From time to time my Significant Other’s thoughts turn to life in the country. This can manifest itself in the purchase of lifestyle-block magazines. I was flipping through one this morning & came across an item on self-grooming in cows, & thought I’d look into it a bit further as it seemed to fit with my last post on cows learning to run mazes. Also I thought it was a rather neat idea 🙂
The article was based on a study done by Yute Schukken & G. Young (2009), looking at cows’ use of a self-brushing device & its effect on their health. The project looks like it was contracted by the manufacturers of the device, & it was carried out on a working farm in the US. Remember that cattle there, particularly in the northern states, spend the winter indoors in huge barns, so a lot of their normal ‘in-paddock’ behaviour patterns are quite restricted. The Swinging Cow Brush is a patented device, mounted on a post, that cows can rub up against to groom all those hard-to-reach places.
The study used 4 pens, each containing around 100 cows. Two of the pens held cows in their first lactation: one pen acted as the control & the other contained 2 of the brushes; animals were randomly allocated to a pen. The other 2 pens followed the same set-up, except that the cows were in their second (or higher) lactation. The researchers collected data on milk production, beginning roughly 3 months before use of the brushes was begun & continuing for 6 months from that point. Cows, like many (most?) other animals, do a lot of grooming, & the authors cite an earlier study that found a 5-fold increase in grooming when cows had access to a suitable brush. Schukken & Young’s animals certainly seemed to enjoy the opportunity to use the brush 🙂
And they did seem to gain some benefits from the self-grooming. For second-lactation cows – but, surprisingly – not for younger or older animals, there was a statistically significant increase in daily milk production. The authors suggest that cows might be more likely to visit a feed station en route to the brushes, but this doesn’t explain the differences between the age groups.
In addition, cows in the second cow-brush pen (the second/higher lactation group) showed a marked decrease in clinical mastitis. For some reason (please feel free to comment!) younger animals had much lower rates of mastitis to begin with. Presumably grooming enhances the animals’ cleanliness, either directly or because they are more active & so spend less time lying around in their pens. This is an important consideration given that they spend so much time inside in relatively cramped conditions. In other words, this device would appear to have some animal welfare applications, as well as the potential to boost production. It would be interesting to see how much use it received in NZ conditions, where animals spend most of their time outside. Would cows come to the bovine equivalent of a scratching post, rather than rubbing up against trees & fences?
(I was rather surprised, on searching ‘self-grooming’, to find a range of patents for self-grooming devices, many intended for companion animals like cats & dogs. I guess that in your absence, your pet might get some comfort out of something that simulates patting, but I can’t help thinking it would be a real pity if someone spent so much time away from their pet that they couldn’t indulge in a fair bit of real hand-on-fur interaction each day. It’s good for both partners in the relationship, after all!)
The Pet Directory says:
Thanks for putting this on twitter. It is very interesting and I will forward to our members.
William Gehm says:
The study of the DeLaval cow brush presents data for cows exposed to a rotary brush and those not exposed. The interesting thing to note is the “hidden data” in the study. The experts (universities, NMC etc) in the industry always claim that there are no mastitis problems on well managed herds. The herd used for this study would be considered by all to be well managed.
The industry experts consider a clinical mastitis rate of less than 3% of the milking herd per month to be the goal of well managed herds. The Sprucehaven herd used in this study is far from meeting that goal. The study discloses that there were 39 clinical mastitis cases in the lactation 3+ group of approximately 100 cows during a 6 month period yielding a rate of about 6.5%. The cow brush group was still above 3% at about 4%. A pen of approximately 100 second lactation and older cows had a clinical mastitis rate of about 9.7%. The only cows with a consistently reasonable low infection rate were the first lactation cows.
Note the mastitis incidence documented in Table 5 of the study. There are about 2.5 cases clinical mastitis per 1000 days at risk for cows other than first lactation. This is about .75 clinical mastitis cases per cow per lactation for cows 2nd lactation and higher. The rate is about .28 clinical cases per cow for first lactation cows. That equates to about 562 clinical mastitis cases per year in a 1000 cow herd if it is 40% 1st lactation and the balance 2nd and higher. Realistically the number of cases is higher as there are more than a 1000 cows milking annually in a herd with an average of 1000 milking cows at any given time. The experts consider more than 3 clinical cases per 100 cows per month to be a problem. This “well managed” herd is at about 2X that rate. A clear indication that conventional milking equipment does not and cannot provide the mastitis levels claimed.
The fact that the first lactation cows showed little response to the swinging brush suggests that their teat canals have yet to be damaged to the extent that lying down and exposing them to bacteria is a problem. The older lactation cows have enough teat canal damage that spending more time on their feet with the brush is beneficial. Studies in Ireland (IVJ 56:46-50, 2003) have proven that milking machines cause teat canal damage.
Ask yourself how can any herd ever expect to achieve the mastitis goals if only the first lactation cows have low mastitis rates. Ask yourself why that is and how that relates to the slow quarters and uneven udders that develop during by the second lactation. Isn’t it time to determine why conventional milking machines cause teat canal damage? The only other option is to continue blaming the farmer and hope the cows like being brushed.