Environmental enrichment in the form of synthetic analogs of appeasing pheromones have shown promising results in improving the welfare of domestic animals, including dogs, pigs, horses, and cattle. The main objective of this study was to determine if the use of the bovine appeasing pheromone (BAP) would improve the welfare of dairy calves; therefore, in this randomized controlled trial, 72 Holstein Friesian dairy calves were housed in individual hutches after birth and were randomly allocated to receive BAP or a placebo once every 2 wk from birth through weaning. After weaning, calves were moved to group hutches according to treatment for 4 additional weeks. It was hypothesized that dairy calves treated with BAP would display fewer signs of stress compared with calves receiving the placebo during the weaning process. To operationalize stress, calves were fitted with triaxial accelerometers on the hind leg after birth, and activity levels were monitored throughout the experiment. Data on live weight gain (ADG) and cortisol levels in saliva and hair were also obtained. Calves were fitted with heart rate monitors every week for at least 24 h to assess heart rate variability (HRV). The use of BAP had a positive effect on ADG after weaning and during group housing and resulted in increased resting time after weaning. Moreover, BAP was associated with a reduction in the activation of the neuroendocrine system evidenced by higher HRV parameters after weaning, including increased standard deviation of beat to beat of normal sinus beats and root mean squares of successive differences. These results suggest a potential welfare benefit of the use of BAP during the artificial rearing of dairy calves.

Animals under human care are exposed to a potentially large range of both familiar and unfamiliar humans. Human-animal interactions vary across settings, and individuals, with the nature of the interaction being affected by a suite of different intrinsic and extrinsic factors. These interactions can be described as positive, negative or neutral. Across some industries, there has been a move towards the development of technologies to support or replace human interactions with animals. Whilst this has many benefits, there can also be challenges associated with increased technology use. A day-long Animal Welfare Research Network workshop was hosted at Harper Adams University, UK, with the aim of bringing together stakeholders and researchers (n = 38) from the companion, farm and zoo animal fields, to discuss benefits, challenges and limitations of human-animal interactions and machine-animal interactions for animals under human care and create a list of future research priorities. The workshop consisted of four talks from experts within these areas, followed by break-out room discussions. This work is the outcome of that workshop. The key recommendations are that approaches to advancing the scientific discipline of machine-animal interactions in animals under human care should focus on: (1) interdisciplinary collaboration; (2) development of validated methods; (3) incorporation of an animal-centred perspective; (4) a focus on promotion of positive animal welfare states (not just avoidance of negative states); and (5) an exploration of ways that machines can support a reduction in the exposure of animals to negative human-animal interactions to reduce negative, and increase positive, experiences for animals.

Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) describes the use of technology within livestock systems to monitor animals, their products, and the environment. A main aim of PLF technologies is to provide continuous individual-animal data to farmers, which can then be used to inform management decisions and improve production and resource-use efficiency. For dairy and beef cattle, PLF technologies have historically been used to provide data on oestrus (specifically for dairy systems), production parameters, and animal health. As the sophistication of PLF technologies increases, so too does their capacity to measure more complex outcomes, such as indicators of animal welfare. This chapter provides an overview of the use of PLF technologies within dairy and beef cattle systems and concludes with a discussion on the implications of PLF for cattle welfare. Current and future PLF technologies are described, using the framework of the Five Freedoms to guide the discussion.

Context Detecting oestrus to facilitate the optimal timing of artificial insemination is key to optimal reproductive performance in dairy cows. Aims The aims of the present study were to investigate the relationship between activity and milk oestradiol concentrations during oestrus. Methods Accelerometers (IceQubes, IceRobotics Ltd, UK) were used to monitor the activity (the number of steps per day) of 37 lactating Holstein–Friesian cows during the peri-oestrus period. Daily milk samples were analysed for oestradiol and progesterone concentrations. Key results An increase in activity sufficient to generate an oestrus alert (behavioural oestrus) from an activity sensor (GEA Rescounter II) was detected in 29 of 37 (78%) cows. Milk oestradiol increased from 2.0 ± 0.5 pg/mL 4 days before oestrus to 8.3 ± 1.1 pg/mL on the day of behavioural oestrus, then fell to 2.6 ± 0.6 pg/mL by 3 days afterwards. Similarly, activity also increased and peaked on the day of oestrus. However, in 8 of 37 (22%) cows, although milk oestradiol concentrations increased following the fall in progesterone, there was no significant increase in activity (silent oestrus). Milk oestradiol concentrations were positively correlated (r = 0.37; P = 0.03) with activity on the day of oestrus. Cows that subsequently became pregnant took a similar number of steps (2806 ± 282.3 vs 2850 ± 372.5 steps for PD+ vs PD− cows respectively) but had higher oestradiol concentrations (11.2 ± 2.06 vs 5.1 ± 0.51 pg/mL for PD+ vs PD− cows respectively) on the day of oestrus than did cows that did not become pregnant. Conclusions Increases in oestradiol concentrations above a threshold of approximately 10 pg/mL are associated with an increased activity, and higher oestral oestradiol concentrations are associated with a higher rate of pregnancy following insemination. Implications This study has demonstrated the significance of oestradiol concentration to the fertility of dairy cows. Thus, strategies to enhance oestradiol secretion may enhance fertility. Further, milk oestradiol measures may be developed as an aid to oestrus detection in lactating dairy cows, although further studies are required to determine whether on-farm assessment of milk oestradiol concentration can be developed to add to the repertoire of biomarkers of oestrus in lactating cattle.

Sustainability in our food and fiber agriculture systems is inherently knowledge intensive. It is more likely to be achieved by using all the knowledge, technology, and resources available, including data-driven agricultural technology and precision agriculture methods, than by relying entirely on human powers of observation, analysis, and memory following practical experience. Data collected by sensors and digested by artificial intelligence (AI) can help farmers learn about synergies between the domains of natural systems that are key to simultaneously achieve sustainability and food security. In the quest for agricultural sustainability, some high-payoff research areas are suggested to resolve critical legal and technical barriers as well as economic and social constraints. These include: the development of holistic decision-making systems, automated animal intake measurement, low-cost environmental sensors, robot obstacle avoidance, integrating remote sensing with crop and pasture models, extension methods for data-driven agriculture, methods for exploiting naturally occurring Genotype x Environment x Management experiments, innovation in business models for data sharing and data regulation reinforcing trust. Public funding for research is needed in several critical areas identified in this paper to enable sustainable agriculture and innovation.

As dairy cows are being housed for longer periods, with all-year-round housing growing in popularity, it is important to ensure housed environments are meeting the needs of cows. Dairy cows are motivated to access open lying areas, although previous motivation studies on this topic have confounded surface type and location (i.e. pasture outdoors vs cubicles indoors). This study measured cow motivation for lying down on an indoor open mattress (MAT; 9 m x 5 m) compared to indoor mattress-bedded cubicles, thus removing the confounding factor of surface type and location. This was repeated for an identically sized indoor deep-bedded straw yard (ST), to investigate whether surface type affected motivation for an open lying area. Thirty Holstein-Friesian dairy cows were housed in groups of 5 (n = 5 x 6) in an indoor robotic milking unit with access to six mattress-bedded cubicles. To assess motivation, cows were required to walk increasing distances via a one-way indoor raceway to access the open lying areas: Short (34.5 m), followed by Medium (80.5 m) and Long (126.5 m). Cows could choose to walk the raceway, leading to the MAT or ST, to lie down or they could lie down on the cubicles for 'free'. Overall, cows lay down for longer on the open lying areas at each distance compared to the cubicles, with cows lying down slightly longer on ST than MAT, although lying times on the open lying areas did decrease at the Long distance. However, cows were still lying for >60% of their lying time on the open lying areas at the Long distance. This study demonstrates that cows had a high motivation for an open lying area, the provision of which could better cater for the behavioural needs of housed dairy cows and improve housed dairy cow welfare.

The accuracy of CowAlert IceQube sensors (IceRobotics Ltd., Edinburgh, UK) for recording lying duration, standing and lying transitions and number of steps when dairy cows where at pasture, in cubicle housing and in a straw yard, was investigated. Holstein Friesian cows at Harper Adams University, UK were fitted with IceQube sensors; one on the back left (BL) leg and one on the front left (FL) leg. Cows at pasture (n = 48), in cubicle housing (n = 46) and in a straw yard (n = 45) were visually observed. Data were analysed in two stages: (1) an initial exploratory phase determined the correlation level between sensor measurements andvisual observations. Subsequently, (2) a mixed effects modelling framework was used to check whether sensors provide significantly different measures of cow's activities compared to the observations. Results indicate that lying and standing times are similar between the observed and recorded times, in all three locations. In terms of sensor placement, significant differences were found between the number of steps recorded between BL and FL on straw and pasture, but all other activities were similar, in each location. The accuracy of CowAlert IceQube sensors on the BL leg gives them the potential to be used as lifelong sensors.

Several studies have suggested that precision livestock farming (PLF) is a useful tool for animal welfare management and assessment. Location, posture and movement of an individual are key elements in identifying the animal and recording its behaviour. Currently, multiple technologies are available for automated monitoring of the location of individual animals, ranging from Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) to ultra-wideband (UWB), RFID, wireless sensor networks (WSN) and even computer vision. These techniques and developments all yield potential to manage and assess animal welfare, but also have their constraints, such as range and accuracy. Combining sensors such as accelerometers with any location determining technique into a sensor fusion system can give more detailed information on the individual cow, achieving an even more reliable and accurate indication of animal welfare. We conclude that location systems are a promising approach to determining animal welfare, especially when applied in conjunction with additional sensors, but additional research focused on the use of technology in animal welfare monitoring is needed.

Lying down is an important behavior for cows, contributing to their health and welfare. With dairy cows being housed for increasingly longer periods, if not year-round, it is important to ensure that dairy cow lying comfort is not compromised when they are housed. The aim of this study was to assess cow preference for 2 different qualities of lying area that appear to be important to cows-surface type and an open lying space-to better understand how to optimize lying comfort for cows when housed. Twenty-four Holstein dairy cows were used during the study, which took place in Scotland from July to November 2018. The study consisted of 6 experimental periods, each lasting a total of 21 d. Cows were tested 4 at a time and individually housed in their own test pen. Each pen had 3 lying surfaces: sand, mattress, and straw (2.4 m × 2.4 m each) with a freestall in the middle of each, which could be removed. Cows were given access to one surface at a time (training period) with a freestall for 2 d, and then given a choice of all 3 surfaces for 2 d. When given the choice with freestalls in position, cows spent, on average, the largest amount of their lying time on straw (46.6 ± 7.8%) followed by mattress (44.3 ± 12.4%). Freestalls were then removed and the training and choice phase was repeated on the following day, with cows, on average, spending the most time lying on straw (64.4 ± 7.2%). Finally, a freestall was refitted onto each cow's most preferred surface and the cows were given a choice between lying on their most preferred surface with a freestall (P1 + freestall) or on their second or third preferred surface without a freestall (P2 + open and P3 + open, respectively) for 3 d. During this final trade-off stage, of the 19 cows for which data were available, 14 cows chose to give up the opportunity to lie down on their most preferred surface to have more space on P2 + open and P3 + open, 3 cows chose to lie down on P1 + freestall, and 2 cows made no clear choice. Overall, cows spent the largest amount of their total lying time on their second most preferred surface as an open lying space (65.7 ± 6.9%) compared with their preferred surface with a freestall (20.5 ± 5.9%) and their third preferred surface as an open lying space (13.8 ± 3.7%). The results indicate that when lying down, these dairy cows value an open lying space more than the lying surface.

The effects of a limited grazing period on the performance, behaviour and milk composition of high-yielding dairy cows were examined. A total of 56 Holstein cows yielding 44.7 +/- 0.42 kg/day were allocated to one of four treatments in one of two, 4-week periods. Treatments were as follows: control (C)-cows housed and offered TMR ad libitum; early grazing (EG)-cows grazed for 6 hr after morning milking then housed; delayed grazing (DG)-cows returned to housing for 1 hr after morning milking followed by grazing for 6 hr, then housed; restricted TMR (RT)-cows grazed for 6 hr after morning milking, then housed and fed TMR at 75% of ad libitum. Intake of TMR was highest in cows receiving C, intermediate in EG and DG, and lowest in RT at 26.9, 23.6, 24.7 and 20.3 kg DM/day respectively. Pasture intake was similar in cows receiving EG or DG, but was higher in RT at 2.4, 2.0 and 3.5 kg DM/day respectively. Milk yield was similar between cows receiving C, EG or DG, but lowest in RT at 45.7, 44.2, 44.9 and 41.7 kg/cow, respectively, while milk fat content of C18:3 n-3 was increased by grazing. Cows in C spent more than 55 min/day longer lying and had three additional lying bouts/day, while lying bouts were shorter than for cows receiving EG, RT or DG. It is concluded that high-yielding cows can be grazed for 6 hr/day with little impact on performance, provided TMR is available ad libitum when housed.

Large percentages of dairy cows do not express behavioural signs of oestrus. Faecal and urine fatty acid concentrations increase during oestrus. The objective of the present study was to determine the milk FA profile of dairy cows during the oestrous and dioestrous periods and the relationship with behavioural signs on the day of oestrus. The activity of 32 Holstein Friesian cows was measured continuously using GEA Rescounter ll pedometers (GEA Farm Technologies, Düsseldorf, Germany) and IceQubes (IceRobotics Ltd., Edinburgh, UK). Milk samples were collected on the day of oestrus and on day 14 of the subsequent oestrous cycle and analysed for FA concentration using gas chromatography (GC) and milk composition was also determined. All cows were artificially inseminated within 12 h of the onset of oestrus. On the day of oestrus, the concentration of acetic acid (P < 0.001), valeric acid (P = 0.016), caproic acid (P < 0.001) and myristoleic (P = 0.035) were greater in milk compared to day 14. On day 14 milk arachidonic acid concentration, however, was greater (P = 0.004) compared to the day of oestrus. Also, on day 14 arachidonic acid concentration was greater (P = 0.002) in non-pregnant compared to pregnant cows. In conclusion, the results of this study indicate there are changes in the concentrations of some milk FA during oestrus and dioestrus in lactating dairy cows.

Paratuberculosis or Johne's disease (JD) is a fatal chronic enteritis that causes detrimental effects on production and health and significantly reduces the welfare of cattle. Control of JD is highly desirable, but single milk ELISA testing may not be sensitive enough to identify all affected animals, particularly in the early stages of the disease. The objective of this study was to compare the activity of JD-positive (JD5) to JD-negative (JD0) cows from calving until wk 20 of lactation. The study was conducted at Harper Adams University, United Kingdom, using 42 multiparous [3.1 ± 0.22 (mean ± standard error of the mean); range: 2-7 lactations] Holstein Friesian cows, fitted with an IceQube accelerometer (IceRobotics Ltd., Edinburgh, UK) on the back left leg. The sensors recorded data on lying and standing time, steps, and motion index with a granularity of 15 min. In addition, start and stop times for lying bouts, and exact lying bout durations were recorded, which permits calculation of the number of lying bouts. Every 3 mo the cows were milk sampled and subsequently tested for JD using an ELISA. Cows in the infection group JD0 were classed as JD negative and cows in the infection group JD5 were classed as JD positive. Johne's-positive cows [JD5; n = 21 (repeat ELISA positive)] were matched to negative cows [JD0; n = 21 (repeat ELISA negative)] based on lactation number and age. Around peak lactation we found differences in lying behavior. The JD5 cows spend less time lying/d during wk 7 to 11 of lactation. The largest difference observed was around wk 8 of lactation, with JD5 cows spending, on average, 2 h/d less time lying down than JD0 cows (9.3 ± 0.33 vs. 11.3 ± 0.61 h/d, respectively). The JD5 cows also had fewer lying bouts per day from wk 7 to 15 of lactation (excluding wk 13), and during wk 11 and 12 average lying bout duration was longer for JD5 cows compared with JD0 cows. No differences were observed in steps per day, milk yield, BCS, and mobility score between JD5 and JD0 cows from calving to wk 20 of lactation. As far as we are aware, this is the first study to show changes in activity of JD-positive cows. The results show that activity data from leg-mounted accelerometers has the potential to help identify JD-positive cows, although more research is required.

The normal time budgets of dairy cows are influenced by oestrus, with cows spending less time resting and eating but more time walking. Previous studies have shown that cows spend approximately 21% less time feeding where the day of oestrus is assumed to be the day of successful artificial insemination. The objective of the present study was to determine whether the number of steps, lying time, lying bouts, dry matter intake (DMI), feeding duration and the number of visits to feed were affected by behavioural and silent oestrus in lactating dairy cows. Thirty Holstein Friesian cows were housed in a free-stall barn with 34 cubicles and were continuously monitored by four video cameras. Milk samples were collected on Monday, Wednesday and Friday afternoon and analysed for progesterone concentration by enzyme immunoassay. Steps, lying time and lying bouts were measured using IceQubes (IceRobotics Ltd., Edinburgh, UK). Daily feed intakes and feeding duration were recorded by a Roughage Intake Control (RIC) system (Insentec B.V., Marknesse, Netherlands). Of the 40 behavioural oestrus events, standing behaviour was observed in 50% of events. On the day of behavioural oestrus the number of steps were increased significantly (P < 0.001) compared to three days before (3DB) and three days after (3DA) oestrus, whilst the percentage of lying time, lying bouts, DMI, feeding duration and the number of visits to feed were reduced (P < 0.001) compared to 3DB and 3DA oestrus. On the predicted day of silent oestrus, only duration of feeding was reduced (P < 0.03) compared to one day before and one day after oestrus. In conclusion, although the number of steps were increased, lying time, lying bouts, DM intake and feeding duration were reduced by behavioural oestrus, and only feeding duration was significantly lower during silent oestrus.

With more dairy cows being housed indoors, for at least part of the year, it is important to understand how housing impacts on 'normal behaviour' and the implications for cow welfare. For cows on pasture, nutritional requirements and climatic conditions are the major concerns, whilst indoor housing systems can restrict natural behaviours and reduce health as incidences of lameness and mastitis increase. When given a choice to be at pasture or in cubicle housing, studies have shown that time of day, season, and where feed is provided can influence preference. Previous experience also had a big effect on pasture preference: the longer calves/heifers/cows were reared without experience of pasture the stronger their preference for housing. The ontogeny of grazing also requires pasture experience i.e. the instinctive foraging behaviour of calves is to suckle and they have to learn through experience how to graze. These results raise the question: if cattle are to be housed for part of the year, would it be better to house them continuously? Other results would suggest not, as there are clear production, health and welfare benefits to pasture access. Cows at pasture had lower levels of lameness and mastitis, and cows with free access to pasture and indoor housing also produced more milk than those continuously housed. Approximately half of this extra milk was attributed to grass intake, and increased lying, improved comfort and/or lower stress probably accounted for the rest. Although incorporating free access between housing and pasture is difficult on many farms, it is postulated that developments in precision livestock farming offer the potential to provide a technological solution to this problem. These research findings could be used as the basis to design novel, adaptive housing that responds to cow behaviour. The aim would be to incorporate the best aspects of pasture with the best aspects of housing to provide an environment that meets the needs of the cows all year around.

Although the emerging field of precision livestock farming (PLF) is predominantly associated with intensive animal production, there is increasing interest in applying smart technologies in extensive rangeland systems. Precision livestock farming technologies bring the possibility of closely monitoring the behaviour, liveweight and other parameters of individual animals in free-ranging systems. 'Virtual fencing', ideally based on positive reinforcement, i.e. rewarding animals for moving in a specified direction, has the potential to gently guide foraging livestock towards areas of vegetation identified by remote sensing. As well as reducing hunger, this could be integrated with weather forecasting to help ensure that animals are automatically directed to areas with appropriate shelter when adverse weather is forecast. The system could also direct animals towards handling facilities when required, reducing the fear and distress associated with being mustered. The integration of the various data collected by such a 'virtual shepherd' system should be able to rapidly detect disease and injury, and sick animals could then be automatically shepherded to an enclosure for treatment. In general, rangeland livestock already have the freedom to express normal behaviour, but PLF technologies could facilitate this. By bringing levels of monitoring and control normally associated with intensive production to rangeland systems, PLF has the potential, with appropriate adoption, to enhance the capacity of rangeland livestock production systems to meet key areas of welfare concern highlighted by the Five Freedoms.