MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7047032578

The eliminative behaviors of dairy cattle and how they are affected by outdoor access in tie-stall housing

2021· dissertation· en· W7047032578 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSuperconducting and THz Device Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNovalaitDairy Farmers of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsDairy cattleDairy farmingMilk productionLivestock
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eliminative behaviors are the acts of defecation and urination and the behaviors surrounding these acts.Understanding the eliminative behaviors of dairy cattle is important for animal welfare and pertains to excreta management.As the dairy industry seeks to increase movement opportunity for animals, producers require more information about how cattle behavior will be affected.This thesis aimed to determine how outdoor access might affect the eliminative behaviors of tie-stall-housed dairy cows via a literature review and an experimental study.The literature review revealed that there is little information regarding the eliminative behaviors of dairy cows, specifically.The eliminative behaviors of dairy cattle have been most thoroughly described in terms of frequencies/24 h and hourly distributions of these frequencies.There are relationships between eliminative behaviors, barn activities, and activity levels of the animals, which suggests that housing system plays a major role in this aspect of behavior.However, these studies vary by year, breed, and region, and recent studies on tied cows in a North American context do not exist.There is a gap in knowledge in the relationship between exercise/movement opportunity and eliminative behaviors of dairy cows.The experimental study aimed to describe eliminative behaviors at tie-stalls, determine whether outdoor access affects daily patterns of elimination, and determine whether outdoor access duration affects elimination frequencies.Holstein cows were blocked by parity and days in milk such that Control cows (winter 7; summer 8), which remained inside at tie-stalls for the duration of the experiment, were paired with Outdoor cows (winter 8; summer 7), which were provided 5 d/wk (weekdays) outdoor access in paddocks for 1-2 h over 2-wks.Pedometers recorded step and lying activity continuously.All cows were video recorded for 48 consecutive h (weekends) with no outdoor access.Frequencies, durations, activity, position, where excreta fell, and whether the event occurred within 3 min of standing were continuously observed.Eliminations were recorded live concurrently for Outdoor cows throughout the duration of their time outdoors, and for Control cows during the first h of outdoor access (winter 3 d; summer 4 d).Eliminations of Outdoor cows allocated 2 h outdoor access were analyzed to compare the first vs.second h outdoors (winter 8 d; summer 9 d).Elimination frequencies/24 h in tie-stalls were the following (AVG.± SD): defecations, winter: Control = 19.4 ± 2.73, Outdoor = 19.1 ± 1.58; summer: Control = 21.1 ± 4.12, Outdoor = iii 18.6 ± 1.18; urinations, winter: Control = 11.4 ± 2.83, Outdoor = 11.0 ± 3.33; summer: Control = 9.2 ± 1.49, Outdoor = 9.4 ± 0.98.Graphical assessment showed that eliminations were most frequent during 5:00 milking and feeding and from 19:00-20:00; the latter reflected when the greatest numbers of steps/cow were taken.Neither times with the greatest proportions of elimination frequencies nor times of high step activity were consistently related to percentages of eliminations that fell into the stall.Elimination rates during 1 h outdoor access were not different from rates observed for Control cows (defecations and urinations; P > 0.05).For 2 h Outdoor cows, defecation rates during the first h outdoors were not different from rates during the second h (P > 0.05).Urination rates during the second h outdoors were greater than during the first h (0.55 vs. 0.28 events/cow/h; P < 0.05).Frequencies of defecations and urinations/cow were greater during the middle and end of outdoor periods, respectively.High numbers of steps/cow did not reflect increased elimination frequencies as they did during observations at tie-stalls, though cows during the summer took more steps outdoors compared to cows during the winter.Such information will provide insights to designing and managing housing systems for dairy cows which allow for partial outdoor access.iv RÉSUMÉ Les comportements d'élimination incluent la miction et la défécation.Comprendre leur expression chez les bovins laitiers est important dans un contexte où la mise en place de pratiques augmentant les opportunités de mouvement des vaches risque de changer la gestion des excréments à la ferme.L'objectif de ce mémoire était donc d'évaluer l'impact de l'accès à l'extérieur sur les comportements d'élimination des vaches laitières.Très peu d'études sur ces comportements sont disponibles; la plupart les décrivent par des fréquences sur 24h, ou distribuées par heure, et identifiant des liens entre le logement et les éliminations.Toutefois, les études publiées diffèrent entre elles en ce qui a trait aux années, aux races utilisées, et aux régions; aucune étude récente n'a été conduite en stabulation entravée en Amérique du Nord.Il en reste donc à apprendre sur les liens unissant les opportunités de mouvement et les comportements d'élimination des vaches laitières.Notre expérience visait à décrire les comportements d'élimination à la stalle chez les vaches laitières en stabulation entravée, à déterminer comment l'accès régulier à une cour d'exercice extérieure affecte la distribution journalière des éliminations, et s'il a un impact sur leur fréquence.À cette fin, des vaches Holstein précédemment mises en paires selon leur nombre de parités et de jours en lait ont été réparties entre deux traitements : les vaches témoin (7 en hiver, 8 en été) restaient à l'intérieur, à leur stalle en stabulation entravée pour la durée du projet, alors que l'autre groupe (8 vaches en hiver, 7 en été) avait un accès régulier à l'exercice, 1 ou 2h par jour, pour 2 semaines.Des podomètres ont enregistré en continu le nombre de pas et les données de repos.Toutes les vaches ont été filmées durant 48h consécutives sans accès à l'extérieur, pour observer la fréquence des éliminations, leur durée, l'activité durant laquelle elle se produisaient, l'endroit où les déjections tombaient et si l'élimination se produisait dans les 3 minutes suivant le lever.Pour les vaches avec accès à l'exercice, les éliminations ont été relevées par observation directe durant tout le temps passé dehors; pour les vaches à l'intérieur, elles l'ont été durant la première heure d'exercice (hiver: 3 jours; été: 4 jours).Les éliminations des vaches dehors pour 2 heures ont servi à comparer la première à la seconde heure (hiver: 8 jours; été: 9 jours).En hiver, les défécations/24h durant la période d'exercice furent de 19,4 ± 2,73 pour les vaches à l'intérieur et de 19,1 ± 1,58 pour les vaches dehors.En été, elles furent de 21,1 ± 4,12 et 18,6 ± 1,18 défécations/24h respectivement pour ces deux traitements.Les urinations/24h furent v en hiver de 11,4 ± 2,83 et 11,0 ± 3,33 pour les vaches témoin et les vaches dehors, respectivement.En été, elles furent de 9,2 ± 1,49 et 9,4 ± 0,98 urinations/24h respectivement pour ces deux traitements.Les éliminations étaient plus fréquentes durant la traite matinale (05:00), les périodes où les vaches s'alimentaient, ainsi qu'entre 19:00 et 20:00, alors que le nombre de pas effectués par les vaches augmentait.Le pourcentage d'éliminations tombées à l'intérieur de la stalle n'était pas associé aux fréquences d'éliminations ni au nombre de pas plus élevés.Les taux d'éliminations de la première heure de la période d'exercice ne différaient pas entre les traitements (défécations et urinations; P > 0,05).Les taux d'urination étaient plus élevés durant la première que durant la seconde heure (0,55 vs 0,28 urinations/vache/h; P < 0,05).La fréquence des éliminations augmentait à la mi-temps et à la fin de la période d'exercice, mais n'était pas liée au nombre de pas.En plus d'aider à brosser un portrait plus précis de la répartition temporelle des éliminations, les informations collectées durant ce projet serviront à la mise en place de systèmes de logement incluant un accès contrôlé à l'extérieur pour les vaches laitières.viACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to first thank my supervisor, Elsa Vasseur, for her support and guidance throughout these past two years, academically and beyond.I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to join your lab.Thank you to my co-supervisor, Marianne Villettaz Robichaud, for being so encouraging in my work and for planning the study with me.I would also like to thank my committee member, Dr. Roger Cue, for his support, especially in his finalizations of the statistical models and written thesis.The completion of my degree would not have been possible without the combined help of the entire CowLife McGill lab, as the exercise project that this thesis is based on was such a huge undertaking (and I think everyone helped at some point!).Thank you to

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicSuperconducting and THz Device TechnologyFrench-language works237,207