Lo

JP

a

AAA

KADBLLD

1

ocFbh

0d

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 136 (2012) 104– 107

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

journa l h o me pag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /applan im

ying laterality and the effect of IceTag data loggers on lying behaviourf dairy cows

enny Gibbons ∗, Catalina Medrano-Galarza, Anne Marie de Passillé, Jeffrey Rushenacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, PO Box 1000, 6947 Highway 7, Agassiz, BC, Canada V0M 1A0

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:ccepted 11 December 2011vailable online 5 January 2012

eywords:nimal welfareairy cattleehaviouryingateralityata loggers

a b s t r a c t

Lying behaviour is a useful indicator of cow comfort, but can be time consuming to mea-sure. Data loggers are commonly used to automatically record behavioural activity but mayinfluence the animal’s behaviour. We investigated the effect of a new model of the IceTagdata logger (IceTag Sensor, IceRobotics© Ltd, Edinburgh, UK) on lying behaviour of fortydairy cows. Smaller Hobo® Pendant G data loggers (Onset Computer Corporation, Pocasset,MA) were attached to the hindlegs of all cows balanced for left and right and measuredtotal duration of lying time, frequency and mean duration of lying bouts and the percentof time lying down on each side. Sixteen cows were semi-randomly split into two groupsdepending on the position of the IceTags on the inside of the leg (medial) or the outside(lateral). Each cow experienced four treatments in a Latin square design: no IceTag datalogger attached as a control (C); one IceTag data logger on the left hind leg (L), one IceTagdata logger on the right hind leg (R), and a IceTag data logger on both hind legs (B). Eachtreatment lasted for 6 days. As part of a separate study, lying laterality data from 24 cowswith an IceTag data logger attached to the lateral part of each hindleg was used. On average,cows (n = 39) spent 47.5% of their time lying on the right side during a 24-h period. How-ever, there was a large variation of time spent lying on the right side ranging from 25.1% to65.7%. There was no significant effect of IceTag location (medial or lateral) or treatment (C,

L, R, B) on total lying time, frequency of lying time, duration of lying bouts or percentage oftime lying on each side. In summary, IceTags did not affect lying behaviour in dairy cows,allowing them to be reliably used in research as a high tech tool to measure activity. Overallas a group, cows show no preference for lying on one particular side, but individual cowsdo show a distinct preference.

© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Measures of lying behaviour are important measuresf cow comfort, providing valuable information on howows interact with their environment (Tucker et al., 2004;

orsberg et al., 2008; O’Driscoll et al., 2008) and possi-ly indicating illness (Weary et al., 2009). Studies to dateave focused on the duration of lying down but changes

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 604 796 1225.E-mail address: jenny.gibbons@hotmail.co.uk (J. Gibbons).

168-1591/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.applanim.2011.12.005

in the side on which cows lie down (lying laterality) maybe used as an additional measure, for example to detectthe effects of mastitis (Siivonen et al., 2011). Tucker et al.(2009) reported that on average cows do not have pref-erence for lying side, spending 51% and 49% of their totallying time per day on the left and right side, respectively,with some individual marked preferences. However, it hasbeen found that cows in later stages of pregnancy tend to

lie down more on the left side because the foetus is locatedmainly on the right side (Forsberg et al., 2008). Addition-ally, ruminally cannulated cows tend to lie down more onthe right side (Forsberg et al., 2008; Tucker et al., 2009).

Behavio

J. Gibbons et al. / Applied Animal

Measuring lying behaviour in cows can be time con-suming and labour intensive if direct or video-basedobservations are used as recording techniques. As a result,the use of automated recording data loggers that recordbehaviours with high sensitivity and specificity is grow-ing within the scientific community (O’Driscoll et al., 2008;Ledgerwood et al., 2010) and has been used on farm (Itoet al., 2010). Data loggers attached around the leg are themost accurate (Ledgerwood et al., 2010) and there are var-ious brands of data loggers commercially available whichvary in size and weight. Validation of data loggers is car-ried out by assessing accuracy based on comparisons withvideo recordings or direct observational data (Trénel et al.,2009; Ledgerwood et al., 2010). However, there is no pub-lished information on the possible effects that data loggerscould have on cows’ lying behaviour when attached to theleg. Unpublished data (C. Tucker, personal communication,2011) suggest that cows may spend 10% less time lying onthe side with the data logger attached.

The aim of this study was to investigate if the attach-ment of a new model of IceTag data logger (IceRobotics,Edinburgh, UK) affects the lying behaviour of dairy cows,and the extent of lying laterality. Video observation over24-h periods, especially for a group of animals housedtogether can be technically difficult and labour intensiveand for this reason the Hobo® Onset Pendant G data loggerwhich is smaller than the IceTag and has previously beenvalidated for measuring laterality of lying behaviour wasused to record lying behaviour in our study (Ledgerwoodet al., 2010).

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Animals, housing and husbandry

We selected forty lactating Holstein cows with bodycondition score (BCS) > 2 and sound walking gait < 3,assessed by using the numerical rating score system(Flower and Weary, 2006). Cows were housed in eightgroups with sand-bedded freestalls (2.4 m long × 1.18 mwide × 0.40 m deep) with access to one stall per cow atthe University of British Columbia’s Dairy Education andResearch Centre (Agassiz, Canada). Cows were fed a TMRtwice daily (45.5% concentrate and 54.5% forage on a drymatter basis). Water was supplied ad libitum. The cowswere milked twice daily (05:00 and 15:00 h). All proceduresrelated to animals in this experiment were approved by theUBC Committee on Animal Care (the University of BritishColumbia).

2.2. Data loggers

The newest model of IceTag® data loggers (IceRoboticsLtd, Edinburgh, UK) were attached to the hind leg(s) aspart of the treatments (see Section 2.3) and were not pro-grammed to record cows’ activity. Each IceTag is fitted

into a waterproof plastic rubber house with a reusable andadjustable thermoplastic rubber strap and attached abovethe fetlock of the hindleg. The IceTag dimensions are 65 mm

ur Science 136 (2012) 104– 107 105

high × 60 mm wide × 30 mm deep and weigh 95 g and 197 gwithout and with the thermoplastic rubber strap, respec-tively.

Hobo® Pendant G Acceleration data loggers (OnsetComputer Corporation, Pocasset, MA—dimensions: 33 mmhigh × 60 mm wide × 25 mm deep; weight: 17 g approxi-mately) were programmed to record the position of thecow using a logging interval of 1 reading per minute andg forces as a unit (Chapinal et al., 2009). The y-axis wasused to evaluate lying behaviour; and the z-axis was usedto determine laterality of lying. The Hobo loggers wereattached with Vet Wrap (Co-Flex, Andover Coated Prod-ucts Inc., Salisbury, MA) at the level of the middle partof the metatarsus. The data collected by the Hobo loggerswere downloaded using Onset HOBOware® Lite SoftwareVersion 2.2.1 (Onset Computer Corporation, Pocasset, MA)and exported to Microsoft Excel® (Microsoft Corporation).The Software Macro Hobo 3D Microsoft Excel® was used tomodify and edit data.

2.3. Experimental procedures

Sixteen of a total of forty cows were semi-randomlysplit into two groups depending on the position ofthe IceTags attached to either the inside of the leg(Medial) or the outside (Lateral). The two groups werebalanced for parity, days in milk (DIM), body condi-tion score (BCS) and body weight (BW) (mean ± SD,Group Medial: parity = 1.63 ± 0.74; DIM = 132.87 ± 54.30;BCS = 3.12 ± 0.42; BW = 642.5 ± 168.61 kg; Group Lateral:parity = 1.5 ± 0.75; DIM = 118 ± 61.03; BCS = 2.78 ± 0.49;BW = 621.3 ± 48.53 kg). A Latin square design was used inorder to allow comparison between four treatments whileat the same time controlling for other sources of variation.The 16 experimental cows experienced four treatments ina Latin square design. All cows had one Hobo attached andthe four IceTag treatments were: no IceTags attached as acontrol (C); one IceTag on the left hind leg (L), one IceTagon the right hind leg (R); an IceTag on both hind legs (B).Each treatment lasted for 6 days, and a total of 24 days oflying data was collected.

Hobo data loggers were attached to all 40 cows onday 0 (D0) at 10:00 h with the side location (left orright hind leg) balanced by attaching them to half ofthe cows (n = 20) on the left hind leg, and half of cows(n = 20) on the right hind leg. The cows were given a 14 hhabituation period to the IceTags and Hobo. Hobo log-gers were programmed to start recording data at 00:00 hon D1 of the trial. The 40 cows consisted of 16 cowsused as part of the main experiment in our study andthe remaining 24 cows were part of another study andonly used for assessing lying laterality in our study. Forpurposes of another experiment, 24 cows (mean ± SD; par-ity = 2.79 ± 1.62; DIM = 160.235 ± 76.85; BCS = 3.08 ± 0.51)had IceTags attached on the outside part of both hind legsfor a total of six days and were added to the dataset of our

study. Only six days of data recording was available fromeach of the 24 cows, therefore a total of six days were ana-lysed for all 40 cows to determine the percent of time that

106 J. Gibbons et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 136 (2012) 104– 107

Table 1Median (25th percentile–75th percentile) time spent lying down, frequency of lying bouts, mean duration of lying bouts and percentage of time lying onthe right side of cows with no IceTag (C), IceTag on the left (L), right (R) or on both legs (B).

Treatment n Median (P25–P75)

Total lying time(min/24 h)

Number of lyingbouts (bouts/24 h)

Mean duration of lyingbouts (min/bout)

Percentage of timelying on the right side

C 15 778.8 (746.8–819.5) 9.6 (8.8–11.5) 74.7 (70.3–90.5) 49.1 (47.1–54.7)L 15 792.6 (765.1–813.0) 10.6 (9.0–11.0) 74.9 (69.4–83.7) 46.1 (41.2–51.7)R 14 765.1 (744.8–810.3) 10.1 (9.6–11.1) 74.3 (65.3–85.6) 47.3 (45.2–51.1)B 15 783.6 (711.0–813.0) 10.0 (8.6–11.5) 76.4 (69.0–89.1) 47.2 (43.9–51.9)�2a 1.32 0.04 0.44 2.81

P

cr

2

codotfssldoq

wBso((eta

p-Value 0.72 0.99

25 = 25th percentile; P75 = 75th percentile.a �2 = Kruskal–Wallis Test statistic.

ows lie down on each side. The presence of injuries wasecorded after the removal of the IceTag data loggers.

.4. Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed with SAS V9.2. Oneow developed a swelling on the left hock, and she lay downn average 70% of the time on her right side; therefore herata was not used in subsequent analyses. One Hobo loggerf another cow malfunctioned during the week in whichhe cow was subjected to treatment R; therefore her dataor treatment R could not be used. All lying times are pre-ented on a 24-h basis to facilitate comparisons with othertudies. A mean was calculated for the six days for totalying time (min/day), frequency of lying bouts (bouts/day),uration of lying bouts (min/bout), percentage of time lyingn the right side (randomly selected), as well as the fre-uency and duration of lying bouts on each side.

Data were not normally distributed and variancesere not homogeneous (p < 0.05 Shapiro–Wilk Test andartlett’s Test, respectively). Kruskal–Wallis Test waselected to investigate the effect of IceTag position (medialr lateral), and the effect of IceTag treatment (no IceTagC), IceTag on left (L) or right (R) hindleg or IceTag on both

B) hindlegs) on lying behaviour. There was no statisticalffect of group (medial or lateral) on all lying variables sohe data from both medial and lateral groups was poolednd the pooled dataset was used for subsequent analyses.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Individ

Perc

enta

ge o

f �m

e ly

ing

on t

he r

ight

sid

e

Fig. 1. Distribution of the mean (±SD) of the percentage of time that indivi

0.93 0.42

3. Results

No cows had lesions on their legs due to IceTags. Dif-ferences between medial and lateral location of the IceTagon 16 cows were not found for total lying time (p = 0.91),frequency of lying bouts (p = 0.20), mean duration of lyingbouts (p = 0.30), or percentage of time lying on the right side(p = 1.00). There were no significant differences (p > 0.05)in total lying time, frequency of lying bouts and meanduration of lying bouts between any of the treatmentstested (no IceTag (C), IceTag on the left (L), right (R) or onboth legs (B)) (Table 1). There were no significant differ-ences between treatments for the percentage of time lyingon the right side (Median (P25–P75), treatment C: 49.1%(47.1–54.7); B: 47.2% (43.9–51.9); L: 46.1% (41.2–51.7); R:47.3% (45.2–51.1); p = 0.42).

The percentage of time lying on the right side variedgreatly among the 39 cows (Fig. 1) with a minimum valueof 25.19% and a maximum value of 65.74%. There was alsoconsiderable variation from day to day for each individualcows. The mean percentage of time lying on the right sidewas 47.50 ± 8.67% (±SD).

4. Discussion

We found no evidence that attachment of the IceTagsaffected the lying behaviour of the cows or resulted in anyinjuries. IceTags have been previously validated for accu-racy based on comparisons with video recordings for their

ual cows

dual cows (n = 39) spent lying on the right side for a total of 6 days.

Behavio

J. Gibbons et al. / Applied Animal

use in dairy cattle by Munksgaard et al. (2006) and Trénelet al. (2009). However, there is no previous research onthe possible effects that data loggers might have on cows’lying behaviour. Our results show that the medial or lateralattachment of IceTags on one (left or right) or both hindlegs did not affect the cows’ lying behaviour and lateral-ity of lying. These results contradict the findings of Tucker(Personal communication, 2011) who reported that cowsspent 10% less time lying on the side corresponding to theleg holding the Gemini Tiny-TagTM data logger, which isonly slightly larger (78 mm high × 63 mm wide × 33 mmdeep; weight: 107 g approximately) than the IceTags. Thestudy by Tucker differs from our study in that the cows withGemini Tiny-TagTM were at pasture and lying laterality wascompared to a group of cows not wearing the Gemini Tiny-TagTM. Lying laterality differs greatly across individuals andour study compares the effect of IceTag on lying lateralitywithin individuals.

Therefore, we can conclude that after attaching IceTagsand starting behavioural recording 14 h after attachment,the data loggers provide reliable data without affectinglying behaviour, and that a 14 h period is sufficient to allowthe cow to habituate to the presence of the IceTag(s).

Although the cows showed no overall preference forlying on any particular side, individual cows did showmarked preferences. The time spent lying, frequency andduration of bouts, and percentage of time lying on the rightside was consistent with the pattern within the literature(Tucker et al., 2009; Ledgerwood et al., 2010).

Previous studies have suggested that overall cows donot have lying side preferences. For example, Tucker et al.(2009) report 51% and 50% of time lying on the right side atpasture in mid and late lactation cows, respectively. Addi-tionally, they found that free-stall housed mid lactatingcows had a similar pattern (49%), although non lactatingpregnant cows spent 44% of their time lying on the rightside. Ledgerwood et al. (2010) found on average cows spent46.4% lying on the right, but interestingly, there is a con-siderable variation between individuals ranging from 10to 95%. Our results were in agreement with the literatureshowing that cows spent on average 47.5% of their timelying on the right. However, we found less variation inlying on the right compared to Ledgerwood et al. (2010);our range was between 25 and 66%. Laterality of lying canbe an interesting welfare indicator; particularly in assess-ing changes in health status in dairy cattle (Siivonen et al.,2011). We did find one cow with a hock swelling that spentmost time lying on the opposite side to the swelling. How-ever, the variation that exists within a population highlight

the necessity to record a baseline of the individual’s lyingside preferences particularly in studies assessing devia-tions in side preference as a result of changes in healthstatus such as in the case of mastitis.

ur Science 136 (2012) 104– 107 107

5. Conclusion

Using a 14 h habitation period to IceTag data loggers,we found no effect of these data loggers on lying time, fre-quency of lying bout, mean duration of lying bouts and thelaterality of lying behaviour. In this study, we report noinjury as a direct result of wearing the IceTag. The varia-tion in lying laterality suggests that previous knowledgeof individual lying side preferences must be considered todetermine if changes in lying laterality is a direct result ofillness or changes in physiological status (e.g. late gestation,ruminal cannulation).

Acknowledgments

We thank Gosia Zdanowicz, Jean Philippe Parent, RubyWong and the staff at The University of British Columbia’sDairy Education and Research Centre and Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada for their help in running the experi-ments. Funding was obtained from the Natural Sciencesand Engineering Research Council of Canada and Agricul-ture and Agri-Food Canada.

References

Chapinal, N., de Passillé, A.M., Weary, D.M., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.,Rushen, J., 2009. Using gait score, walking speed, and lyingbehaviour to detect hoof lesions in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92,4365–4374.

Flower, F.C., Weary, D.M., 2006. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjectiveassessments of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89, 139–146.

Forsberg, A.M., Petterson, G., Ljungberg, T., Svennersten-Sjaunja, K., 2008.A brief note about cow lying behaviour-do cows choose left and rightlying side equally? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 114, 32–36.

Ito, K., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., LeBlanc, S.J., Weary, D.M., 2010. Lyingbehavior as an indicator of lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93,3553–3560.

Ledgerwood, D.N., Winckler, C., Tucker, C.B., 2010. Evaluation of data log-gers, sampling intervals, and editing techniques for measuring thelying behaviour of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 93, 5129–5139.

Munksgaard, L., Reenen, C.G., Boyce, R., 2006. Automatic monitoring oflying, standing and walking behaviour in dairy cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 8(Suppl.), 304.

O’Driscoll, K., Boyle, L., Hanlon, A., 2008. A brief note on the validationof a system for recording lying behaviour in dairy cows. Appl. Anim.Behav. Sci. 111, 195–200.

Siivonen, J., Taponen, S., Hovinen, M., Pastell, M., Lensink, B.J., Pyörälä, S.,Hänninen, L., 2011. Impact of acute clinical mastitis on cow behaviour.Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 132, 101–106.

Trénel, P., Jensen, M.B., Decker, E.L., Skjøth, F., 2009. Technical note: quan-tifying and characterizing behaviour in dairy calves using the Ice Tagautomatic recording device. J. Dairy Sci. 92, 3397–3401.

Tucker, C.B., Weary, D.M., Fraser, D., 2004. Free-stall dimensions: effectsof preference and stall usage. J. Dairy Sci. 87, 1208–1216.

Tucker, C.B., Cox, N.R., Weary, D.M., Spinka, M., 2009. Laterality of lyingbehaviour in dairy cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 120, 125–131.

Tucker, C.B., 2011. Effect of data loggers on the behaviour of dairy cattle.Personal communication.

Weary, D.M., Huzzey, J.M., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., 2009. Using behaviourto predict and identify ill heath in animals. J. Anim. Sci. 87,770–777.