Farming?
Gerdine Kaptijn1, Egbert Lantinga2, Wytze Nauta3
Key words: dairy, dual purpose, novel traits, , grazing, breed differences
1 Gerdine Kaptijn, Farming System Ecology Group, Wageningen University 2 Egbert Lantinga, Farming System Ecology Group, Wageningen University 3 Dutch Foundation for Organic breeding , www.organicanimalbreeding.com
Role of Livestock in Sustainable Agriculture IAHA Pre-Conference on Organic Animal Husbandry November 7-8, 2017 linked to the 19th Organic World Congress, New Delhi, India, November 9-11, 2017 Organized by IAHA, FiBL, OFAI, NCOF, ICAR-IVRI , ANTHRA, IFOAM
Introduction
Holstein Friesian cows are bred for the more intensive production systems and they do not cope well in an extensive, pasture-based system (Dillon et al, 2006). A literature study was carried out to compare the popular Holstein Friesian (HF) breed to local dual purpose cattle breeds. This revealed that local dual purpose breeds display an advantage over the Holstein Friesians in many traits such as health, fertility, meat quality and longevity. Additionally, dual purpose cows are better able to cope with a harsh environment and a low quality diet. Therefore, many organic farmers cross their HF cows with more robust dual purpose breeds which are more resilient and cope better with outdoor, pasture-based production systems (De Haas et al., 2013).
The question is, however, how do such breeds behave better in a harsh environment? In other words: which specific ‘novel’ traits make them more resilient and, moreover, can such traits be used for selection? This is the central question in the EU funded 2-ORG-COWS project which includes seven countries and six different local, dual purpose breeds. In the Netherlands the grazing behaviour of one of the Dutch dual-purpose breeds, the Dutch Friesian, the ancestor of the HF breed, is compared to the Holstein Friesian. For this purpose, the monitoring system SensOor (AGIS) was used. SensOor, developed by AGIS, registers four main behaviours of cows, namely eating, ruminating, resting and other activity (such as walking, standing, etc.). The system expresses the time the cows spend on these behaviours in percentages per hour or per day. However, the SensOor system was never validated under grazing conditions and we tested it for the first time on pasture. Additionally, the SensOor output was used to compare grazing behaviour of pure-bred DF and HF cows. The ultimate knowledge would be to discover if the SensOor data can be used for estimating the real intake of grass per cow in the pasture and if such a trait is heritable and can be used for selection. A plan for such research is on its way.
Material and methods
SensOor was placed in the ears of the cows of two dairy herds, both mainly consisting of cows of the Dutch Friesian breed, one herd (56 head) was managed under organic conditions and the other herd (105 head) was conventionally managed and included also 20% crossbred animals (DF x HF) and 5 purebred Holstein cows.
Six cows of the organic herd were visually observed in the pasture and their behaviour was classified according to the four SensOor activities (grazing, ruminating, resting and being active). The results were converted to percentages on an hourly basis and compared with the output of SensOor. In the conventional herd, five purebred DF cows and five purebred HF cows, all of about the same age and lactation stage, were observed to discover if differences could be detected in their behaviour (the same four activity classes).
Results
Figure 1 shows a scatter plot of the SensOor output and visual observations of the grazing behaviour of six different cows (Kaptijn en Lantinga, 2016). The trendline and its R² value (0.97) indicates that the visual observations correlated very well with the output from SensOor. When in the field the cows were observed as grazing, SensOor detected this activity as eating.
A 2-sided paired t-test was performed using SPSS to test this result. A positive correlation was found between the
observed and detected activities of grazing, ruminating and resting (p ≤ 0.05). For the behaviour class ‘Active’ this positive correlation was not significant (p > 0.05).
In Figure 2 the grazing behaviour of the DF and HF cows on pasture is shown together with climatic conditions (Kaptijn en Lantinga, 2016). The most striking difference in the behaviour of the cows during this week was that the grazing activity of the DF cows increased from May 10th onwards, while the grazing activity of the HF cows tended to decrease after May 11th. The cows were all on the same paddock for all five days, although they got access to new parts of the pasture area every 2 days. An explanation for
this increased grazing behaviour of the DF cows might have been the changing weather conditions. Throughout the week the average air humidity increased (from 50% to 72%), whereas there was a gradual decrease in the mean temperature (from 19.9 °C to 11.8 °C). May 10th and 11th had less sunshine (6.5 and 9.2 hours) compared to the other days, which were extremely sunny (around 14 hours of sunshine). To assess the effects of temperature and humidity on the grazing behaviour of cows, the temperature humidity index (THI) was calculated using the method of Charlton et al. (2011). During the week the relative humidity increased, while temperature decreased. This resulted in a more or less constant THI during the first 4 days, which was around 72 (range: 70 - 73). Therefore, it is possible that during those days the cows suffered from heat stress which might have reduced their grazing time. The average grazing behaviour of the HF cows decreased during the week. In contrast, the grazing time of the DF increased from May 10th. This suggests that the HF cows suffered from heat stress whereas the DF cows are less susceptible to heat stress. This agrees with the findings of Sharma et al. (1983) who states that smaller cows are less affected by heat stress than larger breeds such as the Holstein Friesian.
Discussion and Conclusions
The results of this study should be considered as preliminary findings regarding the behaviour of dairy cattle in the pasture. The SensOor system was never previously validated for cows grazing on pasture. Our results indicate that the SensOor equipment is a useful instrument for farmers and researchers when cows are out on pasture. Our findings of differences in grazing behaviour between the DF and HF breed indicate a very interesting case, do DF cows have less heat stress then HF cows and because of this, do they have a higher intake of roughage during more humid and warmer days? These results are from a very small number of cows and only five days of observations. In 2017, we will gather more data on this aspect to look for differences between breeds and also within breeds. When differences within breeds is the case, probably this can be used for the selection of better grazing behaviour.
Further research will also include the correlation between the eating/grazing and/or the real intake of grass in kg during grazing of a cow. Collecting data on this aspect has always been very difficult and expensive (Oldenbroek and Van Eldik 1980). If SensOor can also be used for the selection of better grazing cows that have a higher intake of grass, this can be used in selective breeding. Within the 2-ORG-COW project we now plan a study to measure the total amount of grass intake after a cow has been actively grazing for a certain time. In spring 2017 individual cows will be followed in the pasture and before and after active grazing the cows will be weighed on a portable scale to measure the gain in body weight. The results of this study will be presented at the IFOAM OWC 2017 in New Delhi, India.
References
Charlton, G., S. Rutter, M. East, and L. Sinclair. 2011. Effects of providing total mixed rations indoors and on pasture on the behavior of lactating dairy cattle and their preference to be indoors or on pasture. Journal of dairy science 94: 3875-3884.
Dillon, P., D. P. Berry, R. D. Evans, F. Buckley, and B. Horan. 2006. Consequences of genetic selection for increased milk production in European seasonal pasture based system of milk production. Livestock Science 99: 141-158.
De Haas Y, Smolders EA, Hoorneman JN, Nauta WJ, Veerkamp RF. Suitability of cross-bred cows for organic farms based on cross-breeding effects on production and functional traits. Animal. 2013 Apr;7(4):655-65.
Kaptijn, G., E. Lantinga. 2016. Evaluation of the performance of dual-purpose cows in European pasture-based systems. Farming System Ecology Group, Wageningen University. http://orgprints. org/30823.
Nauta, W. J., R. F. Veerkamp, E. W. Brascamp, and H. Bovenhuis. 2006. Genotype by Environment Interaction for Milk Production Traits Between Organic and Conventional Dairy Cattle Production in The Netherlands. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 2729-2737.
Oldenbroek, J., and P. Van Eldik. 1980. Differences in feed intake between holstein Friesian, Dutch Red and White and Dutch Friesian cattle. Livestock Production Science 7: 13-23.
Abstract
The organic poultry sector is entirely dependent upon conventional breeding companies for breeding stock. The multinational breeding companies are not equipped to set up small breeding schemes for organic production only. Therefore in 2009 we launched a breeding project with hybrids aimed at developing a new breed. Resulting in a new breed, the Vredelinger, with black and white feathers (Sussex like), 2145g body weight, a laying percentage of 72% and light brown eggs of 58-60 g average. Cockerels grow to 1.2 kg slaughtered weight in 16-18 weeks. The breeding is based on kinship breeding and the focus is now on building up breeding groups in different urban areas and selling meat and eggs as niche products and premium prices. Later on, the goal is to sell the new breed to larger scale farms. Selection on performance is important. The breeding of this new dual purpose breed may become a solution for the killing of too many one-day-old cockerels.