Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Albright - 1993
Albright - 1993
productive. The common practice of feeding (54). Some evidence (62, 73) indicates that
and milking cows in groups thus has a sound cattle eat less hay when fed individually than
psychological basis” (90). when group fed, possibly because of the in-
Dairy cattle are social animals that operate creased anxiety exhibited by temporarily iso-
within a herd structure and follow a leader lated cows. In joint research (16), group-reared
(leadership-followership) to and from pasture, calves spent a significantly (P < .05) greater
feedbunk, and milking parlor. Such behavior percentage of a 24-h d eating than did calves
can be beneficial (e.g., following a leader onto reared in isolation (10.9 vs. 5.4%).
a scale) or detrimental (e.g., a stampede) (21). Cattle have a distinct diurnal grazing pat-
Behavior becomes a balance of interacting tern, which includes a major meal beginning
driving forces: for newly mixed cows, aggres- approximately at sunrise (47, 54, 56). Further,
sion is dominant, but it soon diminishes as the cattle are crepuscular, that is, most active at
social order becomes established and the feed- sunrise and again at sunset. In Kenya, approxi-
ing drive becomes dominant (43). Cows ex- mately 35 km south of the equator, day length,
hibit wide differences in temperament, and sunrise to sunset, is 12 h and 8 min throughout
their behavior is determined by inheritance, the year. Arousal of cattle from a lying to a
prior experience, and training (37). Cows nor- grazing state occurs predictably between 20
mally are quiet and thrive on consistency and min before and 30 min after sunrise. The rate
gentle treatment by handlers (37). Handling of arousal varies considerably and is related to
procedures are more stressful for isolated the rate of increase of illumination and cloud
cows; therefore, attempts should be made to cover. The maximum temperature of the previ-
have several cows together during medical ous day, humidity at 0700 h, wind, and radia-
treatment, during artificial insemination, or tion of the previous day do not affect behavior
during movement from one group to another (50). Feeding behavior is affected by climate,
(17, 102). condition of teeth, age of cattle, and nature and
Research on feeding behavior may be found kind of feed. In general, feed consumption (in
in the reviews of Baile and Della-Fera (20) and a controlled climate laboratory) is depressed
Campling and Morgan (28). Aspects of feeding by increasing environmental temperature (83).
behavior relative to confinement housing, Patterns of feeding vary according to the
management, and innovations in feeding physical consistency of the ration. Cracked,
ground, processed grains are usually offered to
devices were reviewed by Coppock et al. (36). d a q cattle while they are restrained in a stan-
This paper summarizes current and relevant chion, headlock, or stall. Feed is put in front of
knowledge of eating and feeding behavior; de- them in a manger, from which the cattle eat by
velopments in feeding and grazing behavior gathering feed up with the tongue and sucking
because of the renewed interest in intensive it into the mouth. Most feed is in moderately
grazing and seasonal dairying; and the be- small particles; thus, no biting action is neces-
havioral aspects of rumination. Suckling be- sary, although chewing movements take place.
havior in calves-rates, patterns, and The major organs for prehension of feed are
frequency-is a subject unto itself and has the lips, teeth, and tongue. The general direc-
been covered earlier (54). Recently, drinking tion of movement of the jaws during eating in
behavior and water intake and deprivation the cow is the same as other mammals. Chew-
were summarized elsewhere (76). ing movements in ruminants differ from those
of most other mammals. At centric occlusion,
Eatlng Behavior only a narrow strip of their molars is in contact
because domestic ruminants are highly anisog-
The amount of grains and ground feed mix- nathous (having the upper jaw much wider
tures consumed is determined largely by the relatively than the lower one) (89). For further
quantity offered. However, cattle on silage eat details on eating procedures (i.e., jaw move-
larger quantities of less nutritious feed than ments, teeth, and voluntary and involuntary
when on pasture, presumably because of the swallowing), see the paper by Campling and
preclusion of selective choosing (54). Dry mat- Morgan (28).
ter consumption is higher when cows are fed Whole grain, pellets, silage, chopped
hay than when they are fed silage or pasture forages, and small roots also are scooped into
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 76, No. 2, 1993
FEEDING BEHAVIOR 487
the mouth by lip and tongue movements, fol- 3 h of feed deprivation increased rumination in
lowed by vigorous chewing. Cows discern the subsequent period. This finding supports
quickly how to select the leaves from hay and the assumption that feeding has priority over
how to figure out the transponder system to get rumination whenever the causal factors of the
what they want (e.g., hay rather than corn two behaviors are in conflict. [However, earlier
silage diets). Cattle bite and eat large tubers, research (80) indicates that rumination can
roots, and fruits, such as potatoes, sugar beets, have priority over eating when the former is
carrots, and apples, just as humans would. Salt restricted.] Similar data on the duration of
blocks, still common on many farms and feed- eating can be found in a study by Hafez and
lots, are licked by cattle. Earth eating (geopha- Bouissou (54) and summarized by Balch (23).
gia) is widespread in Africa and in confined Few data show the extent of variability be-
cattle the world over. Cattle are inquisitive tween days in eating time by cows given the
creatures that supposedly go to earth licks for same amount of feed each day.
salt because the Na content of herbage is often In an earlier 24-h observation study, Fuller
low. This hypothesis is not supported by (46) reported that cows in box stalls fed hay
chemical analysis (54). The reason why cattle for ad libitum intake spent 6 h eating and 8 h
eat earth is unknown. Also, cattle might as- ruminating, but cows in stanchions spent 3 h
sociate sensory information about harmful eating hay and 8 h ruminating. The number of
phytochemicals (poisonous plants) with ap- jaw movements per minute eating for Ayrshire,
propriate behavior through instinct, learning as Guernsey, Holstein, and Jersey cows were 94
an individual, learning as part of a social for grain and silage, 78 for hay, with 55 for
group, or combinations of the given behaviors ruminating. A summary of approximate jaw
(82). movements was 4700 (eating grain and silage),
Time spent masticating different rations 10,530 (eating hay), and 26,400 (ruminating)
varies directly with the total number of chews for a total of 41,630 movements/d. The effects
(54). In a series of papers (47, 48, 49), the of dietary NDF concentration on chewing and
number of chews per unit of time spent milk yield were assessed using alfalfa silage-
ruminating varied with diet. Campling and based diets with and without supplemental
Morgan (28) have summarized the duration long hay (24). Increased NDF resulted in a
and pattern of eating in noncompetitive and quadratic increase in ruminating and total
competitive situations. chewing time from 344 and 558 for 26% NDF,
to 403 and 651 for 30% NDF, and to 414 and
Noncompetitive Eating Situations
674 midd for 34% NDF, respectively. Added
hay increased milk yield by .7 kg/d but did not
Metz (73) analyzed and described in detail increase daily ruminating and chewing time;
the eating and ruminating patterns of seven ruminating time per unit of NDF intake was
dry, nonpregnant Dutch cows offered hay reduced by hay supplementation (75.3 vs. 69.4
wafers for ad libitum intake. Among cows, the minkg). Other relevant data on chewing and
duration of eating ranged from 248 to 392 mid rumination can be found (24).
d (average 330 midd), and this variability was Another important factor influencing eating
not associated with either the amounts eaten or rate was the amount of feed offered to the cow.
the BW of the cows. Daily rumination times Milking cows took 1.6 min to eat 1.0 kg of
ranged from 464 to 579 midd (average 511 pelleted concentrate, but, if presented with 4
midd), and daily number of rumination bouts kg, the eating rate was 1.05 min/kg (60).The
ranged from 10.8 to 16.9 (average 14.0) Bouts authors suggest that smaller amounts of con-
of eating (meals) tended to be most frequent at centrates are more thinly spread over the area
the beginning and end of the daylight period; of the base of the manger than a larger amount,
the cows were in a room illuminated continu- thus increasing the time and maneuverability
ously for 16 h. Daily feed intake averaged 14.7 by cows to gather the feed into their mouths.
kg and ranged from 10.3 to 18.5 kg. The This idea has appeal in conjunction with the
number of meals varied between cows from TMR concept. Campling and Morgan (28)
5.9 to 11.4/d (average 8.3). Metz (73) estab- summarized other work, concluding that lactat-
lished that the prevention of rumination during ing cows eat slightly more rapidly than nonlac-
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 76, No. 2, 1993
488 ALBRIGHT
TABLE 1. Effects of reducing manger space on visits, cow numbers, total feeding time, and manger space occupied for
each 24-h observation period.
Manger space per cow
.45 m .3 m .251 m .2 m .18 m .15 m
Visits, no. 11.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 10.0
Cows, no. 4.4 3.8 3.7 4.0 3.5 3.1
Total time feeding,* min 191.0 186.0 139.0 178.0 163.0 158.0
Mean manger space occupied, % 19.6 25.5 29.9 40.4 39.8 41.9
'five cows in estrus disturbed other cows while feeding.
*Mean feeding time per cow = 169 min.
tating, pregnant cows; older, socially dominant reduced. In another trial comparing mangers of
cows ate forages and concentrates in the milk- .5 and .25 m per cow, time spent by the cows
ing parlor faster than younger cows; Jerseys in using the mangers and feed intakes were
ate less rapidly than Holsteins; and correlation similar (45).
was direct between rate of eating hay and BW; Collis (1978, personal communication) con-
jaw movements while eating hay, herbage, and ducted a similar study with 60 British Friesian
silage were 75 to 90/min with little variation cows comparing 1.1, .5, .3, .25, .2, .18, or .15
among cows; and fresh feed given during a m of manger space. At the end of each week,
meal or a large meal divided into two small before the reduction in manger space, this
meals led to an increased rate of jaw move- group of cows was observed continuously for
ments. 24 h. Visits to the manger, cow numbers, total
time feeding, and manger space occupied are
presented in Table 1. The 24-h milk yields
Competitive Eating Situation8 (kilograms) of treatment and control groups for
Competition for feed may develop when each observation period are in Table 2. Reduc-
cows are kept in groups and when manger tion in manger space had no effect on the
space is insufficient to allow all cows to feed mean number of visits. The mean total feeding
at once. The critical length of manger space times decreased during the 6-wk trial, but not
significantly. No significant differences oc-
below which competition occurs depends on curred between the treatment and control
the time that feed is in the manger. Also, the groups for percentages of cows observed
presence of manger divisions may affect eating standing, lying, or feeding. The mean milk
behavior of submissive cows, enabling them to yields of both groups decreased, but differ-
eat longer (27). Friend et al. (44)examined the ences between them were not significant. How
time that cows spent at the manger and their this short-term experiment with smaller num-
voluntary intakes when each cow was allowed bers fits actual current herd conditions is not
.5, .4, .3, .2, or .1 m of manger space; a TMR known. A gradual reduction in manger space
including 25% ground hay was available for for an established group of cows may be ac-
21 h/d. Only when the length of manger was cepted more than adaptation of a new group to
below .2 m were eating time and intake limited manger space.
TABLE 2. Effects of reduced manger space on 24-h milk yield for each observation period.
Manger space per cow
1.07 m .45 m .3 m .25 m .2 m .18 m .15 m 1.07 m
Milk yield, kg/d
Treatment group 21.9 22.4 21.3 20.4 21.2 20.8 19.3 19.9
Control group 23.6 23.6 22.7 21.6 22.3 20.9 19.6 19.9
ing complete protection of the cow’s head water intake were significantly lower than
allowed subordinates to feed for more than when feed and water were available for 24 Wd.
two-thirds of the test period, whereas partial Anderson (11) also found that when pairs of
protection allowed feeding for about half of tied cows shared a water bowl, the dominant
the time (27). cow ate, drank, and yielded significantly more
Cows should be shifted from one group to than the submissive cow. It was hypothesized
another when necessary, and small groups of that the submissive cow suffered from chronic
cows should be moved. Not only is there so- stress. The only way to be certain in all situa-
cial pressure on the cow in her new group, but tions that cows have access to sufficient
she also may have different amounts of feed, a amounts of water is to have one water bowl
new milker, and a different milking time (5). per cow.
Handling procedures are more stressful for iso-
lated cows; therefore, attempts should be made Grazing Behavior
to keep several cows together during medical
treatment, artificial insemination, or movement Interest in grazing dairy cattle in the US has
from one group to another (17, 102). waned during the past 30 yr (14). Year-round
When corn silage is the only forage fed, hay drylot feeding, especially of the milking herd,
should be provided, allowing 2.3 to 4.5 kg/d of has become the norm. Variation in perfor-
long hay per cow. Accompanying the move to mance when cows graze may arise from many
all or high corn silage diets in the US has been sources, and variation is basic to drylot prefer-
an increase in digestive upsets, displaced ence. Extensive grazing behavior information
abomasums, and fat cow syndrome. Cows fed has been completed (1, 19, 54, 63, 75). Allen
all corn silage diets or feed chopped too finely (10) recently published a helpful compilation
(92) do not ruminate for as long as those on of terminology used for grazing lands and
hay diets. All corn silage diets need a great grazing animals (10).
deal of buffering plus added protein to com- In New Zealand, 40 yr ago, animal behavior
pare favorably with grass and hay crops such research with identical twins was initiated and
as alfalfa hay. conducted by Hancock (55, 56); this classical,
Previous research suggested that metabolic detailed work on grazing behavior is summa-
disorders, such as milk fat depression, may be rized as baseline values in Table 4 (seven
induced by changes in rate and duration of 24-h periods throughout one season).
chewing activities (93, 96, 100, 103). The ef- Slightly less than 60% of the total grazing
fects of forage particle size upon behavior in time was between 0700 and 1500 h, and
dairy cows, especially chewing activity, have slightly more than 40% was between 1700 and
been reviewed and studied by Grant et al. (51, 0445 h. This ratio was fairly constant under all
52). They fed TMR differing in silage particle weather and pasture conditions. On average,
size (fine, medium, coarse), and they observed almost 85% of the total grazing time was spent
cow behavior at 5-min intervals during 24 h during daylight and only 15% during darkness.
for each of three periods. Results indicated that There generally were six cycles of grazing:
decreasing particle size of the forage reduced four between morning and afternoon milkings,
time cows spent ruminating, whether standing one immediately after the cows were let out on
or recumbent, and had no effect on rumination the pasture following milking at 1700 h, and
rate or number of rumination bouts per one (sometimes two) during the night. Approx-
24-h period. Eating time was unaffected by imately 50% of the available time between
treatment. Effect of forage particle size upon 0700 and 1500 h was spent grazing. It seems
baseline rumination activity appeared to be that, even under ideal grazing conditions, dairy
most pronounced from 0800 to 2000 h, al- cows do not spend much more than half of the
though maximum rumination activity occurred time between morning and afternoon milkings
during nighttime hours. in actual grazing. The rest of the time is used
In a series of water experiments by Ander- partly for searching for food and partly for rest
son ( l l ) , when eating time was restricted to and rumination. Of the period following the
2.5 h at each feeding with no water during the afternoon milking (1700 to 0445 h), only ap-
first 2 h, feed consumption, milk yield, and proximately 25% was occupied with grazing.
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 76, No. 2, 1993
FEEDING BEHAVIOR 493
TABLE 4. Behavioral patterns for monozygotic cattle twins, after having strayed some distance from
twins on pasture. each other while grazing, sought each other's
Grazing time, min 411 company at frequent intervals. In general, iden-
Loafing time.1 min 195 tical twins tend to graze together and to behave
Lying down time, min 580 similarly while at pasture (61). The differences
Distance covered, m 2778
Defecations, no. 12.2
in grazing times between identical twins was
Urinations, no. 10.1 very small, averaging only 7.5 min, whereas
Water, drinks 3.7 the range among sets of twins was as great as
Total bites grazing, no. 23,966 2.25 h (56). Also, single born calves that have
Bites, min 51.3 been reared together in pairs usually are found
Rumination time, min 324
Total chews (rumination). no. 17.117 together when they are turned out with a graz-
Rumination: grazing .75* ing herd (40).
_____
~~ ~ ~
pressed about the comfort, well-being, be- below the ruminal fluid level, thus avoiding
havior, reproduction, and udder, foot, and leg interference with rumination, eructation, belch-
health of cattle kept on concrete. Whenever ing of ruminal gasses, and, possibly, bloat.
possible, many dairy producers let cows out of Although most nonruminants (i.e., horse, dog)
their barns in the middle of the day to sun and sleep on their side, ruminants must maintain
to groom themselves and each other, to stretch sternal recumbency (6, 32). Also, the self-
and exercise their limbs, and to show estrus stimulatory aspects of rumination may provide
behavior and overall health. As a safeguard, the physiological rest and rejuvenation nor-
many cows are removed from concrete to dirt mally provided by deep sleep. Cows spend
lots or pasture, at least during the dry period much less time sleeping than do people, dogs,
(6). and horses. Cattle are drowsy for about 7 (71)
Rollin (84) noted that legislation in Sweden, to 8 h/d (85). Balch (22) concluded that, if
which granted cattle the right to graze, indi- cattle sleep, their sleep is of a short and tran-
cates that “U.S. society will soon demand that sient nature. Memck and Scharp (72), using
agriculture back off, at least to some extent, electroencephylograph readings, concluded
from confinement and pay greater attention to that cattle rest without loss of vigil or con-
agricultural animal comfort and happiness, and sciousness. Rukebusch et al. (86) present con-
encode this demand in legislation” @age vincing evidence that cows do indeed practice
3461). Pasturing has its problems, however, REM sleep (rapid eye movement or ‘‘true
and may not be as ideal as animal rights sleep”) in short 2- to 8-min periods. Theoreti-
activists perceive. Weather limits the grazing cally, sleep serves two functions: recuperation
season (150 d or less) in several northern for physiological and psychological restoration
states. Pasture probably will not supply and increased response thresholds to prevent
nutrients needed to maintain high milk yield disturbance of rest from insignificant environ-
because forage of uniform quality and quantity mental stimuli. Some recumbency is necessary
is difficult to provide. Shade, water, heat, in- to prevent fatigue. Cattle deprived of resting
sects, susceptibility to bloat, energy expended (lying) compensate for loss of REM sleep by
in grazing and travel to the milking parlor, and indulging in non-REM (“quiet”) sleep while
toxicity from soil are other considerations as- standing (14).
sociated with pasturing. For example, high Cows aim to achieve a rather fixed amount
yielding cows spent much less time lying of lying, and their well-being is impaired when
down and significantly more time grazing from lying time is restricted for several hours (74).
the beginning to the end of the grazing season Earlier, the variability in the behavior of in-
(15). dividual cows in comfort tests appeared to be
more influential on resting habits than was the
Rumination and Resting type of stall-comfort, tie, or stanchion (42).
(That study was conducted before invention of
Ewbank (41) speculated that rumination the free stall and technological improvements
acts as an “anti-boredom” activity in the adult of comfort and tie-stall barns.) For further de-
bovine. Considerable self-stimulation and “in- tails on dairy cow comfort and resting be-
wardness” occurs in cattle because of the rumi- havior, see studies by Albright and Stricklin
nation process. During rumination, whether ly- (8) and Curtis et al. (37).
ing or standing, cows are quiet and relaxed Left-side ruminally cannulated cows are
with their heads down and their eyelids lo- used in experiments that measure chewing ac-
wered. Cows can ruminate while standing, but tivity and ruminal function. This observation
they usually lie down with their chests against raises an important, but largely overlooked,
the ground (6, 8). behavioral and physiological issue. Normally,
It has been suggested (6, 8, 51) that left-side cows exhibit left-side laterality; Le., they pre-
laterality is of strategic value to the ruminant fer to lie on their left side on a level surface (9,
animal for rest and to optimize positioning of 14, 99, 101). Prepartum dairy cows in a
the rumen within the body for most efficient wooded lot spent 55% recumbency on their
rumination. Together with an upright posture, left side (7). Cows also exhibit increased (P<
the esophageal opening is not allowed to fall .01) left-side laterality as calving approached.
With increasing age and size, the tendency for the cow's upright resting posture and rumen
cows to lie more on their right side shifts positioning is considered.
significantly (18). Such was the case with To categorize postural differences in resting
Beecher Arlinda Ellen (Table 3). dairy cattle, Coe et al. (32) observed 80 bull
Six Holstein cows (three intact and three calves at 20-min intervals from 1900 to 0330 h
ruminally cannulated) were observed for 48 h at 5, 10, and 17 wk of age. They also observed
to examine the effect of ruminal cannulation 68 (62 to 75) lactating cows at 15-min inter-
upon laterality and recumbent rumination ac- vals from 1900 to 0330 h twice (3 mo apart) in
tivity (51). Cows were housed in a free-stall winter in two bams in northern Indiana with
barn equipped with an individual feeding sys- 40 calves housed in stalls (.93 m2 each) and 40
tem that allowed continual access to feed in eight group pens (6.5 m2 or 1.3 m2 each),
(American Calan, Inc., Northwood, NH). The all with slatted wood flooring. Cows were
free-stall barn had an open exposure to the housed in 64 free stalls (2.8 m2 each) on
south and an upward stall slope of .7% from bedded wood or bedded concrete. As part of a
south to north. The slope was upward, right to larger study, each calf was observed for vari-
left, from the cow's perspective when facing ous resting postures (Table 6). No significant
into the stall. The free stalls were 2.3 m long differences existed between calf postures in
and 1.1 m wide, and the slope was 5.5% from stalls or pens, so those data were pooled. For
front to rear of the stall. A neck rail was both calves and cows, the results demonstrated
located .36 m from the front of the stall at a that sternal recumbency with their eyes open is
height of .94 m. The dimensions of the stall the most common resting position. Resting
alleyway and adjacent exercise lot were ap-
proximately 20 x 3.1 m. Stalls were bedded
daily with dry sawdust.
Ruminally cannulated cows demonstrated TABLE 6.Resting postures as a percentage of total obser-
increased right-side laterality (70%) compared vations.
with intact cows (47%)' but the cows tended to Postures cows Calves
ruminate while lying on their left side. The
percentage of time spent ruminating while (%I -
recumbent on the left side was similar (55%) Ered, eyes open 74.2 58.6a
for intact and cannulated cows (Table 5). The End, eyes closed 10.0 7.2a
Head on neck 6.2 18.9
percentage of time ruminating on the right side Head on leg or flank .4 13.2a
was significantly less than the time spent Head on stalls or floor 7.5 .6a
ruminating on the left side. These observations Lateral, on side
~~~ ~ ~
1.7
~~~~
1.9
indicate a behavioral need for the cow to rumi- rIhe f test for significance (P e .01) signified that
nate on her left side. This concept is quite values for calves were different from cows for various
logical when the evolutionary significance of postures except lateral recumbency.
with the head on the neck, leg, or flank is less EAlbright, J. L., and W. R. Stricklin. 1989. Recent
prevalent in the adult bovine. Lateral recum- developments in the provision for cattle welfare.
Page 149 in New Techniques in Cattle Production.
bency is similar in both calf and adult, but C.J.C. Phillips, ed. Butterworths, London, Ehgl.
environment may influence this behavior. Up- 9 Albright, J. L., D. H.Yungblut, C. W. h i v e , and J.
right posture was more prevalent with advanc- C. Wilson. 1975. Bovine laterality: resting behavior.
ing maturity. Roc. Indiana Acad. Sci. 85:407.
10 Allen, V. G. 1991. Terminology for Grazing Lands
and Grazing Animals. Pocohontas Press, Inc.,
CONCLUSIONS Blacksburg, VA.
11 Anderson, M.1984. Drinking water supply to housed
As herd animals, dairy cattle are adept and dairy cows. Svergies Lantbruksuniversitet Diss. Rep.
efficient at gathering of feed at the bunk or on 130, Uppsala, Sweden.
pasture. They practice leadershipfollowership 12 Arana, M. J., J. T. Huber. J. L.Sullivan, M. Denigan,
to and from the pasture, feedbunk, and other J. M. Simas, J. K. Taylor, S. K.DeNise, and L. E.
locations, and they practice social facilitation; Deetz. 1992. Influence of bambermycins (flavomy-
cin) on milk yield and feed intake of lactating cows.
thus, cows fed in groups eat more than in- J. Dairy Sci. 75:(Suppl. 1):294.(Abstr.)
dividuals. 3 Arave. C. W.. and J. L. Albright. 1976. Social rank
Dairy cattle are crepuscular; however, they and physiological traits of dairy cows as influenced
are adaptable at fitting grazing into other times by changing group membership. J. Dairy Sci. 59:974.
of the day as a result of hot weather and 4Arave, C. W., and J. L. Albright. 1981. Cattle be-
havior. J. Dairy Sci. 64:1318.
nutritive needs. They are consistent in biting, 5Arave. C. W., and J. L. Albright. 1992. Animal
jaw movements, eating, and rumination times. welfanlrights. USDA-Ext. Sem. Animal Welfare-
The sense of taste in dairy cattle is highly Rights Fact Sheets, Washington, DC.
developed and can be manipulated to suit the 6Arave. C. W., J. L. Albright, D. V. Armstrong, W.
preferences of both nutritionists and cow. W. Foster, and L. L. Larson. 1992. Effects of isola-
tion of calves on growth, behavior, and first lactation
Rumination acts as an “anti-boredom” ac- milk yield of Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 75:3408.
tivity in the adult bovine with considerable 7Arave. C. W., J. L. Albright, and C. L. Sinclair.
self-stimulation accompanied by a relaxed 1974. Behavior, milk yield and leucocytes of dairy
state. Left-side laterality is of strategic value to cows in reduced space and isolation. J. Dairy Sci. 57:
ruminants for rest and to optimize m e n posi- 1497.
18Arave, C. W., and J. L. Walters. 1980. Factors
tioning for efficient rumination. affecting lying behaviour and stall utilization of dairy
cattle. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 6369.
REFERENCES 19 Arnold, G. W.. and M. L.Dudzinski. 1978. Ethology
of free-ranging domestic animals. Elvesier, Amster-
1 Albright, J. L. 1969. Social environment and growth. dam, Neth.
Page 107 in Animal Growth and Nutrition. Lea and 20Baile. C. A., and M. A. Della-Fera. 1981. Nature of
Febiger, Philadelphia, PA. hunger and satiety control systems in ruminants. J.
2Albright, J. L. 1974. Let cow sociology help you Dairy Sci. 64:1140.
plan a feeding system. Successful Farming 72:(7)D1. 21 Baker, F. H. 1981. Scientific aspects of the welfare
3 Albright, J. L. 1978. The behaviour and management of food animals. Counc. Agric. Sci. Technol. Rep.
of high yielding dairy cows. Page 4 in The Be- No. 91, Iowa State Univ., Ames.
haviour and Management of High Yielding Dairy 22Balch C. C. 1955. Sleep in ruminants. Nature
Cows. Br. Oil and Cake Mills Sdcock Dairy Conf. (Lond.) 175:940.
Heathrow, England. January 30. Booklet publ. 23 Balch, C. C. 1971. Proposal to use time spent chew-
BOCM, Silcock, Basingstoke, Engl. ing as an index of the extent to which diets for
4 Albright, J. L. 1983. Incidence and control of feed-
ruminants possess the physical property of fibrous-
tossing behavior in cows fed complete feeds (total
mixed rations) at the feed bunk. J. Anim Sci. ness characteristics of roughages. Br. J. Nutr. 26:383.
57(Suppl. 1):135.(Abstr.) 2 4 B ~ ~ c h e m i nK.
, A., and J. G. Buchanan-Sdth.
5 Albright, J. L. 1983. Putting together the facility, the 1989. Effects of dietary neutral detergent fiber con-
worker and the cow. Page 15 in 2nd Natl. Dairy centration and supplementary long hay on chewing
Housing Conf., Am. SOC.Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, activities and milk production of dairy cows. J. Dairy
MI. Sci. 722288.
6Albright, J. L. 1987. Dairy animal welfare: current 25 Bickert, W. G. 1992. Best free stall layout. Hoard’s
and needed research. J. Dairy Sci. 702711. Dairyman 137:17.
7Albright, J. L., and J. A. Pennington. 1984. The 26 Bielharz, R. G. 1983-1984. Social dominance: reply
influence of diet upon time of calving and behavior to G.1. and L. A. Syme. Letter to the Editor. Appl.
in dairy cattle. Page 184 in Proc. Int. Congr. Appl. Anim. m o l . 11:67.
Ethol. Farm Anim. I. Unshelm, G. Van Putten, and 27 Bouissou, M. F. 1970. R61e du contact physique dans
K. Zeeb, ed. Univ. Kiel, Kiel, Germany. la manifestation des relations hierarchiques chez les