lamenes was relted to standing behaviour such that the number of new case of lamnes ws higher aong cows that spent > 45% of the day standing, and those that spent > 10% of the day standing with two fet in the stal.  T knowledge of risk factors helps in the design and mnagement of facilts to reduce t risk of lamnes, and also helps identify at-risk individuals before lanes beomes a problm.   !"8"$A0>')',,$;'+'*+-3)$Early detecion is the key to minimizng the negative impact of lamenes.  Behavioural asemnt such as viual observations of cow gait is usualy the first li of ls detecion before the causes of lamnes (e.g. hoof lesions) are diagnosed through hoof triming (Bialho et al., 2007a; Chapinal et al., 2009).  Sveral mthods of gait scoring have been developed.  Sprecher et al. (1997) developed a 5-point scale where 1 represent a sound cow with normal locomotion and 5 represent a severely lm cowith an inability or extreme reluctance to bear weight on one or more limbs.  Further, Fler and Weary (2006) identifd six specif behavioural critea for asigning a gait score (Numricl Rating System; NRS) including 1) back arch, 2) hed bob, 3) tracking of the front and bak fet, 4) joint flxion, 5) asymmetric gait, and 6) reluctance to bear weight.  Gait scoring identifs the subtle changes in cows’ locomotion cusd by pain asocitd with the underlying injuries; Flowr et al. (2008) demonstraed that lame cows iproved their gait score aftr reciving a dose of analgesic (ketoprofn) providing evidence that lamenes i driven by pain.  This systm has been validated for reliability within and betwn obsrvers, and for sensitviy to the presenc of hoof injuris (Flower and Weary, 2006; Chapinal et al, 2009).  Simlar systems of gait scoring have been succsfully usd in epidemiological studies a methods of lnes deteion (e.g. Cook, 2003; 9  Whay et al., 2003; Espejo et al., 2006).  Gait scoring is a practial tool that can also be used by veterinaans and producers to identify lme cows before the problem becomes svere.    !"8B"$A0>')',,$=&'6')+-3)!Early detecion provides a tool for miniizng the harm due to lamenes, but how can we prevent cows from beoming lae in the first place?  Cow comfort is thought to play an intgral part in lamenes dynamics.  Physicl comfort of the housing environment and certin behaviours influenc the risk of laenes, but lamenes alo afects the comfort of the lam cows leading them to modify tir behaviour, which in turn may influence t severity and duration of the laenes event (Singh et al., 1993; Cook and Nordlund, 2009).  In general, the les comfortable the stls are, the longer the cows spend standing on slurry-covered concret in t aly, which makes the more susceptibl to hoof injuries and disea espeialy if inadequate rest compromise their imune function (Cook and Nordlund, 2009). BFIF(J/:-&%9(!##+##9+/$(A useful starting point for addresing welfare isue is to benchmark the industry through on-farm asmnts.  There a several difrent parties that may be interestd in animal welfare including producers, consumrs, and the public; the wlfare asemnt can srve a difrent purpose for each group.  For example, information gatred through welfre asemnt can be usd as an advisory tool to aid the producrs in decison-making about their facilts and manageent practies.  This alows ters to identify specif ares of concern, and helps pln how to ahive the targeted lvel.  Som consumers rely on certifcation programs (e.g. organics and welfare lbeling) for asurance that the animals are raisd aording to anial welfare stndards.  Simlarly, many citzns expect t authorities to ensure that farm animls are 10  raised humanely.  Benchmarking can provide a backbone for developing efective and reasonabl polices.  Auditing for compliance to these standards and polis alo requires a form of on-frm wlfare asment.   There a two broad approaches to welfare asemnt: environment-based masure, and animl-based masure.  For example, t “Anil Nds Index” (ANI) developed in Europe considers five husbandry conditions:  1) possibilty of mobility, 2) social contact, 3) condition of flooring for lying, standing, and walking, 4) climate (including light, ventilton, and noise), and 5) human atiude (Bartussek, 1999).  ANI value is generated as the total sum of points (-0.5 to +3.0) awrded for 24 crita in ech component, so that deficncy in one ctegory can be compensated by succes in another, as long as minimum standards in al of the components are met (Bartussk, 1999).  Evaluation of environmental characteristic such as thi can cpare systs; for instance, fre-stal systems by defult would reive higher scores than tie-stall stems for possibilty of mobility and social contact.  Hower, considerable variation exist within syste and also among individual cows within frm, and therefore wlfre asemnt should include measure that can be used within and across systems.   The University of Bristol in the Unitd Kingdom has developed an animal-based wlfare asurance program (Leb et al., 2004).  This system focuses primarily on anil-sd mesure, iluding physical conditions, behavioural obsrvations, and laenes prevalenc (Whay et al., 2003).  These animl-based masure reflect the actual outcom of the environmental conditions regardls of which systm is usd; this method also alows for the asmnt of individual animalsithin farm.  A combination of environmental and animal-based masure may be most efective in developing a cprehensive on-frm asent. 11  In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in the dairy industry about cow comfort and its link to lmenes.  A growing body of resarch has now confirmed that facilty design and managent has a major impact on lamenes, which in turn afcts ow welfre and longevity.  Despit the knowledge in these ares, practial appliaton of research findings requis additional work.  For instanc, t mthods of aseing lying behaviour as decribed in earlir section may not be practil on commercial frms sinc it requires detailed observation of individual cows for extended periods of ti.  As wel, lamenes detecion on commrcial frms has been a chalenge.  For example, prevalenc of ls reportd by herd managers ws found to be thre tims lower than that esimatd by researchers (8% compared to 25%) for the same groups of cs (Epejo et al., 2006).  Git scoring requires training and an additional time comitnt, which may not always be possible on farms, epecialy as farm size continues to increase.  This suggest that there is a need to estblish pratil method of asing cow comfort and lamenes tt are scientficaly valid and at the sam ti practial for producers on-farm.   BFKF(J"L+'$15+#(The objectives of this theis were:  to establish reliable mthods of using lying behaviour as a measure of cowomfort, to describe the varition in lying behaviour of individual cows within frm and betwen farms (Chapter 2); and to evaluate the relationship betwen stal comfort, lying behaviour, and lmnes (Chapter 3). 12  BFMF(A+-+%+/'+#(Barberg, A. E., M. I. Endres, J. A. Salfer and J. K. Reneau. 2007. Performance and welfare of dairy cows in alternative housing systm in Minnesot. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1575-1583. Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, R. W. Blowey and L. E. Green. 2007. Management factors asociated with ipaired locomotion in dairy cs in England and Wles. J. Diry Sci. 90:3270-3277.  Bartussek, H. 1999. A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the asemnt of animals' well-being in the housing systs for Austrin proprietary products and lgislation. Livest. Prod. Sci. 61:179-192.  Bernardi, F., J. Fregonesi, C. Winckler, D. M. Veira, M. A. G. von Keysrlingk and D. M. Weary. 2009. The stal-design paradox: Nck rails increase lmnes but improve udder and stal hygine. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3074-3080.  Bicalho, R. C., S. H. Cheong, G. Cramer and C. L. Guard. 2007a. Asociaton betwen a visual nd an automated locomotion score in lacting Holstein cows. J. Diry Sci. 90:3294-3300.  Bicalho, R. C., V. S. Machado and L. S. Caixeta. 2009. Lamenes in dairy catle: A debilitang dise or a disea of debilited catle? A cross-sectional study of lamenes prevalnce and thicknes of the digitl cushion. J. Diry Sci. 92:3175-3184.  Bicalho, R. C., F. Vokey, H. N. Erb and C. L. Guard. 2007b. Visual locomotion scoring in the first seventy days in milk: Impact on pregnancy and survival. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4586-4591.  13  Bicalho, R. C., L. D. Warnick and C. L. Guard. 2008. Straegis to analyze milk losse caused by dise with potentil incidee throughout the laction: A lamnes exampl. J. Diry Sci. 91:2653-2661.  Canadian Diry Information Centre. 2009. Dairy fcts and figures. ww.dairyinfo.gc.ca. Acesd October 20, 2009. Chapinal, N., A. M. de Pasile, D. M. Weary, M. A. G. von Keysrlingk and J. Rushen. 2009. Using gait score, wlking sped, and lying behavior to detc hoof lsions in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4365-4374.  Cook, N. B. 2003. Prevalenc of lamenes aong dairy catle in Wisconsin as a function of housing type and stal surfac. J. A. Vt. Med. Asoc. 223:1324-1328.  Cook, N. B. and K. V. Nordlund. 2009. The influence of the environment on dairy cow behaviour, claw helth and herd lamenes dynamics. Vt. J. 179:360-369.  Cramer, G., K. D. Liseore, C. L. Guard, K. E. Lesli and D. F. Kelton. 2008. Herd- and cow-lvel prevalenc of foot lsions in Ontario dairy catl. J. Dairy Sci. 91:3888-3895.  Dippel, S., M. Dolezal, C. Brenninkmeyer, J. Brinkmann, S. March, U. Knierim and C. Winckler. 2009. Risk fctors for lamnes in freestl-housed dairy cows across two breeds, farming systms, and countries. J. Diry Sci. 92:5476-5486.  Drisler, M., M. Gaworski, C. B. Tucker and D. M. Weary. 2005. Freestal mintenanc: Efects on lying behavior on dairy catle. J. Dairy Sci. 88:2381-2387.  14  Espejo, L. A. and M. I. Endres. 2007. Herd-lvel risk factors for lamenes in high-producing Holstein cows housed in freestal barns. J. Dairy Si. 90:306-314.  Espejo, L. A., M. I. Endres and J. A. Salfer. 2006. Prevalenc of lamenes in high-producing Holstein cows housed in freestal barns in Minnesota. J. Dairy Sci. 3052-3058.  Flower, F. C., M. Sedlbauer, E. Carter, M. A. G. von Keysrlingk, D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Wary. 2008. Analgesic improve the gait of lam dairy catl. J. Dairy Sci. 91:3010-3014.  Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2006. Efect of hoof pathologies on subjective asemnts of dairy c gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89:139-146.  Fraser, D., D. M. Weary, E. A. Pajor and B. N. Milgan. 1997. A scientfic conception of animal wlfare that reflcts ehicl concerns. Anim. Welfare. 6:187-205.  Fregonesi, J. A., C. B. Tucker and D. M. Weary. 2007a. Overstocking reduces lying time in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90:3349-3354.  Fregonesi, J. A., D. M. Veira, M. A. G. von Keysrlingk and D. M. Weary. 2007b. Efects of bedding quality on lying behavior of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90:5468-5472.  Fregonesi, J. A., M. A. G. von Keysrlingk, C. B. Tucker, D. M. Veira and D. M. Weary. 2009. Neck-rail positon in the fre stal afcts sanding behavior and udder and stal cnlines. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1979-1985.  Fulwider, W. K., T. Grandin, D. J. Garrick, T. Engle, W. D. Lam, N. L. Dalsted and B. E. Rollin. 2007. Influence of free-stl base on tarsl joint lsions and hygiene in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90:3559-3566.  15  Galindo, F. and D. M. Broom. 2000. The relationships betwen social behavior of dairy cows nd the occurrence of lamenes in three herds. Res. Vet. Sci. 69:75-79.  Galindo, F., D. M. Broom and P. G. Jackson. 2000. A note on possible link betwen behaviour and the occurrence of lamenes in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 67:335-341.  Garbarino, E. J., J. A. Hernandez, J. K. Shearer, C. A. Risco and W. W. Thatcher. 2004. Efect of lmenes on ovarian activiy in postpartum Holstein cows. J. Dairy Si. 87:4123-4131.  Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Bley and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lmnes on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Si. 85:2250-2256.  Haley, D. B., A. M. de Pasile and J. Rushen. 2001. Aseing cow comfort: Efects of two floor types and two tie stl designs on the behaviour of lacting dairy cs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001:105-117.  Haley, D. B., J. Rushen and A. M. de Pasile. 2000. Behavioural indicators of cowomfort: Activiy and resting behaviour of dairy cows in two types of housing. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 80:257-263.  Haskel, M. J., L. J. Rennie, V. A. Bowel, M. J. Bel and A. B. Lawrence. 2006. Housing system, milk production, and zro-grazing efects on lamenes and lg injury in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 89:4259-4266.  Hernandez-Mendo, O., M. A. G. von Keysrlingk, D. M. Veira and D. M. Weary. 2007. Efects of pasture on lamnes in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1209-1214.  16  Hoedemaker, M., D. Prange and Y. Gundelach. 2009. Body condition change ante- and postpartum, health and reproductive performnce in Grman Holstein cows. Reproduction in Domestic Animls. 44:167-173.  Leb, C., D. C. J. Main, H. R. Whay, A. J. F. Webstr. 2004. Bristol Welfare Asurance Programe: Catle Asment. University of Bristol, UK. Leonard, F. C., J. M. O'Connel and K. J. O'Ferrel. 1996. Efects of overcrowding on claw health in first-calved Friesian heifers. Br. Vt. J. 152:459-472.  Philipot, J. M., P. Pluvinage, I. Cimarosti, P. Sulpice and F. Bugnard. 1994. Risk-factors of dairy-cow lamenes aociated with housing conditions. Vet. Res. 25:244-248.  Rushen, J., D. Haley and A. M. de Pasile. 2007. Efect of softer flooring in tie stals on resting behaviour and lg injuris of lacting cows. J. Dairy Si. 90:3647-3651.  Singh, S. S., W. R. Ward, K. Lautenbach and R. D. Murray. 1993. Behaviour of lame and normal dairy-cows in cubicls and in a straw yard. Vet. Rec. 133:204-208.  Somers, J. G. C. J., K. Frankena, E. Noordhuizen-Stasen and J. H. Metz. 2003. Prevalnc of claw disorders in Dutch dairy cows exposd to sveral foor systms. J. Dairy Sci. 86:2082-2093.  Sprecher, D. J., D. E. Hostelr and J. B. Kanee. 1997. A lamenes scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy catle reproductive performnc. Theriogenology. 47:1179-1187.  17  Tucker, C. B. and D. M. Weary. 2004. Bedding on geotextil matrese: How much is needed to improve cowomfort? J. Diry Sci. 87:2895.  Tucker, C. B., D. M. Weary and D. Fraser. 2003. Efects of three types of free-stal surfaces on preferencs and stal usge by dairy cows. J. Dairy Si. 86:521-529.  Tucker, C. B., D. M. Weary and D. Fraser. 2004. Free-stal dimensions: Efects on preferenc and stl usage. J. Diry Sci. 87:1208-1216.  Tucker, C. B., D. M. Weary and D. Fraser. 2005. Influence of neck-rail placemnt on free-stall preferenc, use, and clnlines. J. Dairy Sci. 88:2730-2737.  Tucker, C. B., G. Zdanowicz and D. M. Weary. 2006. Brisket boards reduce frestal use. J. Dairy Sci. 89:2603-2607.  Vanegas, J., M. Overton, S. L. Berry and W. M. Sischo. 2006. Efect of rubber flooring on claw helth in lacting dairy cows housed in free-stal barns. J. Dairy Si. 89:4251-4258.  von Keysrlingk, M. A. G., J. Rushen, A. M. de Pasile and D. M. Weary. 2009. Invited review: The wlfare of dairy catle--key concepts and the rol of scince. J. Diry Sci. 92:4101-4111.  Warnick, L. D., D. Janssen, C. L. Guard and Y. T. Grohn. 2001. The efect of lamenes on milk production in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 84:1988-1997.  Weary, D. M. and I. Taszkun. 2000. Hock lesions and free-stal design. J. Dairy Sci. 83:697-702.  echslr, B., J. Schaub, K. Friedli and R. Hauser. 2000. Behaviour and leg injuries in dairy ows kept in cubile systms with sraw bedding or soft lying mats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 69:189-197.  18  Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webstr. 2003. Asemnt of the welfare of dairy catle using animl-based masureents: Direct obsrvations and investigaon of frm records. Vt. Rec. 153:197-202.  19  .>!?)@A(GC(0N1/3(O+;&51,4%(,-(2%++:#$&**:;,4#+8(P&1%N(.,7#B GFBF(E/$%,84'$1,/(Dairy cows are highly motivated to lie down for approximately 12 h/d (Jensn et al., 2005) and lying is a higher priority behaviour than eating and socil contact when opportunities to perform these behaviours are restriced (Munksgard et al., 2005).  Preventing cows from adequate lying tim is harmful, and causs changes in hypothalamic-pituiary-drenal activiy (Munksgaard and Sionsen, 1996).  Lying beviour, particulrly the tie spent lying down, the frequency of lying bouts (i.e. a transiton from standing to lying), and t duration of individual bouts were identifed as sensitve measure of stl comfort (Haley et al., 2000).  For example, cows pend more tim lying down and do so more frequently on mtrese compared to a oncrete sal base (Haley et al., 2001), and on deep-bedded surfaces cpared to inadequately bedded mtres (Tucker et al., 2003).  Simlarly, cows spend more time lying down and have longer bouts in wider stals (132 c vs. 112 c; Tucker et al., 2004) and in stals with no brisket board (Tucker et al., 2006).  Lying time responds to simple changes in stl mnagement; for example, lying time increased from 8.8 to 13.8 h/d when wt bedding was switched to dry bedding (Fregonesi et al., 2007b), and lying time decreased by 1.7 h/d when t stocking rate (numr of cows per stal) increased from 100 to 150% (Fregonesi et al., 2007a). To evaluate such efects, tudis have measured lying behaviour continuously over a few days, either using data loggers (Wechslr et al., 2000; Endres and Barberg, 2007) or through time-lapse video (Hley et al., 2000; Tucker et al., 2006).  Continuous observation over 24-h periods, especialy for a group of animals housed together, can be technialy dificult and labour                                                  1. Aversion ofthis chapter as ben published.Ito, K., D.M. Weary, nd M. AG. von Keysrlingk. 209. Lying behaviour: aseing within- andbtw-herd variation n free-stall-housed dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 92:4412-4420. 20  intensive.  Alternatively, some studies have used 10-min, 15-in or even 1-h instantneous scan sampling, recording the proportion of the group of anials that was lying down at ech sn (Leonard et al., 1996; Overton et al., 2002; DeVris and von Keysrlingk, 2005).  In fedlot catl, Mitlöhner et al. (2001) showed that instantneous scan smpling of lying behaviour at 15-min intervals provided an acurat estimte highly correlted (r = 0.93) with continuous recording.  In addition, they found that focal spling of 1 animal out of 10 was enough to provide an acurate representation of the behaviour of the entire group. Methods of sampling lying behaviour in dairy ctl are not wel establisd.   On-farm “cow comfort” asmnt traditionaly involved a calcultion of an index or quotient based on a single obsrvation.  The most common measure is the Cow Comfort Index (CCI), defined as the proportion of cows touching a stal that are lying down (Nelson, 1996).  Simlar indices of cowomfort include: the Stal Use Index (SUI: the proportion of cows in the pen not fding that are lying down in t stls), and Stal Stnding Index (proporti cs touching a stal tt are standing or perching) (Cook et al., 2005).  Cow comfort index was linked to lmenes prevalenc (Espejo and Endres, 2007), and was used to ase stl usge at range of stocking densits (Krawczel et al., 2008).  The Ntional Animal Hlth Monitoring System (NAHMS) of the USDA estimatd CCI and SUI on particpating frms during the national 2007 cow comfort survey of the dairy industry.  Despit the reliance upon tse indices it is not clear if these indices provide reliable estimats of lying behaviour in dairy cows. The diurnal patrn of lying behaviour in lcting dairy cows i variable and is influenced by milking and feding management (Overton et al., 2002; DeVris and von Keysrlingk, 2005).  Considerabl day-today variation in the proportion of eligible cows that are lying down (i.e. SUI) was observed (Overton et al., 2002).  Tse authors recommnded tt 21  walk-through asemnts be undertaken 1 h after the return from morning milking to capture maxium lying behaviour.  In contrast, Cook et al. (2005) demonstraed that none of the indices of cowomfort based on hourly time points over the course of the day reflcted t mean daily lying time of 10 focal cows from the group.  Tse findings suggest that a more frequent and longer-trm monitoring of individual animals my be necesary to provide an acurate representation of lying behaviour on frm.  Elctroni data loggers are widely available and can be used to acurately masure lying behaviour including the totl time spent lying down, the frequency of lying bouts, and the duration of each bout for individual cows (O’Driscoll et al., 2008).  One aim was to determine how these loggers should be used to provide aurate estimates of lying behaviour for a herd, specifaly investigang how the number of days and focl anils sampled afcts the estimate of the herd mean.  A second aim was to compare commonly used indics of cowomfort (CCI and SUI) with lying tis collectd using data loggers to as the reliability of these indices a mesure of lying behaviour.  The final aim ws siply to describe within- and betwn-herd variation in measure of lying behaviour on comercial dairy farms using free-stall housing. GF(Q&$+%1*#(&/8(Q+$;,8#(#"!"$C0&>$,'1'*+-3)$0$',*&-=+-3)$ This study was conducted on 43 commercial dairy farms in the Fraser Valey region of British Columbi, Canada, betwn Noveber 2007 and June 2008.  Thre locl fd suppliers were asked to randomly selct 15 of their clients that met the following critea: free-stall housing, TMR or PR (partialy mixed ration with supplmntal grain), and milking > 70 cows.  Forty farms were recruited in this way and 3 others were recruited directly by the research team.  Thirt-five fsre on DHIA test; 2 frms usd VAMP Dairy Management Softwre 22  (Vampp Management Systems Inc., Canada) to record individual and herd milk production, 1 frm used DiryPlan (GEA Wstfali Surge GmbH, Bönen, Germany) software, but had no individual production records, and 5 frms had no production records availble.  The average herd size was 170 ± 80 (± SD, ranging from 71 to 511) milking cows producing 10,548 ± 800 (ranging from 8,991 to 12,080) kg annualy (based on annual yield estimated by DHIA or equivalent value derived from VAMP and DairyPln).  The majority of the frms (n = 37) milked twic daily, while the rest (n = 6) milked 3 times daily; and t majority (n = 34) fed once daily, while the rest (n = 9) fed twice daily.  The main types of stl base wre matres (n = 17) and dep-bedded sand or sadust (n = 12), but tre were a variety of other types including concrete, rubber mt, tires, wood, or a combination of multipl types (n = 14); stals were bedded with sadust (n = 33), sand (n = 9), or chopped straw (n = 1). #""$D0+$*31'*+-3)$Each frm was viited twice, with 5 d betwen visit.  As heat sres i known to afect lying time (Cook et al., 2007), the data collection period was limted to days where t axium tperature was < 25 °C.  The maximum teperature across study daysas 9.5 ± 5.3 °C (ranging from – 1.7 to 24.5 °C).  Upon arrival at each frm, the producer was aked to identify 1 pen that housed the high producing cows, whih was used for dat collection.  Thirten farmsd al lacting cows in a single group, and others sparatd high producing vs. low producing cows, or multiparous vs. primiparous cows.  T selctd group size was 94 ± 31 (ranging from 32 to 187) cows, and the stal stocking rate was 104 ± 15 (ranging from 71 to 157) %. On the first visit, researchers arrived at the farm 2 h before the afternoon milking (ranging betwen 0911 and 1658 h) to take a visual count of t number of cows lying down, 23  standing fully in the stal, stnding with only two front fet in the stal, and feding; these mesure were usd to clculate the CCI and SUI.  Anotr count ws tken on t scond visit idiatly aftr the morning milking.  During milking on the first visit, up to 50 cows were systemticly selctd as focal cows baed on the order ty entered the milking parlor; for xapl, if the group had 100 cs, every scond cow that cam into t parlor was aesd.  Lying behaviour was recorded using an eletroni data logger (HOBO Pendant G Aclration Dat Logger, Onset Computer Corporation, Pocset, MA) that was atched to the medial side of the hind lg of each focal cow using vet wrap (Co-Flx, Andover Coated Products Inc., Salisbury, MA), in a positon such that the x-axisa parale to the ground, the y-axis wa perpendicular to the ground pointing upwrd, and the z-xis wa parale to t ground pointing awy from t sgital plne.  The loggers recorded t g force on the x, y, and z-axis at 1-min intervals for 5 d, pre-programed to start at midnight following t first visit.  The dat loggers wre removed from the cows on the scond visit and the data were downloaded using Onset HOBOare Software (Onset Computer Corporation), which convertd the g force readings into degrees of tilt.  These data wre exportd into Microsoft Excel, and t degre of verticl tit (y-axis) wa used to detrmine the lying positon of the animal, such that readings < 60° indiated the cow stnding while readings " 60° indicated t cow lying down.  A mcro was usd to calulte daily standing tim (min/d) and the frequency of standing bouts (no./d) based on 1,440 obsrvations from midnight until midnight t following day.  Stng and lying bouts of ! 2 min were ignored, as thee reading were likely asociated with leg movements at the time of recording (Endres and Barberg, 2007).  Daily lying tim (min/d) was clculatd as t invers of the standing time, and the average bout duration (min/bout) ws clulted by dividing the daily lying tie by the number of bouts for that day. Most cows were lying down at midnight, but 24  cows that were standing had bouts aigned to both days (e.g. a cow standing from 23:30 until 00:30 would be asigned a 30 min standing bout in each of the 2 d).  This source of error could be elimnated if observations were not divided into 24-h periods, but this division was necesary in the current study. Prior to the study, 25 HOBO loggers were tsted against Tinytag Plus loggers (Gemini Dat Loggers Ltd., Chichester, Wst Sussx, UK), which wre previously validated for recording standing and lying behaviour in dairy cows (O’Driscoll et al., 2008).  One of each logger type ws simultaneously atached to the same lg of a cow for a 4-d period, and programed to record positon at 1-min intervals.  Tinytag Plus logger used an internal circuit switch that opened (0 V) when in vertical positon and closed (2.5 V) when in horizontal positon, indicating wtr t cow ws stnding or lying down.  Dat recorded by these loggers were downloaded using Tinytag Explorer software (Gemini Dt Loggers Ltd.), exportd into Microsoft Excel, and used to calculte the behavioural variables following the sam methodology desribed above for the HOBO loggers.  Measure of daily lying time (min/d) and bout frequency (no./d) derived from the 2 types of loggers were closely asociatd (R2 = 1.00 and 0.97, respectively). A total of 2,111 cows were ased, but only 2,035 cows had usable lying behaviour data; 76 cows were removed becaus they were either sold, became sick, moved to a diferent group during the asent period, or t asigned data logger mlfunctioned.  Basd on the sample siz analyses (decribed in later sctions), 2 cows ming 3 d or more of data were also reoved from the datast.  The final datst cisted of 43 farms and 2,033 cows.  On average, 47 ± 5 (ranging betwen 26 and 50) cows were sampld on ech f for 4.9 ± 0.4 (ranging 25  betwen 3 and 5) d.  The focal cows averaged 2.6 ± 1.4 (ranging from 1 to 12) lactions and 150 ± 94 (ranging from 11 to 704) DIM at the time of asemnt.   #"8"$D0+$)12,',$In order to determine how sample siz afectd the estimate of lying behaviour, 38 farms tha had at least 44 focal cows with complt data for 5 d (n = 1,818) wre used to crete subsets of data consistng of: a) 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 d per cow, and b) 44, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5, and 1 cow(s) per frm, using the SURVEYSLCT procedure in SAS (S Instiute Inc., 2004).  Simple random sampling without replacemnt (method=SRS; sed=0) was usd with srata specifd as a) farm cow, or b) farm.  Estits of the man lying tim (h/d) and mean bout frequency (no./d) based on eah subset wre calculted using the SUMARY procdure, and the relationship betwn the overal man (based on 5 d and 44 cows per farm) and each estimate ws tetd using regresion (REG;odel df = 1).  Appendix 1 provides exaples of the SAS codes used for this analysis.  The complet procedure was repeated 10 tims for each subset, and the 10 R2 values were usd to estimat a man R2 nd SD for ech subset.  For al squent analyses, data were first averaged on a per cow basi, from whih the farm mans were calculted; asocitons betwen variables wre testd using regresion (REG;odel df = 1). GFH(A+#4*$#(#"8!"$E'0,7&-).$4'506-37&$The estimate of the overal mean lying time (h/d) and bout frequency (no./d) based on the 5 d of obsrvations declined progresively when fwr days were available (Figure 2.1).  Measure of lying time (h/d) and bout frequency (no./d) basd on 3 d of dat provided excelnt stimts of the overal mans (R2 = 0.94 and 0.95, respectively).  This acuray declined when 26  estimates wre based on 2 d (R2 = 0.88 and 0.90), and declined further wn the estimates wre basd on only 1 d (R2 = 0.74 and 0.77). The acuray of estimates of lying time (h/d) and bout frequency (no./d) declined when estimates wre based on fwr cows per farm (Figure 2.2).  Estimates of lying time (h/d) and bout frequency (no./d) based on 30 cs provided a reasonabl estit of the overal means (R2 = 0.88 and 0.90, respectively), but this relationship ws le when estimates wre basd on 20 cows (R2 = 0.75 and 0.82, respectively) and declined furtr wn t estitsere based on only 10, (R2 = 0.54 and 0.60, restily), 5 (R2 = 0.39 and 0.39, respectively) and 1 cow (R2 = 0.08 and 0.08, respectively) per farm. #"8"$?'1-04-1-+2$3($*F$3>(&+$-);-*',$The mean CCI was 75 ± 10 (ranging from 50 to 92) %, and the mean SUI was 58 ± 13 (ranging from 33 to 89) %.  As expected, CCI and SUI derived from t sm observation were asocited (R2 = 0.57, P < 0.01).  Nverthels, there was no asociaton betwn CCI and the mn lying time (h/d) derived from continuous monitoring of the fl cows from the same group (Figure 2.3A; R2 = 0.00, P = 0.10).  The CCI was mildly asocited with t mn bout frequency (no./d; Figure 2.3B; R2 = 0.16, P = 0.01) and men bout duration (min/bout; Figure 3.3C; R2 = 0.09, P = 0.05).  The SUI was not asociatd with lying time (h/d),  frequency (no./d), or bout duration (min/bout) (R2 < 0.02, P > 0.30).  Moreover, neithr CCI nor SUI was asocited with the same index derived from a separat sample taken imediatly after the morning milking 5 d ltr (R2 = 0.01, P = 0.50, and R2 = 0.00, P = 0.80, respectively).   #"8"$A2-).$4'506-37&$GF-+5-)H$0);$4'+F'')H5'&;$60&-0+-3)$27  Across farms, cows spent, on average, 11.0 ± 2.1 h/d lying down separatd into 9 ± 3 bouts/d.  The f means varied from 9.5 to 12.9 h/d and 7 to 10 bouts/d, whil the individual means varied from 4.2 to 19.5 h/d and 1 to 28 bouts/d (Figures 2.4 and 2.5).  T duration of lying bouts across farms averaged 88 ± 30 min/bout, with the farm means ranging from 65 to 112 min/bout and the individual means ranging from 22 to 342 min/bout.  The variation among cows difered from farm to farm; for example, the SD in lying time varid from 1.5 to 3.3 h/d.  Simlarly, the SD in bout frequency and bout duration varied from 2 to 4 bouts/d, and 17 to 49 in/bout. GFI(P1#'4##1,/(#"B!"$E'0,7&-).$4'506-37&$Two aspect of sampling procedure must be considered when deciding on a method of measuring behaviour: 1) the spling rul that specifes which subjets to observe, and 2) the recording rule tt specifes how the beviour should be reorded (Martin and Batson, 1993).  In our study, focal instntaneous sampling at 1-min intervals wa used.  Dspite numerous studies decribing the lying behaviour of cows on-farm (Wchslr et al., 2000; Cook et al., 2005; Endres and Barberg, 2007), it was not known how the length of a sampling period influences the acuray of measure of lying behaviour of individual cows.  Reserchers have used a varity of smpling mthods; for example, Cook et al. (2005) recorded continuously through video (capturing 1 s of video every 30 s) for a single 24-h period, Weschlr et al. (2000) recorded at 16-s intervals for 3 d, and Endres and Barberg (2007) recorded continuously (8 times/) for 1 wk.  Our data provides the first evidence that, when recording at 1-min intervals, increasing the number of smpling days from 3 to 5 d makes litle difrence, suggesting that a 3 d smpling period is sufficent to acurately estimte lying behaviour. Even a sampling period of 2 d yielded 28  reasonable estimates with about 90% acuray and a single d sampling yielded estimates with bout 75% acuray compared to the overal mean basd on 5 d.  Varition among individual cows w considerable, such that the number of focal animls required to acurately estimate the farm mean ws high.  Focal smpling is generaly the best approach for studying groups (Mrtin and Batson, 1993), as it normaly unnecesary to observe every animal.  Cook et al. (2005) sampled 10 focal cows from a pen contining approxiately 85 cows, and found some discrepancis betwen CCI calculted from only the focl cows and the same indices bad on al cows in the pen.  Mitlöhner et al. (2001) showed tha estimates of t percntage of time spent lying based on 1 to 9 animals out of a group of 10 were al silr, indicating that 1 focal anial for every 10 was sufficent to estiate the group man.  Our ability to estimte the frm men based on a smple of 44 cows decresd a t sple decreased from 30 to 20, 10, 5 and 1 cow.  A sapl of 30 cs gave estimates of lying behaviour with about 90% acuray; this wa reduced to about 80% when t spl siz decreased to 20, and les than 60% when t smpl siz decreased to 10 cows.  From these result, w suggest tt farm estimates of lying behaviour be obtined from at least 30 cows per group.  Herd estimtes appered to pltu betwen 30 and 40 cows, suggesting that smpling additional cows would provide litle extra information.  #"B"$?'1-04-1-+2$3($*F$3>(&+$-);-*',$ The time of sapling relative to milking is an important source of variation in CCI (Cook et al., 2005), but this w stndardized in the current study at 2 h before the afternoon milking.  The average CCI across farms wa 75%, simlar to values reported in WI and MN (Cook et al., 2005; Espejo et al., 2006).  The SUI for the frms in the current study was 58%. This value is lower than tt reported previously (89% in Overton et al., 2002; 70 to 76% in Cook et al., 29  2005).  Stal use index is generaly higher when cows have aces to more space and free-stalls (Krawczel et al., 2008), but the stocking densites in the farms in our study wre comparabl to thos studid by Overton et al. (2002) and Cook et al. (2005). Cow comfort index and SUI are fquently used as practial indicators of cowomfort.  Unfortunately, our result showed no asociaton betwn the CCI or SUI at the pen level and the man daily lying time basd on continuous recording of t focal cows from each pen.  Insted there was aak negative relationship betwen CCI and the frequency of ling bouts, and a low positve reltionship betwen CCI and the duration of lying bouts.  Cook et al. (2005) temptd to relate thes indices to etimates of daily lying time basd on a continuous recording, and also found no asociaton.  In combination, these reults indicat that CCI and SUI do not provide an acurate estimte of lying behaviour, and likely should not be used for on-farm asemnts of this behaviour.  #"B8"$A2-).$4'506-37&$GF-+5-)H$0);$4'+F'')H5'&;$60&-0+-3)$Mean lying times (11.0 h/d) in the current study were simlar to values previously recorded on comrcial frms using free-stal housing (Wchslr et al., 2000; Cook et al., 2005), although the frequency of lying bouts (9 bouts/d) was lower and the duration of individual bouts (88 min/bout) was longer compared to values reportd by Wchsler et al. (2000; 12 to 15 bouts/d and 53 to 67 min/bouts).  Lying behaviour in free-stal barns is aftd by design and mnageent factors including stal surface and bedding quality (Tucker et al., 2003; Drisler et al., 2005; Fregonesi et al., 2007b), stl siz and configuration (Tr et al., 2004, 2006), stocking density (Fregonesi et al., 2007a), stal location and pen layout (Wagner-Storch et al., 2003), and pen flooring (Fregonesi et al., 2004).  Despit a wide range in ech of these factors in 30  the current study, the range among the farm averages wa les than the range among cows within many of the farms. A cow’s lying behaviour is influenced by her social ranking (Galindo and Broom, 2000) as wel as production and health stus (Fregonesi and Lever, 2001; Wlker et al., 2008).  Vrition in individual behaviour may be morearked in highly competive environments where t ability of each animl to aces a stl is retriced.  For example, Lonard et al. (1996) reported daily lying tie of 7.5 h/d for heifrs housed at 2:1 stocking density (2 animals: 1 stal) with values ranging from 2.7 to 11.9 h/d for individual heifers.  Overcrowding could contribute to a high variation in individual lying bouts due to increasd opportunities for displacemnts from the stls dirupting the normal lying behaviour (Fregonesi et al., 2007a).  Another potential source of variation is etrous behaviour.  In the present study there was no way of systmaticly acounting for estrus, but future work studying t efcts of estrous activiy on lying behaviour would be benefical.  Regardles of the cause, individual lying behaviours of cows housed together can be highly variabl.  T lrge cow-toc variation reduces the staistcl powr of tes relying on betwen-cow comparisons; within- comparisons are likely more sensitve in detcing managemnt or design changes expected to afect lying behaviour.     GFK(.,/'*4#1,#(Reliable estimates of lying behaviour on commercial dairy farms can be generated using 3 d of continuous recordings (at 1-min intrvals) from 30 focl cows per f.  The CCI and SUI derived from a single obsrvation were not asociated with lying time, bout frequency, or bout duration; and thus, cannot be recommnded as mthods of aseing this behaviour. The range in lying behaviour among individual cows within farms wa gretr than diferencs across farms. 31   Figure 2.1. The relationship (R2) betwen (A) mean lying time (h/d) and (B) mean bout frequency (no./d) based on 5 d per cow and estimts derived from 4, 3, 2, or 1 d randomly sampled for each cow (n = 1,818 cs; 38 farm).  The SDs across the 10 ra sapling vents are too sml to be visible. 32   Figure 2.2. The relationship (R2) betwen (A) mean lying time (h/d) and (B) mean bout frequency (no./d) based on 44 cows on each frm and estiats derived from 40, 30, 20, 10, 5 and 1 cow(s) randomly sampled on eh f (n = 38 frm; 1,818 cows).  The error bars represent ± 1 SD of the mn generated from 10 random sampling event. 33   Figure 2.3. Asociaton betwen Cow Comfort Index (CCI), derived from a point-count obsrvation of the asemnt group on each of 43 farms at 2 h before thefternoon milking, and (A) mean lying ti (h/d; R2 = 0.00, P = 0.10), (B) men bout frequency (no./d; R2 = 0.16, P = 0.009), and (C) mean bout duration (min/bout; R2 = 0.09, P = 0.05), based on continuous monitoring over 5 d of focal cows (n = 2,033) from the same groups.  34   Figure 2.4. Mean (#), maximum and minimum ($) lying time (h/d) on each of 43 farms.  The rror bars represnt ± 1 SD of the means. 35  (Figure 2.5. Mean (#), maximum and minimum ($) bout frequency (no./d) on each of 43 farms.  The error bars represent ± 1 SD of the means. 36  GFMF(A+-+%+/'+#(Cook, N. B., T. B. Bennet, and K. V. Nordlund. 2005. Monitoring indices of cowomfort in free-stall-housed dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3876-3885.  Cook, N. B., R. L. Mentink, T. B. Bennet, and K. Burgi. 2007. The efects of heat sres and lamenes on tim budgets of lacting dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1674-1682. DeVris, T. J. and M. A. G. von Keysrlingk. 2005. Time of fed delivery afects the feding and lying paterns of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 88:625-631.  Drisler, M., M. Gaworski, C. B. Tucker, and D. M. Weary. 2005. Freestal mintenanc: Efects on lying behaviour on dairy catle. J. Dairy Sci. 88:2381-2387.  Endres, M. I. and A. E. Barberg. 2007. Behaviour of dairy cows in alternative bedded-pack housing systems. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4192-4200. Espejo, L. A. and M. I. Endres. 2007. Herd-lvel risk factors for lamenes in high-producing Holstein cows housed in freestal barns. J. Dairy Si. 90:306-314.  Espejo, L. A., M. I. Endres, and J. A. Salfer. 2006. Prevalenc of lamenes in high-producing Holstein cows housed in freestal barns in Minnesota. J. Dairy Sci. 3052-3058.  Fregonesi, J. A. and J. D. Leaver. 2001. Behaviour, performance and health indicators of welfare for dairy cows housed in strawyard or cubicle systms. Livest. Prod. Sci. 68:205-216.  Fregonesi, J. A., C. B. Tucker, and D. M. Weary. 2007a. Overstocking reduces lying time in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90:3349-3354.  37  Fregonesi, J. A., C. B. Tucker, D. M. Weary, F. C. Flower, and T. Vitle. 2004. Efect of rubber flooring in front of the fed bunk on the tim budgets of dairy catl. J. Dairy Si. 87:1203-1207.  Fregonesi, J. A., D. M. Veira, M. A. G. von Keysrlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2007b. Efects of bedding quality on lying behavior of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90:5468-5472. Galindo, F. and D. M. Broom. 2000. The relationships betwen social behaviour of dairy cows nd the occurrence of lamenes in three herds. Res. Vet. Sci. 69:75-79.  Haley, D. B., A. M. de Pasilé, and J. Rushen. 2001. Aseing cow comfort: Efects of two floor types and two tie stl designs on t behaviour of lacting dairy cs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001:105-117.  Haley, D. B., J. Rushen, and A. M. de Pasilé. 2000. Behavioural indicators of cowomfort: Activiy and resting behaviour of dairy cows in two types of housing. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 80:257-263.  Jensn, M. B., L. J. Pederson, and L. Munksgaard. 2005. The efect of reward duration on demand functions for rest in dairy heifers and lying requiremnts a msured by demand functions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 90:207-217. Krawczel, P. D., C. T. Hil, H. M. Dann, and R. J. Grant. 2008. Short communication: Efect of stocking density on indices of cowomfort. J. Dairy Sci. 91:1903-1907.  Leonard, F. C., J. M. O'Connel, and K. J. O'Ferrel. 1996. Efects of overcrowding on claw health in first-calved Friesian heifers. Br. Vt. J. 152:459-472.  38  Martin, P. and P. Bateson. 1993. Measuring Behaviour. Second Edition. Cambridge Univserstiy Pres, Cambridge, UK.  Mitlöhner, F. M., J. L. Morrow-Tesch, S. C. Wilson, J. W. Dailey, and J. J. McGlone. 2001. Behavioural sampling techniques for fdlot catle. J. Anim. Sci. 79:1189-1193. Munksgaard, L., M. B. Jensn, L. J. Pedersn, S. W. Hansen, and L. Mathews. 2005. Quantifying behavioural prioritis - efcts of time constraints on behaviour of dairy cows, Bos taurus. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 92:3-14.  Munksgaard, L. and H. B. Simonsen. 1996. Behavioural and pituiary adrenal-axis reponses of dairy cows to social isoltion and deprivation of lying down. J. Anim. Sci. 74:769-778.  Nelson, A. J. 1996. On-farm nutrition diagnostics: Nutrition manageent involvement opportunities for dairy practioners. Pges 76–85 in Proc. 29th Annu. Conf. A. Bovine Pract., San Digo, CA. AABP, Rome, GA.  O'Driscoll, K., L. Boyle, and A. Hanlon. 2008. A brief not on the validaton of a system for reording lying behaviour in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 111:195-200.  Overton, M. W., W. M. Sischo, G. D. Tepl, and D. A. Moore. 2002. Using time-laps video photography to ase dairy catle lying behavior in a free-stal barn. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2407-2413.  Tucker, C. B., D. M. Weary, and D. Fraser. 2003. Efects of three types of free-stal surfaces on preferencs and stal usge by dairy cows. J. Dairy Si. 86:521-529.  Tucker, C. B., D. M. Weary, and D. Fraser. 2004. Free-stal dimensions: Efects on preferenc and stl usage. J. Diry Sci. 87:1208-1216.  39  Tucker, C. B., G. Zdanowicz, and D. M. Weary. 2006. Brisket boards reduce frestal use. J. Dairy Sci. 89:2603-2607.  Wagner-Storch, A. M., R. W. Palmer, and D. W. Kamel. 2003. Factors afecting stal use for diferent festal base. J. Diry Sci. 86:2253-2266.  Walker, S. L., R. F. Smith, J. E. Routly, D. N. Jones, M. J. Morris, and H. Dobson. 2008. Lamenes, activiy tie-budgets, and estrus expresion in dairy catle. J. Dairy Sci. 91:4552-4559.  Wechslr, B., J. Schaub, K. Friedli, and R. Hauser. 2000. Behaviour and leg injuries in dairy ows kept in cubile systms with sraw bedding or soft lying mts. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 69:189-197.  40  .>!?)@A(HC(0N1/3(O+;&51,4%(&#(&/(E/81'&$,%(,-(0&9+/+#G(HFBF(E/$%,84'$1,/(Lamenes i widely recognized as a serious animal welfare and production isue in the dairy industry.  Recent studies have estimatd that 20 to 30% of lcting dairy cows in North America are clinialy lm (Cook, 2003; Espejo et al., 2006), with the higst raes observed in herds housed in free-stl  Haskel et al., 2006; Cook and Nordlund, 2009).  For instanc, Cramr et al. (2008) found that 47% of cows in free-stal herds had lesions on at least one foot, and Bicalho et al. (2007a) found tt 13% of cs in a free-stal herd had a painful lesion (i.e. retion to digital presure applied to the lesion). Another study estimated lenes prevalnce to be as high as 48%, ranging from 0 to 81%, among 33 free-stal herds in Grmany (Dippel et al., 2009).  Lamenes compromise the welfare of the afctd animls (Whay et al., 2003), and can result in reducd milk yild (Warnick et al., 2001; Green et al., 2002; Bicalho et al., 2008), reduced frtilty and increased risk of premature culling (Garbarino et al., 2004; Biclho et al., 2007b).   Herd-lvel risk factors for lamenes, within the free-stal system, include: stal fetures (Philipot et al., 1994; Espejo and Endres, 2007), lying surfc (Cook, 2003; Espejo et al., 2006), overcrowding (Leonard et al., 1996), increased time spent away from the pen for milking (Espejo and Endres, 2007), and the use of automtic aly scrapers (Barker et al., 2007).  Dippel et al. (2009) found that reduced lying cfort, measured by the frequency of abnormal lying down and rising beviours (i.e. interruptd movemnts, lying down or standing up tking longer than 20 s, lying down with hindquartrs fit, or rising with forequarters fit), was alo a risk                                                  2. Aversion ofthis chapter as ben submited for publicaton. Ito, K., M. A. G. von Keyselringk, S. J. LeBlanc, and D.M. Weary. Ling behavior as an indicator of lameness. 41  factor for lamenes.  Increased exposure to hard flooring surfaces betwen periods of rest, ombined with reduced rest due to an uncomfortable lying environmnt, collctively contribute to lames (Cook and Nordlund, 2009).  Within herds, some individuals are more susceptibl to lamenes than others.  Older cows are generaly at higher risk (Epejo et al., 2006; Haskel et al., 2006; Bicalho et al., 2007b; Dippel et al., 2009), and incidee of lamenes peks 3 to 4 months into ltion (Green et al., 2002).  Thinner digital cushion (Biclho et al., 2009), higher milk production at the beginning of laction (Green et al., 2002; Bialt al., 2008), and low body condition (BCS < 3.0) before nd at calving (Hoedemarker et al., 2009) have also been identifed as cow-level risk factors for lamenes.  In a study exaining behavioural risks for lamnes, Galindo et al. (2000) found that cows that becam l spent more time standing with only two front fet in the stal compared to cs tt did not become la (6.2% vs. 5.6% of the day, respectively).  Glindo and Broom (2000) also found that the incidee of lamenes was relted to standing behaviour such that the number of new case of lamenes ws higher aong cows that spent > 45% of the day standing. The reltionship betwn behaviour and lamenes i complex, possibly due to the variation in t causes and severity of laenes.  Ls may be afcted by behaviour, but it lso modifies the behaviour of afctd cows (Cook and Nordlund, 2009).  In general, lame cows spend more tim lying down (Singh et al., 1993; Walker et al., 2008; Chapinal et al., 2009) and les tie fding (Gonzalez et al., 2008), perform fewr aggresive interactions (Galindo aBroom, 2002), and are ls active (O'Calaghan et al., 2003) compared to non-lme cows.  Juarez et al. (2003) compared the lying behaviour of cows with varying degrees of lanes (locomotion sores 1 to 4), and found tt the proportion of cows lying down within each category increased with the degree of lamenes, with the greates increase for the severely lme 42  cows. Cook et al. (2004, 2008) found that the type of lying surface afcted the behavioural hanges due to lamenes; lae cows spent more time standing in stls than non-lame cows, but this diferenc ws gretr on mtres stals compared to snd stals.  These findings show that the resting environment plays an importnt role in the extent to which behaviour is modified by lamenes.   Laenes, a diagnosed by producers, is often underestimated (Whay et al., 2003; Espejo et al., 2006). Behavioural asmnt, such as viual obsrvations of cow gait, is usualy the first line of lamenes detecion before hoof lesions can be identifed during triming (Bicalho et al., 2007a; Chapinal et al., 2009).  Gait scoring has been usd to detc laenes by reserchers (e.g. Cook, 2003; Espejo et al., 2006; Flower and Wary, 2006), but this mthod requires som training and some tim to perform the asments.  Automated tchnology for measuring lying behaviour is readily available (Ito et al., 2009); inexpensive eltroni data loggers cn provide precise etimtes of lying behaviour for individual cows.  The objectives of the present study wre to detrmine how lyiviour of dairy c is afectd by lamnes, and to evaluate the value of measure of lying behaviour in identifying lam cows. HFG(Q&$+%1*#(&/8(Q+$;,8#(8"#!"$C0&>$,'1'*+-3)$0;$',*&-=+-3)$ This study was conducted on 43 commercial dairy farms in the Fraser Valey region of British Columbi, Canada, betwn Noveber 2007 and June 2008.  Thre locl fd suppliers were asked to randomly selct 15 of their clients that met the following critea: free-stall housing, TMR or PR (partialy mixed ration with supplmntal grain), and milking > 70 cows.  Forty farms were recruited in this way; 3 other farms that met the se crita were recruited 43  directly by the research team.  The number of farms included in this study was determined predominantly by ti constraints a t mximum number that could be recruitd and ased within the winter-spring period.  Out of these farms, 11 farms using deep-bedded stals (6 using sand and 5 using sawdust as bedding) and 17 fs using mtres stals (geotextil mtres with minimal bedding) were slectd for this study; 14 farms using other types of stal base (concrete, tires, rubber mat, wood, mixed types) were excluded, and 1 farm using dep-bedded stal ws removed due to the lck of production records.  The average herd size was 177 ± 85 (± SD, ranging from 83 to 511) milking cowsing 10,434 ± 799 (ranging from 8,991 to 12,080) kg annualy.  These sample herds represent the larger dairies ranked in the top quartile of production in British Columbi.  The farms milked twice (n = 24) or thre times (n = 4) daily, and fed once (n = 22) or twice (n = 6) daily.   8"#"$D0+$*31'*+-3)$Each frm was viited twice, with 5 d betwen visit.  As heat sres can afect lying time (Cook et al., 2007), the data colltion period was limtd to days where t mximum temperature was < 25 °C.  The average maxium teperature across study days was 9.4 ± 5.3 °C (ranging from – 1.0 to 24.5 °C).  Upon arrival at each frm, the producer ws aked to identify 1 pen that housed the high producing cows; thi pen was used for data collection.  Six farms housed al lacting cows in a single group, and others sparatd high producing vs. low producing cows, or multiparous vs. primiparous cows.  T selctd group size averaged 99 ± 34 (mean ± SD, ranging from 47 to 187) cows, and the average stal stocking rat for these groups ws 104 ± 15 (rang f 78 to 157) %. During the afternoon milking on the first visit, up to 50 cows (47 ± 3, ranging from 37 to 50) were systematicly slcted as focal cows baed on the order they entered the milking 44  parlor; for example, if the group had 100 cows, every second cow that came into the parlor was selctd.  The sapl size was decided based on the availabiity of the recording devices; howver, retrospective analysis etablished that 30 cows per frm provided a reasonabl sample for encompasing the variations in lying beviour (Ito et al., 2009).  The final sple included 1319 cows, averaging 2.6 ± 1.4 (ranging from 1 to 12) lactions and 150 ± 94 (ranging from 11 to 581) DIM.  Lying behaviour of the focal cows w reorded using electroni data loggers (HOBO Pendant G Acelration Dat Loggers, Onset Computer Corporation, Pocset, MA) at 1-min intrval for 5 d (Ito et al., 2009).  Durations of individual lying bouts were computd using Microsoft Excel macros for the 5-d period, from which daily lying time (h/d), frequency of lyibouts (no./d), average duration of lying bouts (min/bout), and the SD of lying bout duration (min/) were calculted for each cow. Following the morning milking on the second visit, focal cows were gait scored as they exitd the parlor, using a 5-point Numerical Rating System (NRS; Flr and Weary, 2006).  For t purposes of the current study cows were catgorizd as N ! 2, NRS = 3, or NRS = 4.  No cow in this study was scored as NRS = 5.  The NRS use 6 behavioural critea but was simplifed for this study by focusing on 3 atributes:  aymmtric gait, head bob, and reluctnce to bear wight.  These atributes are highly correlatd with eah other as wel as with the overal NRS score based on t 6 atris (Chapinal et al., 2009).  A single trained obsrver performed al soring.  The obsrver was trained to gait score using recorded videos of cows walking in a straight line on a concrete aly (Chapinal et al., 2009); these sam vio pasages were refencd every 2 months in an efort to minimize changes in the observer’s subjctive asmnt of gait as the study progresed.  Prior to the study, t obsr scored 132 cows 45  simultaneously with another experiencd observer, and achieved high inter-observer agreemnt (Kppa stistc = 0.94).  8"#"$D0+$)12,',$at were analyzed using cow as the observational unit.  Descriptive summaries wre obtined using the SUMARY and FREQ procdures of SAS (S Instiute Inc., 2004).  Data from farms using deep-bedded stals (DB; n = 11 farms and 526 cows) and farms using mtrese (MAT; n = 17 farms and 793 cows) were analyzed sparately as there is evidence from previous work that the stl surface afcts the behaviour of lam cows (Cook et al., 2004, 2008).  Table 3.1 provides t desriptive summary of t cows used in analyses. The difrences in lamenes prevalenc and lying behaviours betwn the two stal surface tgoris, straifd by NRS, wre tstd using the TTES procedure of SAS 9.1 (SAS Instiut Inc., 2004) (Appendix 1).  Normality of data ws tetd using the UNIVRIATE procedure, and heterogeneity of varince, where necesry, was counted for by using the Satrthwaite mthod for computing t SE.  Al other stistl analyss wre performed using the GLIMMIX procedure (SAS Instiute Inc., 2008).  Within each stl surface ctgory, mixed linear regresion models were catd to tst the diferencs in lying behaviour betwen cows with diferent degrees of lamnes, controlling for t random efect of farm (Appendix 1). Complianc with the asumptions of normality and homogeneity of varinces wre checked visualy through residual plots created by the UNIVARIATE and GPLOT procdures (SAS Instiute Inc., 2004).  Natural logarithm transformation was applied to bout frequency (no./d), bout duration (min/bout), and the SD of bout duration (min/bout) to normalize thes distributions.  Extreme outliers (3 times the interquartile range outside of t intrquartile lmits:  n = 1 for bout frequency; n = 5 for bout duration; n = 2 for SD of bout duration) wre reoved 46  from analysis.  Parity and DIM were forced into al models because they have been known to influence lying behaviour (Endres and Barberg, 2007) as wel as rik of lamnes (Warnick et al., 2001; Espejo et al., 2006; Bicalho et al., 2007b).  Parity was clsifed as 4 ctegoris: 1, 2, 3, and " 4, and DIM was treted as continuous.  Interactions betwn the covariats wre not included because the efcts wre never significant and did not confound t efect of lamenes.  Least square mns of eah lying variable for the 3 ctegoris of lamenes wre contrastd, back-transformed where applicable, and reportd with 95% confidenc intrvals. Frequency distributions of the lying variables in each lmenes category (including al data; n = 28 farms and 1319 cows) were generatd using the CHART procdure (SAS Instiute Inc., 2004), dividing the observed range for each variable into 15 bins of equal increment (Appendix 1).  T distributions as the percentge of cows in each bin were usd to creat overlapping line graphs.  For each lying variabl, a cutoff point to define extreme behaviour was set a the value where t distributions of cows with NRS " 3 and cows with NRS ! 2 intrscted.  Lamenes outcome was dichotomized tice, as N " 3 and as N = 4.  Odds ratios (OR) for NRS " 3 and NRS = 4 were estimatd, for eah stl type separatly, using logistic regresion (GLIMMIX; dist = binomil and link = logit) controlling for the random eft of farm (Appendix 1).  Each extreme lying variable was tetd individualy for asociaton with NRS " 3 and NRS = 4.  Prity and DIM wre forcd into models a explanatory varibles a in the linear models.  Sensitviy and specifty of each extreme behavioural cutoff point to discriminate cows with NRS " 3 and NRS = 4 were clulatd using the FREQ procedure. HF(A+#4*$#(8"!"$I('*+$3(,+01$7&(*'$-)$&'10+-3)$310>')',,$0);$12-).$4'506-37&$47  Of the 1319 cows gait scored, 943 (71.5%) had NRS ! 2, 280 (21.2%) had NRS = 3, and 96 (7.3%) had NRS = 4.  At the farm level, the mean prevalenc ofNRS = 4 was 9.3 ± 1.3% (mean ± SE) in MAT farms compared to 4.4 ± 1.2% in DB farms (Figure 3.1; P = 0.02).  Cows with NRS ! 3 in DB and MT farms had simlar men lying times (h/d) but cows with NRS = 4 spent more time lying down on DB fs than on MAT farms (13.1 ± 0.8 vs. 10.9 ± 0.5 h/d, P = 0.03; Figure 3.2).  The frequency of lying bouts (no./d), average bout duration (min/bout), and SD of bout duration (min/bout) were simlar across lamenes categoris on both DB and MAT farms. 8"#"$A2-).$4'506-37&$-)'10+-3)$310>')',,$ Lying time (h/d), average bout duration (min/bout), and SD of bout duration (min/bout) difered betwn cows with NRS ! 2 and cows with NRS = 4 on DB farms, but not on MAT farms (Table 3.2).  On DB farms, cs with N = 4 lay down 1.6 h longer per d than cows with NRS ! 2 (P < 0.001) and NRS = 3 (P < 0.001).  Cows with NRS = 4 had longer lying bouts than cows with NRS = 3 (P = 0.004) and NRS ! 2 (P = 0.003).  The SD of bout duration was greater for csit = 4 than cows with N  2 ( = 0.02). 8""$IJ+&'>'$12-).$4'506-37&$0,-);-*0+3&,$(10>')',,$ There were diferencs in the distribution of lying time (h/d), average bout duration (min/bout), and SD of bout duration (min/bout) betwen cows with NRS ! 2, NRS = 3, and NRS = 4 (Figure 3.3; bout frequency is not reported becaus this variableas never significant).  The intersctions in these ditributions were usd to define extrem lying behaviours:  low daily lying time ! 9 or high daily lying tim " 14 h/d, bout duration " 4.6 log(min)/bout (back-transformed duration " 99 min/bout), and SD of bout duration  4.1 lin)/bout (bac-transfed SD "48  60 min/bout).  High lying time and long bout duration were asociated with increased odds of NRS " 3 and NRS = 4 on al farms; additionaly, the SD of bout duration ws aocitd with   3 a = 4 on DB fs (Table 3.3 and 3.4).  Within DB farms, low lying times wre asocited with increased odds of NRS = 3 but not NRS = 4 (Table 3.5).  The behavioural cutoffs usd in thes analyss provided poor sensitviy, but high specifty in discriminatng ows with NRS ! 2 from cows with NRS " 3 or NRS = 4 (Tables 3.3 to 3.5). HFI(P1#'4##1,/(Most 5-point scoring systems define clinical lmenes a " 3, but diferent authors use diferent terms to clasify degres of sverity.  For instnc, Espejo et al. (2006) described cows scored as 3 a ‘lme’, 4 as ‘moderately to serely lame’, and 5 as ‘severely lame’.  Bialho et al. (2007a) described 3 asratly lam’, 4 as ‘sverely la’, and 5 as ‘extrely lme’. Cook et al. (2004, 2008), using a 4-point scle, described 3 as ‘moderately lame’ and 4 as ‘severly lame’.  In this paper, we simply refr to the NRS score (i.e. ! 2, 3, or 4) to avoid potntil confusion with terminology. Overal prevalnc of NRS " 3 across the 28 farms in this study was 28.5% including 7.3% of cows clasifed as = 4.  These values are consistent with previously reported values of 24.6% among high-producing cows in 50 fre-stal herds in Minnesota (Espejo et al., 2006), and 27.8% during winter and 22.8% during summer aong 15 free-stl herds in Wisconsin (Cook, 2003). The prevalnc was higher on MAT farms than DB farms (33.0% vs. 22.9%, respectively), again in agreemntith previous findings (Cook, 2003; Cook et al., 2004; Espejo et al., 2006). In our study, the efct of stal surface ws driven solely by the diferenc in the prevalenc of NRS = 4, suggesting that MAT stls are risk particularly for more svere lamnes.  49   Understanding the behavioural diferencs betwen lame and sound cows may contribute to developing practil tools for detecing lamnes on-frm. On DB farms, cs with NRS = 4 spent more time lying down than did cows with NRS ! 3, but there ws no diferenc in lying times of cows of difrent lamenes categoris on the MAT farms.  An efct of stal surface on the behaviour of lae cows ha ben reportd previously.  For instnce, Cook et al. (2008) found t lame cows incresd standing time in the stal by 3.3 h/d on matres stals compared to stl bedded with 5 to 8 c of snd.  W found that the cows with NRS = 4 increased lying time by 1.6 h/d on DB stals (comparable to sand stls) compared to MAT stals.  Although the two studies masured diferent outc varibles (standing in the stal vs. lying in the stal), ty both showd that cows’ behaviour is afctd by both lamenes and stl surface. Several studies have reported increased lying tis by lae cows.  Juarez et al. (2003) found that lam cows spent more tim lying down; 25.2% of lm cs were lying down at the time of bevioural scans compared to 17.5% of sound cows.  Silarly, Walker et al. (2008) found that lame cows spent 6.3 % more time lying down during estrus compared to sound cows.  Chapinal et al. (2009) reported that cows with sol ulcers spent > 1 h more per d lying down compared with cows without any hoof lesions (13.8 vs. 12.6 h/d, respectively). Changes in daily lying tims aociatd with lamenes were bi-diretional; cows with NRS " 3 had both higher and lower lying times than cowsith NRS ! 2.  This divergence may be explained by cows that arelady l spending more time lying down (perhaps due to dificulties in standing up) and cows with low lying ties being at higher risk of becoming lame. Consistnt with this idea is that high lying times wre especialy sen among cows with NRS = 4 and lower lying times wre evident only aong cowsith NRS = 3.  The particularly long lying tims of cs with NRS = 4 on DB stals suggest that these stals provide a ple where lame 50  cows can lie down more comfortably.  Increasing lying times may be more dificult on matress stl that potntialy restric the lying down and standing up moveent, lading to incresed standing times a deonstraed by Cook et al. (2004, 2008).  In general, when stls are restricive (again litng transitons from lying to standing and vice versa), cows spend more time standing in the stal itead of lying down (Tucker et al., 2004, 2005).  These reults highlight the importnc of providing a comfortable lying place, especialy for lam cows.  Within DB farms, cows with NRS = 4 also had longer lying bouts compared to cs with NRS ! 3.  This finding agreesith Chapinal et al. (2009) who reported that cows with sole ulcers had longer bouts compared with cows with hemorrhages, dermatis, or no lesions (93.3 vs. 82.7, 81.1, or 71.0 min, respectively).  Although our data showed tha lm cows had longer bouts, the frequency of bouts wa unchanged.  This reult is at lst partly explained by increased variability (i.e. SD) in bout durations.  Cook et al. (2004) found that the stnding bout structure of lme cows wa modified so that the proportion of short bouts wa reduced and the proportion of long bouts increasd, especialy for cows on matres stls.  In the current study, the behavioural diferes were evident only on DB stls.  Previous work has shown that matrese reduce lying tim, especialy if managed with litle or no bedding (Tucker et al., 2003; Tucker and Wary, 2004) as w the cse for the MAT farms included in the current study.  Reduced stl comfort, particularly for t lam cows, my explain t higher prevalenc of more svere lamenes (i.e. NRS = 4) on MAT frms.  Stl stnding behaviour has been identifed as a key behaviour that cnges in response to lamenes (Cook et al., 2004, 2008).  Furthermore, increased time spent perching, with only two front ft inside the stal, is a known risk factor for lnes (Galindo et al., 2000).  Unfortunately, t dat loggers used in this study could not discriminate betwen standing 51  locations (inside or outside the stal) or positons (two fet or four fet inside the stal).  Development of technology that identifes standing positon is deirabl.    Extrem lying beviour was not a snsitve diagnostic tool for lamenes; clear cutoff points to acurately identify cows with NRS " 3 or NRS = 4 were not estblished.  This i because most cows, regardles of N, spent betwen 9 and 14 h/d lying down.  However, the utoff values did provide high specifty for correctly distinguishing cows with NRS ! 2, suggesting that extreme lying behaviour could be a useful elemnt in a more sophisticaed system for identifying la cows.  Our result indicat that cows with high lying tims or long lying bouts are more likely to be lame and should be flgged for closer exainaton.  It is likely tha technology for automated msurent of lying behaviour intgratd with existing cow identifation and activiy monitoring systems wil become cmercialy available in the near future.  The present data my be applid with sucysts a component of lmnes detecion. HFK(.,/'*4#1,#(The prevalenc of NRS = 4 was higher in farms using MAT stals compared to those using DB stals.  Cows with N = 4 housed on DB stls spent more time lying down, and had longer lying bouts compared to cows with NRS ! 3, but there were no behavioural diferencs among cows with diferent degrees of lamenes housed on MAT stals.  Extreme lying behaviour, especialy high lying tis (" 14 h/d) and long lying bouts (" 99 min/bout), was asocited with incresed odds of both NRS  3 and NRS = 4 for both types of stal surfce.  Thes reults indicat that automated masurement of lying behaviour may contribut to detecion of lmenes. 52  Table 3.1. Parity and stage of laction (DIM) (mean ± SD) of cows with NRS ! 2, NRS = 3, and NRS = 4 on 11 frms using deep-bedded stls (DB) and 17 farm using matres stals (MAT).  Stal surfaceVariable NRS ! 2 NRS = 3NRS = 4Number of cws 397 106 23 Parity 2.5 ± 1.4 3.8 ± 1.8 3.6 ± 1.6 DB   DIM1 146 ± 95 158 ± 109 140 ± 98 Number of cws 546 174 73 Parity 2.3 ± 1.2 3.0 ± 1.4 3.6 ± 1.7 MAT DIM1 145 ± 91 159 ± 87 157 ± 105 1 DIM = days in milk53  Table 3.2. Least square means (95% confidence intrvals) of lying time (h/d), bout frequency (no./d), bout duraion (min/bout), and SD of bout duration (min/bout) for cows with NRS ! 2, NRS = 3, and NRS = 4 on 11 frms using dep-bedded sals (DB) and 17 farm usng matres stal (MAT). Values are from linear regresion model acounting for parity, DIM, and a random efect of frm.  Diferent superscript indicte signifnt diferenc a P < 0.05 contstd aross row.   Stal surfaceVariable NRS ! 2 NRS = 3NRS = 4Number of cws 397 106 23 Lying tim (h/d) 11.1a (10.6 to 11.7) 11.1a (10.5 to 11.8) 12.7b (11.8 to 13.5) Bout frequency (no./d)1 8.1 (7.4 to 8.8)  8.0 (7.2 to 8.9)  7.7 (6.7 to 8.9)   duration (min/bout)1 79.9a (74.5 to 85.8)  79.8a (73.4 to 86.7)  93.6b (83.0 to 105.4)  DB   SD bouttiin/bout)1 44.1a (40.8 to 47.6) 46.1ab (42.0 to 51.6) 50.7b (44.2 to 58.3) Number of cws 546 174 73 Lying tim (h/d) 10.8 (10.4 to 11.2) 11.1 (10.7 to 11.6) 11.3 (10.7 to 11.8) Bout frequency (no./d)1 8.5 (8.0 to 8.9)  8.5 (8.0 to 9.2)  8.7 (7.9 to 9.5)   duration (min/bout)1 74.0 (69.6 to 78.8)  75.6 (70.2 to 81.3)  78.6 (71.7 to 86.2)  MAT SD bouttiin/bout)1 44.2 (41.9 to 46.7) 44.5 (41.6 to 47.6) 47.3 (43.4 to 51.6) 1 Back-transformed least square means (95% confidence intervals) where natural log transformation was applied to the variable. 54  Table 3.3. Numbers of cows with NRS " 3 and NRS ! 2 in each of the cut-off categoris, for 11 farms using deep-dded stal (DB) and 17 farms using mtres stals (MAT), snsitviy and pecifty of each cut-off point, and odds ratios (OR) for lamene etimted by logistic regresion including parity and DIM as covariates in al models.  # cows Lameness Stal surfaceVariable (cut-off) NRS " 3 NRS ! 2 Se1 Sp2 OR 95% CI P  N = 129 N = 397      Lying time (" 14 h/d) 20  16  16 96 4.0 1.8 to 9.3 0.001 in tim (! 9 h/d) 23  41  18 90 0.2 0.8 to 3.1 0.2 Bout duration  (" 99 min/bout)38  53  29 87 1.9 1.1 to 3.4 0.03 DB SD bout tion  ( 60 min/bout)39 44  30 89 2.7 1.5 to 4.8 0.001  N = 247 N = 546      Lying time (" 14 h/d) 36  28  15 95 3.7 2.0 to 6.8 < 0.001 in tim (! 9 h/d) 55  98  22 82 1.1 0.7 to 1.7 0.8 Bout duration  (" 99 min/bout)56  80  23 85 2.0 1.3 to 3.1 0.003 MAT SD bout tion  ( 60 min/bout)52  83 21  1.4 0.9 to 2.2 0.1 1 Sensitivity = the proportion of lame cows identified by the cut-off of lying behaviour 2pecificity = non-lame cows correctly classified by the cut-off of lying behaviour55  Table 3.4. Numbers of cows with NRS = 4 and NRS ! 3 in each of the cut-off categoris, for 11 farms using deep-dded stal (DB) and 17 farms using mtres stals (MAT), snsitviy and pecifty of each cut-off point, and odds ratios (OR) for lamene etimted by logistic regresion including parity and DIM as covariates in al models.  # cows  Lameness Stal surfaceVariable (cut-off) NRS = 4NRS ! 3 Se1 Sp2 OR 95% CI P  N  23N = 503      Lying time (" 14 h/d) 9 27 39 95 13.4 4.4 to 40.4 < 0.001 in tim (! 9 h/d) 1 63 4 87 0.3 0.0 to 2.2 0.2 Bout duration  (" 99 min/bout)10 81 43 84 3.2 1.3 to 8.0 0.01 DB SD bout tion  ( 60 min/bout)12 71 52 86 5.8 2.4 to 14.2 0.0001  N = 73N = 720      Lying time (" 14 h/d) 16 48 22 93 3.9 1.9 to 7.8 0.0001 in tim (! 9 h/d) 18 135 25 81 1.3 0.7 to 2.3 0.4 Bout duration  (" 99 min/bout)20 116 27 84 1.9 1.1 to 3.5 0.03 MAT SD bout tion  ( 60 min/bout)19  26  1.6 0.9 to 2.8 0.1  1 Sensitivity = the proportion of lame cows identified by the cut-off of lying behaviour 2pecificity = non-lame cows correctly classified by the cut-off of lying behaviour56  Table 3.5. Numbers of cows with NRS = 3 and NRS ! 2 in each of the cut-off categoris for 11 farms using deep-dded stal (DB), sensitviy and speifty of each c point, and odds ratios (OR) for lamnes etimted by logistic regresion including parity and DIM as covariates in al models.  # cows  Lameness Stal surfaceVariable (cut-off) NRS = 3NRS ! 2 Se1 Sp2 OR 95% CI P  N  106 N = 397      Lying time (" 14 h/d) 11 16 10 96 1.7 0.7 to 4.4 0.3 in tim (! 9 h/d) 22 41 21 90 2.0 1.0 to 4.1 0.05 Bout duration  (" 99 min/bout)28 53 26 87 1.1 0.6 to 2.0 0.5 DB SD bout tion  ( 60 min/bout)27 44 25 89 1.9 1.0 to 3.6 0.07  1 Sensitivity = the proportion of lame cows identified by the cut-off of lying behaviour 2pecificity = non-lame cows correctly classified by the cut-off of lying behaviour 57   Figure 3.1. Percntages of cows with NRS ! 2, NRS = 3, and NRS = 4 on 11 farms using deep-bedded stals and 17 frm using matres stals.  * indicates significant diferenc at P < 0.05. 58   Figure 3.2. Mean lying time (h/d) of cows with NRS ! 2, NRS = 3, and NRS = 4 on 11 farms using dep-bedded stls and 17 farm using matres stals. * indicates significant diferenc at P < 0.05. 59   Figure 3.3. Percntage distributions of cows with NRS ! 2, NRS = 3, and NRS = 4 as % of cows for (A) lying tim (h/d), (B) bout duration (log min/bout), and (C) SD of bout duration (log min/bout).  Cut-off points for extreme behaviour were defined as the value where distributions for NRS " 3 and NRS ! 2 iersctd. 60  HFMF(A+-+%+/'+#(Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, R. W. Blowey and L. E. Green. 2007. Management factors asociated with ipaired locomotion in dairy cs in England and Wles. J. Diry Sci. 90:3270-3277.  Bicalho, R. C., S. H. Cheong, G. Cramer and C. L. Guard. 2007a. Asociaton betwen a visual nd an automated locomotion score in lacting Holstein cows. J. Diry Sci. 90:3294-3300.  Bicalho, R. C., V. S. Machado and L. S. Caixeta. 2009. Lamenes in dairy catle: A debilitang dise or a disea of debilited catle? A cross-ectional study of lamenes prevalnce and thicknes of the digitl cushion. J. Diry Sci. 92:3175-3184.  Bicalho, R. C., F. Vokey, H. N. Erb and C. L. Guard. 2007b. Visual locomotion scoring in the first seventy days in milk: Impact on pregnancy and survival. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4586-4591.  Bicalho, R. C., L. D. Warnick and C. L. Guard. 2008. Straegis to analyze milk losse caused by dise with potentil incidee throughout the laction: A lamnes exampl. J. Diry Sci. 91:2653-2661.  Chapinal, N., A. M. de Pasile, D. M. Weary, M. A. G. von Keysrlingk and J. Rushen. 2009. Using gait score, wlking sped, and lying behavior to detc hoof lsions in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4365-4374.  Cook, N. B. 2003. Prevalenc of lamenes aong dairy catle in Wisconsin as a function of housing type and stal surfac. J. A. Vt. Med. Asoc. 223:1324-1328.  61  Cook, N. B., T. B. Bennet and K. V. Nordlund. 2004. Efect of free stal surface on daily activiy paterns in dairy cows with relevanc to lamnes prevalnc. J. Diry Si. 87:2912-2922.  Cook, N. B., M. J. Marin, R. L. Mentink, T. B. Bennet and M. J. Schaefr. 2008. Comfort zone-design free stals: Do they influenc the stal use behavior of lam cows? J. Dairy Sci. 91:4673-4678.  Cook, N. B., R. L. Mentink, T. B. Bennet and K. Burgi. 2007. The efects of heat sres and lamenes on tim budgets of lacting dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1674-1682.  Cook, N. B. and K. V. Nordlund. 2009. The influence of the environment on dairy cow behaviour, claw helth and herd lamenes dynamics. Vt. J. 179:360-369.  Cramer, G., K. D. Liseore, C. L. Guard, K. E. Lesli and D. F. Kelton. 2008. Herd- and cow-lvel prevalenc of foot lsions in Ontario dairy catl. J. Diry Sci. 91:3888-3895.  Dippel, S., M. Dolezal, C. Brenninkmeyer, J. Brinkmann, S. March, U. Knierim and C. Winckler. 2009. Risk fctors for lamnes in freestall-housed dairy cows across two breeds, farming systms, and countries. J. Diry Sci. 92:5476-5486.  Endres, M. I. and A. E. Barberg. 2007. Behavior of dairy cows in alternative bedded-pack housing system. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4192-4200.  Espejo, L. A. and M. I. Endres. 2007. Herd-lvel risk factors for lamenes in high-producing Holstein cows housed in freestal barns. J. Dairy Si. 90:306-314.  62  Espejo, L. A., M. I. Endres and J. A. Salfer. 2006. Prevalenc of lamenes in high-producing Holstein cows housed in freestal barns in Minnesota. J. Dairy Sci. 3052-3058.  Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2006. Efect of hoof pathologies on subjective asemnts of dairy c gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89:139-146.  Galindo, F. and D. M. Broom. 2000. The relationships betwen social behaviour of dairy cows nd the occurrence of lamenes in three herds. Res. Vet. Sci. 69:75-79.  Galindo, F. and D. M. Broom. 2002. The efects of lamenes on social and individual behaviour of dairy cows. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Si. 5:193-201.  Galindo, F., D. M. Broom and P. G. Jackson. 2000. A note on possible link betwen behaviour and the occurrence of lamenes in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 67:335-341.  Garbarino, E. J., J. A. Hernandez, J. K. Shearer, C. A. Risco and W. W. Thatcher. 2004. Efect of lmenes on ovarian activiy in postpartum Holstein cows. J. Dairy Si. 87:4123-4131.  Gonzalez, L. A., B. J. Tolkamp, M. P. Coffey, A. Ferret and I. Kyriazkis. 2008. Changes in feding behavior as posible indicators for the automatic monitoring of health disorders in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 91:1017-1028.  Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lmnes on the milk yield of dairy cs. J. Dairy Si. 85:2250-2256.  63  Haskel, M. J., L. J. Rennie, V. A. Bowel, M. J. Bel and A. B. Lawrence. 2006. Housing system, milk production, and zro-grazing efects on lamenes and lg injury in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 89:4259-4266.  Hoedemaker, M., D. Prange and Y. Gundelach. 2009. Body condition change ante- and postpartum, health and reproductive performnce in Grman Holstein cows. Reproduction in Domestic Animls. 44:167-173.  Ito, K., D. M. Weary and M. A. G. von Keysrlingk. 2009. Lying behavior: Aseing within- and betwen-herd varition in free-stall-housd dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4412-4420.  Juarez, S. T., P. H. Robinson, E. J. DePtrs and E. O. Price. 2003. Impact of lamenes on behaviour and productiviy of lacting Holstein cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Si. 83:1-14.  Leonard, F. C., J. M. O'Connel and K. J. O'Ferrel. 1996. Efects of overcrowding on claw health in first-calved Friesian heifers. Br. Vt. J. 152:459-472.  O'Calaghan, K. A., P. J. Cripps, D. Y. Downham and R. D. Murray. 2003. Subjective and objective asemnt of pain and discomfort due to laenes in dairy catl. Anim. Wlfare. 12:605-610.  Philipot, J. M., P. Pluvinage, I. Cimarosti, P. Sulpice and F. Bugnard. 1994. Risk-factors of dairy-cow lamenes aociated with housing conditions. Vet. Res. 25:244-248.  SA 9.1 User’s Guide. 2004. SAS Instiute Inc., Cary, NC, USA. 64  SA/T 9.1 User’s Guide: The Glimix Procedure. 2008. SA Instiute Inc., Cary, NC, USA. Singh, S. S., W. R. Ward, K. Lautenbach and R. D. Murray. 1993. Behaviour of lame and normal dairy-cows in cubicls and in a straw yard. Vet. Rec. 133:204-208.  Tucker, C. B. and D. M. Weary. 2004. Bedding on geotextil matrese: How much is needed to improve cowomfort? J. Diry Sci. 87:2895.  Tucker, C. B., D. M. Weary and D. Fraser. 2003. Efects of three types of free-stal surfaces on preferencs and stal usge by dairy cows. J. Dairy Si. 86:521-529.  Tucker, C. B., D. M. Weary and D. Fraser. 2004. Free-stal dimensions: Efects on preferenc and stl usage. J. Diry Sci. 87:1208-1216.  Tucker, C. B., D. M. Weary and D. Fraser. 2005. Influence of neck-rail placemnt on free-stall preferenc, use, and clnlines. J. Dairy Sci. 88:2730-2737.  Walker, S. L., R. F. Smith, J. E. Routly, D. N. Jones, M. J. Morris and H. Dobson. 2008. Lmenes, activiy tie-budgets, and estrus expresion in dairy catle. J. Dairy Sci. 91:4552-4559.  Warnick, L. D., D. Janssen, C. L. Guard and Y. T. Grohn. 2001. The efect of lamenes on milk production in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 84:1988-1997.  65  Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webstr. 2003. Asemnt of the welfare of dairy catle using animal-based masurements: Direct obsrvations and investigaon of frm records. Vt. Rec. 153:197-202. 66  .>!?)@A(IC(D+/+%&*(P1#'4##1,/(IFB(!##+##1/3(.,7(9-,%$(The isue of cowomfort has received considerable intrest in the dairy industry in recent years.  T term ‘c cfort’ may be most commonly perceived as t ability of cows to li down; howver, it should encompas any factor that afect how comfortable cs may fel.  In this sens, the traditional approach to aseing cow cfort focusing on howuch cows lie down is limting.  Lying behaviour clarly provides valuable information about stal omfort, but injuries and disea, such as lmenes, should aso be intgral parts of aseing cow cfort.  Moreover, the intractions betwn behaviour, environmental fctors (e.g. stal surfae), and the health stus of the cows (e.g. lamenes), make the asmnt of cowomfort a multi-dinsional tsk. My research was the first of its kind to provide a detailed description of the lying behaviour of dairy cows housed in free-stal systems, and to estblish a practial method of measuring this behaviour on commrcil frms (Chaptr 2).  The common approach to aseing cow comfort has been to estiate the stal use at the group-level based on single obsrvation (e.g. Cow Comfort Index).  My dat showd that this mthod does not reflct the cows’ actual lying behaviour and is not a reliable tool.  Simple tchnology (e.g. eletroni data loggers) is availble to continuously monitor the lying behaviour of individual animals housed in groups.  There was considerable variation in lying times and the frequency of lying bouts among cows within t sme farm, suggesting that evaluation of cowomfort should focus on the analysis of behaviour of individual animals rather tn farm averages.  These reults led to t development of a methodological paper (Chapter 2) that wil be of value to future resarch on lying behaviour.   67  Daily lying times averaged 11.0 h/d, but varied from 4.2 to 19.5 h/d among individual cows.  Some authors ha suggested that dairy cows housd in free-stal systes should be ald to li down for at least 12 h/d (DeVris et al., 2005; Jnsn t al., 2005; Munksgaard et l., 2005).  By this standard, the majority of the cows in B.C. are not geting adequate lying time.  Increased lying time is generaly an indicator of stal comfort (e.g. Haley et al., 2000; Tucker et l., 2003; Fregonesi et al., 2007). However, my dat demonstrad that extremely high lying times aresociated with lamenes, if the stals alow for this beviour (Chaptr 3); therefore, lying ti alone does not tl the whole story. The frequency of lying bouts ha also been considered a sensitve measure of stal comfort (e.g. Haley et al., 2000; Tucker et al., 2003).  In my study, this varibl did not difer betwen cows housd on diferent stal surfaces (i.e. deep-bedded vs. matres) and was not asocitd with lamenes (Chaptr 3).  The duration of individual bouts, on the otr hand, provided promisng result.  Long lying bouts, a wel as high variation in t duration of lying bouts, were asociated with lamenes, but only among cows on deep-bedded stals.  A combination of lying ti and the duration of lying bouts likely provide a more comprehensive approach.  Observations of cows lying down and standing up can add another dimension to seing the functionality of free-stal (Dippel et al., 2009).  In any case, t type of stal surfac must be taken into consideration as it afects both behaviour and lmnes.  There is no gold standard for how many hours per day cows need to lie down, or how to design a perfect failty that alows for the optiml lying behaviour for al cows.  Instead, behavioural resrch provides an understanding of stal fetures tt cs like and how they modify behaviour in relation to these fctors (e.g. Tucker et al., 2003; Fregonesi et al., 2007), as wel as how much space cows require to perform a natural lying down movement (Cebalos et 68  al., 2005).  Al this contributes to guidelines for designing and evaluating faciltes (e.g. Nordlund and Cook, 2003).  Animal-based masure such as body condition and prevalenc of injuries can also provide outcome-ss for aseing how wel the facilts are working for the cows.             My research provided the first daa on lmenes prevalenc on dairy farms in British Columbia.  In fre-stl farms in B.C., 21% of cows wre scored as NRS = 3 and a further 7% as NRS = 4.  These reults agree with previous reports of lamenes prevalenc in simlar systems in orth Amrica and Europe (Cook, 2003; Whay et al., 2003; Espejo et al., 2006; Dippel et al., 2009).  The reently published Code of Practie for the Care and Handling ofairy Catle (National Farm Animal Care Council, 2009) reommends < 10% obvious or severe lmnes (i.e. NRS " 4) at the frm-level as reasonable target, which the majority of farms in my study achieved.  However, t arage prevalenc of NRS = 4 in farms using mtres stls wa over 9%, in comparison to 4% for farms using dep-bedded stls.  Higher lamenes prevalenc in matres herds has been reported previously (e.g. Cook et al., 2004). IFG(01/63(=$&*(.,9-%$R(O+;&51,4%R(&/8(09+/##(Lamenes can be painful, which likely afects how comfortable cows may fel.  Moreover, housing comfort has been suggestd to influence the risk of lmnes a wl as the severity and duration of lamenes events (Cook and Nordlund, 2009). Early work on lamenes suggested that insufficnt rest due to uncomfortable stals might contribute to incresd incdes of lamenes (Leonard et al., 1994).  My study alowed for an evaluation of lying behaviour in reltion to lanes on farms using diferent types of stals.  Low lying times in farms using deep-bedded stls w driven by cows with NRS = 3, but not by those with NRS = 4.  I suggest that these cowsith low lying times aret risk for becoming more lam, and that 69  after cows become more severely lame, lying time increase.  However, a causl reationship cannot be established from a cross-ctional study. Lme cows may spend more time lying down because its dificult for them to transiton betwen lying and stnding positons.  It is alo plausibl that lying down alows t injured leg or foot to rest, and helps the cow recover from lmenes. Cows with NRS = 4 housed on dep-bedded stals ly down for 1.6 h more per d compared cowsit ! 2.  Intrestingly, there was no diferenc in lying times aong lamenes categoris for farms using matres stals.  Long lying bouts and high variation in the duration of lying bouts were asocited with lamenes, but again only on frms using deep-bedded stals.  Previous studis have also found difrent behavioural responses by lam cows depending on the stal surface (Cook et al., 2004, 2008). Cook et al. (2004) found that le cs on matres stls spent more tim standing insde the stal, at the expense of lying down, compared to healthy cows; and the prevalenc of lamenes ws higher among cows housed on matres compared to cs housed on sand (24% vs. 11%, respectively).  My data suggest that deep-bedded stals (snd or sawdust) my alow lame cows to snd more time lying down as neded, wheres mtres stls do not provide this opportunity, prolonging lanes events and thus resulting in a higher prevalenc of lamenes.  These reults highlight the importance of providing a comfortable plac to li down, especily for t lam cows.   Alternatively, many studies have suggested that increased standing behaviour increase the risk for lamnes, perhaps more so than reducd lying behaviour (e.g. Leonard et al., 1994; Galindo and Broom, 2000; Cook et al., 2004).  Exposure to concrete flooring that is wet and slippery, and contains infectious agents, exacerbats claw lesions and lamenes (Cook aNordlund, 2009).  Cows on pasture spent ls tim lying down compared to cows in free-stal, 70  yet lame cows recovered in a few weks of pasture aces (Hernandez-Mendo et al., 2007).  This suggest that the uncomfortabl standing surface inside the barn may drive cows to lie down in addition to t need for rest alone; or the reducd rest on pasture is compensated by a comfortable standing surface (Cook and Nordlund, 2009).  The free-stl surfc could provide a ple inside the barn where cows can get away from the wet concret; however, the neckrail oftn prevents cows from standing fully inside t stal to kep the bedding clan.  Bernardi et al. (2009) demonstraed that an aggresive neckrail plcemnt contributes to the ocurrence of laenes whil reoving the neckrail heps la cows reover.  Lying behaviour was not fctd by the positon of t neil, but the neckrail forced cows to perch, with only the two front fet inside t stal, instead of standing fully inside the stal (Bernardi et al., 2009).  Rubber mats in the aley my provide a softer surfce for standing, but does not aleviat exposure to wet nure.  A truly comfortable stal is one that not only optimzes lying but one that also provides a dry, comfortable plc to stnd.  Collectively, these findings indicate that improved stal cfort contributs to reduced lamnes.  IFH(24$%+(A#+&%';(My study provided an insight into the possible link betwen stal comfort, lying behaviour, and lamenes; however, furtr research is required to fully understand this complex relationship.  Longitudinal resarch is necsry to tse apart the behavioural cuses and cequences of lamenes, and to document the developmnt of lamenes; for exampl, does NRS = 3 adva to NRS = 4, and how does t behaviour of thes cows change in the proces?  The considerable variation among individual cows suggest that cnges in beviour within cow provi the most acurate data. 71  One limtaion of my study was that I was not able to record the location or positon of the cows while stnding.  This behaviour is much more chalnging to mesure on-farm compared to simpl lying or standing tt can be recorded by automatd devics.  There is potential, however, for developing automted mthods of recording stl standing behaviour.  Dt loggers usd in this study can be modifid, or simply atahed to the back of the cow to measure the degree of incline that would distinguish standing and perching in t stal.  Future resrcrs are encouraged to include standing behaviour as icators of lamenes. Finaly, the efect of social behaviour on lamenes deerves future study. Galindo and Broom (2002) hypotsizd that lme cows are ls abl to cope with competive environment; these cows performed fwer aggresive intractions and spent more time lying down outside the stal rather than competing to get aces to a stal.  Social behaviour is known to play a role in the development of other transiton disa (Huzzey et al., 2007), and may also be important for lamenes. IFIF(?%&'$1'&*(!<<*1'&$1,/(Prior to this study, there was very limted knowledge of the faciltes and management practies usd on B.C. dairy frms, and where t industry stood for cow comfort.  This theis was part of a cross-farm study that we conducted in collaboration with the local dairy industry. One objective of the f survey was to benchmark the industry on measure of cowomfort (i.e. lying tim, prevalenc of lmenes and hock injuries).  Thes reults wre cmunicated to each particpating producr through individual reports, alowing tm to compare their frm to the average aross other farms in the study (Appendix).  There was a lrge variation across fas in t prevalenc of lmenes and hock injuries; while som frmsere experiencing chalenges, many frms showd considerable succes in thes areas.  This benchmarking information 72  provides a referenc point and paves the way for new research.  The first sep in making a change is to identify the problem; baseline asemnts on otr farms can be compared to the industry benchmarks collctd in my study to identify specif ares in need of improveent.  The next step is intervention:  implenting changes in failtes or managent practis that are predictd to addres the probl.  The third step is a follow-up asemnt to evaluate progres.  This three-stp approach provides a backbone for practial applicaton of our resarch tha is aimed to iprove comfort and welfare of dairy cows.!73  IFKF(A+-+%+/'+#(Bernardi, F., J. Fregonesi, C. Winckler, D. M. Veira, M. A. G. von Keysrlingk and D. M. Weary. 2009. The stal-design paradox: Nck rails increase lmnes but improve udder and stal hygine. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3074-3080.  Cebalos, A., D. Sanderson, J. Rushen and D. M. Weary. 2004. Improving stal design: Use of 3-D kinematics to mesure space us by dairy cows when lying down. J. Diry Sci. 87:2042-2050.  Cook, N. B. 2003. Prevalenc of lamenes aong dairy catle in Wisconsin as a function of housing type and stal surfac. J. A. Vt. Med. Asoc. 223:1324-1328.  Cook, N. B., T. B. Bennet and K. V. Nordlund. 2004. Efect of free stal surface on daily activiy paterns in dairy cows with relevanc to lamnes prevalnc. J. Diry Si. 87:2912-2922.  Cook, N. B., M. J. Marin, R. L. Mentink, T. B. Bennet and M. J. Schaefr. 2008. Comfort zone-design free stals: Do they influenc the stal use behaviour of lam cows? J. Dairy Sci. 91:4673-4678.  Cook, N. B. and K. V. Nordlund. 2009. The influence of the environment on dairy cow behaviour, claw helth and herd lamenes dynamics. Vt. J. 179:360-369.  DeVris, T. J. and M. A. G. von Keysrlingk. 2005. Tie of fed delivery afects the feding and lying paterns of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 88:625-631.  74  Dippel, S., M. Dolezal, C. Brenninkmeyer, J. Brinkmann, S. March, U. Knierim and C. Winckler. 2009. Risk fctors for lamnes in freestl-housed dairy cows across two breeds, farming systms, and countries. J. Diry Sci. 92:5476-5486.  Espejo, L. A., M. I. Endres and J. A. Salfer. 2006. Prevalenc of lamenes in high-producing Holstein cows housed in freestal barns in Minnesota. J. Dairy Sci. 3052-3058.  Fregonesi, J. A., D. M. Veira, M. A. G. von Keysrlingk and D. M. Weary. 2007. Efects of bedding quality on lying behavior of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90:5468-5472.  Galindo, F. and D. M. Broom. 2000. The relationships betwen social behaviour of dairy cows nd the occurrence of lamenes in three herds. Res. Vet. Sci. 69:75-79.  Galindo, F. and D. M. Broom. 2002. The efects of lamenes on social and individual behaviour of dairy cows. Journal of Applied Animal Wlfre Scinc. 5:193-201.  Haley, D. B., J. Rushen and A. M. de Pasile. 2000. Behavioural indicators of cowomfort: Activiy and resting behaviour of dairy cows in two types of housing. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 80:257-263.  Hernandez-Mendo, O., M. A. G. von Keysrlingk, D. M. Veira and D. M. Weary. 2007. Efects of pasture on lamnes in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1209-1214.  Huzzey, J. M., D. M. Veira, D. M. Weary and M. A. G. von Keysrlingk. 2007. Prepartum behavior and dry matr intake identify dairy cows at risk for mtriis. J. Dairy Sci. 90:3220-3233.  75  Jensn, M. B., L. J. Pedersn and L. Munksgaard. 2005. The efect of reward duration on demand functions for rest in dairy heifers and lying requiremnts a mesured by demand functions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 90:207-217.  Leonard, F. C., J. O'Conel and K. O'Farrel. 1994. Efect of diferent housing conditions on behaviour and foot lesions in Friesin heifers. Vt. Re. 134:490-494.  Munksgaard, L., M. B. Jensn, L. J. Pedersn, S. W. Hansen and L. Mathews. 2005. Quantifying behavioural prioritis - efcts of time constraints on behaviour of dairy cows, bos taurus. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 92:3-14.  National Farm Anial Care Council. 2009. Code of Practie for the Care and Handling of Dairy Catle. Diry Fers ofnada, Otaw, ON. Nordlund, K. and N. B. Cook. 2003. A flowchart for evaluating dairy cow freestal. Bovine Practioner. 37:89-96.  Tucker, C. B., D. M. Weary and D. Fraser. 2003. Efects of three types of free-stal surfaces on preferencs and stal usge by dairy cows. J. Dairy Si. 86:521-529.  Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webstr. 2003. Asemnt of the welfare of dairy catle using animl-based masurements: Direct obsrvations and investigaon of frm records. Vt. Rec. 153:197-202.  76  !<<+/81S(BC(=!=(',8+#();+(=TAU@V=@0@.)(?%,'+84%+(W.;&<$+%(G(:(2134%+(GFBX(proc surveyselect data=start out=sample5 n=5 method=srs seed=0; strata farm cow; id _all_; proc summary;by farm cow;var bouts time; output out=samp5 mean=b5 t5;  proc surveyselect data=start out=sample4 n=4 method=srs seed=0; strata farm cow; id _all_; proc summary;by farm cow;var bouts time; output out=samp4 mean=b4 t4;  proc surveyselect data=start out=sample3 n=3 method=srs seed=0; strata farm cow; id _all_; proc summary;by farm cow;var bouts time; output out=samp3 mean=b3 t3;  proc surveyselect data=start out=sample2 n=2 method=srs seed=0; strata farm cow; id _all_; proc summary;by farm cow;var bouts time; output out=samp2 mean=b2 t2;  proc surveyselect data=start out=sample1 n=1 method=srs seed=0; strata farm cow; id _all_; proc summary;by farm cow;var bouts time; output out=samp1 mean=b1 t1;  data merged; merge samp5 samp4 samp3 samp2 samp1; drop _type_ _freq_;  proc reg; model t5=t4; model t5=t3; model t5=t2; model t5=t1; model b5=b4; model b5=b3; model b5=b2; model b5=b1;run;77  );+())@=)(?%,'+84%+(W.;&<$+%(H(Y(2134%+(HFB(&/8(HFGX(Title “effect of stall surface on lameness and lying behaviour”;  proc ttest data=cows; by nrs; class stall;var prev time bouts dur sddur; run; );+(D0EQQEZ(?%,'+84%+(Y(Q1S+8(,+*#(W.;&<$+%(HY()&"*+(HFGX(Title “effect of NRS on lying time”;  DATA NRStime; set all;if stall=1 *Mattress farms; run; proc GLIMMIX; class nrs farm parity; model time = parity dim nrs/ htype=1 solution; random farm;lsmeans nrs / adjust=smm adjdfe=row cl *For contrasted means with 95% CI; output out=residual1 pred=p1 resid=r1; run; DATA NRStime; set all;if stall=3 *Deep-bedded farms; run; proc GLIMMIX; class nrs farm parity; model time = parity dim nrs/ htype=1 solution; random farm;lsmeans nrs / adjust=smm adjdfe=row cl; output out=residual2 pred=p2 resid=r2;run;  *To check for normal residual distribution; proc UNIVARIATE data=residual1 normal plot;var r1; run; *To check for homogeneity of residual variance; proc GPLOT data=residual1; plot r1*p1; run;  78  );+(2A@[(?%,'+84%+(W.;&<$+%(H(Y(2134%+(HFX(Title "frequency distribution for NRS=2";  DATA freq2; set all;if nrs=2;run; proc chart; hbar time / midpoints= 4 to 18 by 1 *lying time; run; proc chart; hbar ldur / midpoints= 3.0 to 5.8 by 0.2 *log bout duration; run; proc chart; hbar lsddur / midpoints=2.5 to 5.3 by 0.2 *log SD of bout duration; run; NOTE:  Same codes were repeated for NRS =3 and NRS = 4. );+(D0EQQEZ(?%,'+84%+(Y(0,31#$1'(A+3%##1,/(W.;&<$+%(HY()&"*+(HFH($,(HFKX(Title "extreme lying time to distinguish NRS=3+4 vs. NRS=2";  DATA lame; set all;if stall=1 *Mattress farms; lame=nrs ge 3; xhtime=time ge 14 *Cut-off pointbased on figure 3.3; xltime=time le 9;xdur=ldur ge 4.6;xsddur=lsddur ge 4.1; run;  proc GLIMMIX data=lame;class farm parity; model lame (event='1') =  parity dim xhtime / dist=binomial link=logit oddsratio (diff=first) htype=1; random intercept / subject=farm; run;  NOTE:  Models for low lying time (xltie), bout duration (xdur) and SD of bout duration (xsddur) were omited here due to spac, but wre identcal except for the main variable.  Same models w pead for stal= 3.  For Tabl 3.4, lmenes ws defined as NRS =4; for Tbl3.5, RS=4s deltd and leness defined a NRS =3.FARM NAME Assesment Date  79 !<<+/81S(GC((@S&9<*+(,-(?%,84'+%(A+<,%$(( For:   ARM NME  Cow easures  The colour scle shows the overal distribution of scores from the 43 farms aesd, ranging from best / betr (green) to worse / wors (red).  The blue star indicte where your farm fits into t range.  The overal averages and your farm’s ss arelso included in t tbl below the scale.      Lying time  The aount of tie cows spent lying down was recorded continuously for 5 days using elctroni ‘data loggers’ atached to the hind leg of 50 cows randomy selctd from the asment pen.  This da gives a quantitve msure of comfort on your farm. Lying time (Hr:Min per 24 hours)        Your farm Average Comments 12 hr 56 min  Min: 9 hr 54 mi ax: 16 hr 36 mn11 hr 04 min   Cows should rest about 12 hours per day.  Increaed standing time in the aley puts the cow t risk for lenes.  Kp up t good work!                                                         (hr:min) Worse Better Average                                                        Averag (50%) Worse 25% Btter 25% Star shows here your farm fits intohe scal 9:2810:3811:04 11:23 12:56 FARM NAME Assesment Date  80 Lameness  Al cows in the asemnt pen were gait scored, on a scale of 1 (normal locomotion) to 5 (severely la), upon exit from the parlour after morning miking.  Those cows scored as 1 or 2 w considered ‘sound’, whilhos sd as 4 or 5 wre considered ‘sverely lame’.  The cows scored as 3 were considered ‘mildly lam’ but a not included in this report.    Description Behavioural signs Action Sound (Gait score 1 & 2)  ! Walks with a flat back Stedy sride  No limp – equal weight bearing on al lgs ! Does not require tatment Routine monitoring and trimng Mildly lame (Gat score 3)! Wlks with a slightly arched back  Short stride !light limp on a leg that is not ediatly intifabl ! Likely to benefit from treaent  Foot should be lifted to dignos the problm as soon as practialy possibl Severely lame (Gait score 4 & 5)  Arched back !Wlks with a hed bob (jerky moveents of thead up or down) ! Obvious lip on a leg that is iediatly identifabl ! Requirs ugent attetion! Should not be made to walk fr d be housed on pack or pasture until recovery  Percntage of cows scord SUND     Percntage of cows scored SEVERELY LAME     Your farm Average Comments Sound: 78 %  everely Lam: 0 % Sound: 71 %  everely Lam: 6 % There were no severely lame cows in the asemnt group (pen 11-15), but 22% wre mildly la.  Regular monitoring and prompt tatmnt/triing wil help reduce lanes even further.                                                         (%) 296671 9683 Worse Better Average                                                        (%) 2696 3Worse Better Average  0FARM NAME Assesment Date  81 Hock Scres  The hock condition of the 50 cows randomly selctd for lying time asent wre also scored on t scale of 1 (normal) to 3 (swollen).    Percntage of cows with HEALTHY hock (% of cows in the pn assed)     Percntage of cows with SWOLLEN hock (% of cows in the pn assed)     Your farm Average Comments Normal: 92 %  Swollen: 0 % Normal: 58 %  Swollen: 2 % Hocks of your cows were in good shape!  Dep-bedded stals and good bedding maintnanc likely contribute to the good hock conditons.  Kp up the good work!                                                       (%) 123458 10080 Worse Better Average                                                        (%) 2062 0 Worse Better Average  0FARM NAME Assesment Date  82 Facility Design ad Mnagemnt Measures  Lyig Area Your easument Average Comments Bedding frequency   14 days 10 days Increased frequency and quantity of bedding may led to incd lying time. Bedding quantity – on a scale of 1 (base covered) to 3 (more than 50% of ba exposed) 1.0 1.6 GOD!  Stal use iproves with the addition of more bedding.  The stl ba or type of beng is a important as beng quantiy or quality. Bedding cleanlines – on a sc of 1 (clean) to  3 (dirty) 1.3 1.6 GOD.  Stal design, frequency of new bedding and cleaning a contribute to stal cenlines. Bedding dry mater  97 % 74 % !  Cows prefr to li down on dry surface.  Increased frequency of new bedding and stl cning helps mintan dry bedding. Number of Cows / Stal *100 (Stocking rate)  100 % 104 % (Target: 100 %) GOD!  Stocking rates of more than 100 % (not enough stal for every cow) can reduce lying times and milk yied. Percnt of cows touching a stal that are pehing (both front fe in sl, both rear fet in aleyway) 8 % 19 % Perching in the stal indicates that cows find the stals uncomfortable. Adding bedding, making t neck rai (ifpresnt) ls retricive (moving it trds t front of the tal) and widening stals wil reduce perching and risk ofmenes. FARM NAME Assesment Date  83  Stall Dimension Your Measument Target Comments Curb height 7 i 8 in or les GOD.  High curbs aresociated with increased risk of lamenes.   Stal width  44 in 50 in Cows spend more time lying and are les likely to perch in wider stals.  Larger cows requiarger stas. Stal length  101 i (single row)96 in (doubl r 120 i (single row)102 in (doubl)Lunge barrier Wall in front of single row stallsnone Stals should have adequate lunge space in front to alow cow to easily stand up and li down.  Neck rail height from bedding  46 in 50 in or greater eck rail distance from curb  61 in 70 in or greater Neck rails increas the time cows spend standing in the alley or perhing.  Moving t neck rail up and furher fom turb reducs t behaviours and the risk of lamenes.     Brisket board height 6 in 4 in or les Brisket board distance from curb 73 in 70 in or greater Brisket board reduces the amount of time cows spend lying in the sal.  High briket boards preventhe forward thrust of  front leg when t cow rise.    FARM NAME Assesment Date  84  Feding Area Your Measument Target Comments Number of Cows / Headlock *100 (stocking rate) n/a 100 % Bunkspace per cow 23 in 24 in  (mid laction) 30 in  (close up and fresh) Overstocking at the fed bunk increase competion.  In turn, this reduces tim cows spend eting and increase the time cow spend standing in the aley.    

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 18 2
Russia 13 0
Norway 9 3
France 9 0
China 4 23
Algeria 3 0
Canada 3 0
United Kingdom 3 0
Sweden 2 0
Germany 1 0
Japan 1 1
City Views Downloads
Unknown 27 5
Penza 9 0
Ashburn 6 0
London 3 0
Wilmington 3 0
Stockholm 2 0
Shenzhen 2 23
Beijing 2 0
Vancouver 2 0
Columbia 2 0
Washington 2 0
Los Angeles 1 0
Kincardine 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0068714/manifest

Comment

Related Items