Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:44:58.760Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Trade-off decisions in dairy cow feeding preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2017

F. C. Lang*
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
S. D. Healy
Affiliation:
The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
D. J. Roberts
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
M. J. Haskell
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Get access

Extract

In recent years there has been an increasing interest in the issue of farm animal welfare. This interest stems from a belief that many modern livestock production systems do not allow animals to perform a natural range of behaviour, leading to a possible decline in welfare. One method of determining the value of natural behaviours is to perform preference tests. In dairy cows, choices relating to various treatments, including feeding, shouting, electric shock, hitting (Pajor et al., 2003) and being milked (Prescott et al., 1998) have been assessed using Y-maze methodology. This is a process that involves training animals to anticipate receiving a treatment if they enter one arm of the Y and an alternative treatment if they enter the other. We used preference tests as a tool to determine how dairy cows perceive aspects of their feeding environment, with specific emphasis on understanding what difficulties low ranking animals face at the feed-face. We hypothesised that subordinate cows would trade-off proximity to a dominant individual at the feed-face with access to food of a high quality.

Type
Theatre Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Pajor, E. A., Rushen, J., de Passille, A. M. B., 2003. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 80, 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prescott, N. B., Mottram, T. T., Webster, A. J. F. 1998. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 57, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar