FEATURES OF BEHAVIORAL ALGORITHMS OF CATTLE
Abstract
Breeding cows in the conditions of intensive breeding technologies involves obtaining from them the maximum performance indicators with the longest possible period of use. To achieve this, it is necessary not only to provide the cows with proper conditions for feeding and veterinary and sanitary care, but also to take into account the behavioral characteristics of cattle, their temperament. Individual cows in the herd have different temperaments and, accordingly, different adaptive properties. When forming groups of cows, it is advisable to try to take into account these features. It is advisable to try to complete the herd with sanguine animals, since this is one of the most desirable types. It is almost impossible to select a herd of animals of the same type, especially in conditions of intensive technologies, so it is worth trying to at least form separate groups of cows based on combined types. Taking into account individual behavior is the basis for the selection of groups. In general, we established the presence of cows with different types of temperaments in the herd. Sanguine animals were the most resistant to diseases, they easily came into contact with other individuals in the herd. During veterinary treatments, they showed the least degree of aggression. Choleric animals were often aggressive not only to service personnel, but also to other individuals in the herd. They showed high sensitivity to the influence of various stresses. Animals of this temperament are able to remember persons associated with painful reactions. Cows of the phlegmatic type are relatively hardy. They also show significant resistance to stress, but are sensitive to sudden changes in microclimatic factors. Melancholic animals in the cow group showed the highest level of alertness, even in the absence of an external threat. Socialization in the herd of these cows was the lowest. Completing the herd taking into account the behavioral nervous features contributes to the increase of daily milk yield in the group, since cows of the combined types showed the maximum degree of interpersonal interaction.
References
2. Azizi, O., Hasselmann, L., & Kaufmann, O. (2010). Variations in feeding behaviour of high-yielding dairy cows in relation to parity during early to peak lactation. Arch. Tierzucht., 53, 130–140. https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-53-130-2010
3. Barker, Z. E., Vázquez, Diosdado, J. A., Codling, E. A., Bell, N. J., Hodges, H. R., Croft, D. P., & Amory, J. R. (2018).
Use of novel sensors combining local positioning and acceleration to measure feeding behavior differences associated with lameness in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 101, 6310–6321. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-12172
4. Boissy, A., Manteuffel, G., Jensen, M. B., Moe, R. O., Spruijt, B., & Keeling, L. J. (2007). Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiol Behav., 92, 375–97. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003
5. Boyland, N. K., Mlynski, D. T., James, R., Brent, L. J. N., & Croft, D. P. (2016). The social network structure of a dynamic group of dairy cows: From individual to group level patterns. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 174, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.11.016
6. Boyland, N. K., Mlynski, D. T., James, R., Brent, L. J. N., & Croft, D. P. (2016). The social network structure of a dynamic group of dairy cows: from individual to group level patterns. Appl Anim Behav Sci., 174, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.11.016
7. Cook, N. B., & Nordlund, K. V. (2004). Behavioral needs of the transition cow and considerations for special needs facility design. Vet. Clin. Food Anim. Pract. 20, 495–520. doi:10.1016/j.cvfa.2004.06.011
8. Farine, D. R. (2017). A guide to null models for animal social network analysis. Methods Ecol. Evol., 8, 1309–1320. https://doi.org/10 .1111/2041-210X.12772.
9. Fogsgaard, K. K., Bennedsgaard, T. W. & Herskin, M. S. (2015). Behavioral changes in freestall-housed dairy cows with naturally occurring clinical mastitis. J. Dairy Sci., 98, 1730–1738. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8347
10. Gutmann, A. K., Špinka, M. & Winckler, C. (2015). Long-term familiarity creates preferred social partners in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 169, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.05.007
11. Hartung, T. (2010). Comparative analysis of the revised Directive 2010/63/EU for the protection of laboratory animals with its predecessor 86/609/EEC– a t4 report. ALTEX, 27(4), 285-303. doi: 10.14573/altex.2010.4.285
12. Jia, Li, Pei, Wu, Feilong, Kang, Lina, Zhang, & Chuanzhong, Xuan (2018). Study on the Detection of Dairy Cows’ Self-Protective Behaviors Based on Vision Analysis Advances in Multimedia. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9106836
13. Kohler, P., Alsaaod, M , Dolf, G., O’Brien R., Beer, G., & Steiner, A. (2016). A single prolonged milking interval of 24 h compromises the well-being and health of dairy Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci., 99, 9080–9093 http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10839
14. Li, G., Xiong, Y, Du, Q., Shi, Z., & Gates, R. S. (2021). Classifying Ingestive Behavior of Dairy Cows via Automatic Sound Recognition. Sensors, 21, 5231. https:// doi.org/10.3390/s21155231
15. Li, Y., Shu, H., Bindelle, J., Xu, B., Zhang, W., Jin, Z., Guo, L., & Wang, W. (2022). Classification and Analysis of Multiple Cattle Unitary Behaviors and Movements Based on Machine Learning Methods. Animals, 12, 1060. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ani12091060
16. Lobeck-Luchterhand, K. M., Silva, P. R. B., Chebel, R. C., & Endres, M. I. (2015). Effect of stocking density on social, feeding, and lying behavior of prepartum dairy animals. J. Dairy Sci., 98, 240–249. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8492
17. Luis, E.C., Rocha, Olle, Terenius, Isabelle, Veissier, Bruno Meunier, & Per P. Nielsen (2020). Persistence of sociality in group dynamics of dairy cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 223. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2019.104921
18. Marek Špink (2012). Social dimension of emotions and its implication for animal welfare Applied. Animal Behaviour Science 138, 3–4, 170–181 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.02.005
19. Maselyne, J., Pastell, M., Thomsen, P. T., Thorup, V. M., Hänninen, L., Vangeyte, J., Van Nuffel, A., & Munksgaard, L. (2017). Daily lying time, motion index and step frequency in dairy cows change throughout lactation. Research in Veterinary Science, 110, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2016.10.003
20. McDonagh, J., Tzimiropoulos, G., Slinger, K. R., Huggett, Z. J., Bell, M. J., & Down, P. M. (2021). Detecting dairy cow behavior using vision technology. Agriculture (Switzerland), 11, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11070675
21. Mee, J. F., & Boyle, L. A., (2020). Assessing whether dairy cow welfare is «better» in pasturebased than in confinement-based management systems. N. Z. Vet. J., 68, 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2020.1721034.
22. Melzer, N., Foris, B., & Langbein, J. (2021). Validation of a real-time location system for zone assignment and neighbor detection in dairy cow groups. Comput. Electron. Agric., 187, 106–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106280
23. Munksgaard, L., Jensen, M. B., Pedersen, L. J., Hansen, S. W. & Matthews, L. (2005). Quantifying behavioural priorities-Effects of time constraints on behaviour of dairy cows, Bos taurus. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 92, 3–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. applanim.2004.11.005
24. Neethirajan, S.; Reimert, I., & Kemp, B., (2021). Measuring Farm Animal Emotions-Sensor-Based. Approaches. Sensors, 21, 553. https:// doi.org/10.3390/s21020553
25. Phung, Cong, Phi, Khanh, Duc-Tan, Tran, Van Tu, Duong, Nguyen, Hong Thinh, & Duc-Nghia, Tran. (2020). The new design of cows' behavior classifier based on acceleration data and proposed feature set [J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 17(4), 2760–2780. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020151
26. Pinter-Wollman, N., Hobson, E. A., Smith, J. E., Edelman, A. J, Shizuka, D., & de Silva S. (2014). The dynamics of animal social networks: analytical, conceptual, and theoretical advances. Behav Ecol., 25, 242–255. doi: 10.1093/beheco/art047
27. Schirmann, K., Chapinal, N., Weary, D. M., Heuwieser, W., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. (2011). Short-term effects of regrouping on behavior of prepartum dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 94, 2312–2319. doi: 10.3168/jds.2010-3639
28. Tucker, C. B., Jensen, M. B., de Passillé, A. M. , Hänninen, L., & Rushen, J. (2021). Invited review: Lying time and the welfare of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 104, 20–46. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-18074
29. Val-Laillet, D., Passille, A. M., Rushen, J., & von Keyserlingk M. A. G. (2008). The concept of social dominance and the social distribution of feeding-related displacements between cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci., 111, 158–72. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.06.001
30. Vázquez, Diosdado, J.A., Barker, Z. E., & Hodges, H. R. (2015). Classification of behaviour in housed dairy cows using an accelerometer-based activity monitoring system. Anim Biotelemetry, 3, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-015-0045-8
31. Von Keyserlingk, M. A., Olenick, D., & Weary, D. M. (2008). Acute behavioral effects of regrouping dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 91, 1011–1016. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0532
32. WDE (World Dairy Expo). (2015). World Dairy Expo Showring Policy and Code of Ethics. Accessed Jun. 6, http://www. worlddairyexpo.com/file_open.php?id=129.
ISSN 
ISSN 
