Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T15:12:17.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential response of dairy cows to supplementary light during increasing or decreasing daylength

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. J. C. Phillips ,
C. A. Lomas  and
T. M. Arab
C. J. C. Phillips
Affiliation:
School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor LL57 2UW
C. A. Lomas
Affiliation:
School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor LL57 2UW
T. M. Arab
Affiliation:
School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor LL57 2UW
Get access

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to compare the response oflactating cows to supplementary light in their lying area during increasing and decreasing natural daylength. During decreasing daylength, supplementary light in the lying area increased the time cows spent lying down and considerably reduced calculated food intake, milk production, live weight and body condition, so that lights were installed in the feeding area for the last half of the experiment, which partially restored intake and live weight. Plasma cortisol concentrations and milk somatic cell counts were increased by supplementary light in decreasing daylength before, but not after, lights were installed in the feeding passage, suggesting that cows may have been stressed by the difficulties encountered during feeding in the dark. During increasing daylength supplementary light did not affect lying time, had less effect on food intake and no effect on milk production or live weight. There was a small reduction in plasma corticosteroid by the end of the experiment with supplementary light. It is concluded that providing supplementary light only in the lying area of dairy cows will have adverse effects on their production and welfare in decreasing, but not increasing daylength

Keywords

behaviourdairy cowshousinglightingmilk production
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , February 1998 , pp. 55 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1998

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

Arendt, J., Symons, A. M., English, J., Poulton, A. L. and Tobler, I. 1988. How does melatonin control seasonal reproductive cycles? Reproduction and Nutrition Developments 28: 387–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergiannaki, J., Paparrigopoulos, T. J. and Stefanis, C. N. 1996. Seasonal pattern of melatonin excretion in humans: relationship to daylength variation rate and geomagnetic field fluctuations. Experientia 15: 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D. M. and Johnson, K. G. 1993. Stress and animal welfare, p. 97. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campling, R. C. and Morgan, C. A. 1981. The eating behaviour of housed cows — a review. Dairy Science Abstracts 43: 57–63.Google Scholar
Critser, J. K., Block, T. M., Kirkpatrick, B. W., Lindstrom, M. J. and Hauser, E. R. 1988. The effect of photoperiod on diurnal rhythms of serum gonadotrophins, prolactin and melatonin in ovariectomized heifers. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 5: 23–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El Shaer, H. M., Omed, H. M., Chamberlain, A. G. and Axford, R. F. E. 1987. Use of faecal organisms for the in vitro determination of digestibility, journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 109: 257–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorman, M. R. 1995. Seasonal adaptations of Siberian hamsters. I. Accelerated gonadal and somatic development in increasing versus static long day lengths. Biology of Reproduction 53: 110–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gorman, M. R. and Zucker, I. 1995. Seasonal adaptations of Siberian hamsters. II. Pattern of change in daylength controls annual testicular and body weight rhythms. Biology of Reproduction 53: 116–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1980. Genstat V, mark 4.03. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
Lay, Jr. D. C., Friend, T. H., Randel, R. D., Jenkins, D. C., Neuendorff, D. A., Kapp, G. P. and Bushong, D. M. 1996. Adrenocorticotropic hormone dose response and some physiological effects of transportation on pregnant Brahman cattle. Journal ofAnimal Science 74: 1806–1811.Google ScholarPubMed
Leining, K. B., Tucker, H. A. and Kesner, J. S. 1980. Growth hormone, glucocorticoid and thyroxine response to duration, intensity and wavelength of light in prepubertal bulls. Journal ofAnimal Science 51: 932–942.Google ScholarPubMed
Linzell, J. L. 1973. Innate seasonal oscillations in the rate of milk secretion in goats. Journal ofPhysiology 230: 225–233.Google ScholarPubMed
Lowman, B. E., Scott, N. A. and Sommerville, S. H. 1976. Condition scoring of cattle. Bulletin no. 6, East of Scotland College of Agriculture, Animal Production Advisory Department.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food/Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. 1986. The analysis of agricultural materials, third edition. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food/Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland/Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. 1975. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Technical bulletin no. 33. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Mirbahar, K. B., Davies, J. I., Lomas, C., Axford, R. F. E. and Grail, B. 1994. Determination of salivary IgA as an indicator of stress in farm animals. Proceedings of the 14th Pakistan Congress of Zoology, p. 10 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Mossberg, I. and Jönsson, H. 1996. The influence of day length and temperature on food intake and growth rate of bulls given concentrate or grass silage ad libitum in two housing systems. Animal Science 62: 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R. J. and Blom, J. M. 1994. Photoperiodic effects on tumor development and immune function. Journal of Biological Rhythms 9: 233–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ng, T. B. and Wong, C. M. 1986. Effects of pineal indoles and arginine vasotocin on lipolysis and lipogenesis in isolated adipocytes. Journal ofPineal Research 3: 55–66.Google ScholarPubMed
Omed, H., Axford, R. F. E., Chamberlain, A. G. C. and Givens, D. I. 1989. Development of a method for the in vitro estimation of digestibility of forage in ruminants. In New techniques in cattle production (ed. Phillips, C. J. C.), p. 227Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Parrott, R. F. and Misson, B. H. 1989. Changes in pig salivary cortisol response to transport stimulation, food and water deprivation, and mixing. British Veterinary Journal 145: 501–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perret, M. and Schilling, A. 1993. Response to short photoperiod and spontaneous sexual recrudescence in the lesser mouse lemur: role of olfactory bulb removal. Journal of Endocrinology 137: 511–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petitclerc, D., Chapin, L. T. and Tucker, H. A. 1984. Carcass composition and mammary development responses to photoperiod and phase of nutrition in Holstein heifers. Journal ofAnimal Science 58: 913–919.Google ScholarPubMed
Phillips, C. J. C. 1992. Environmental factors influencing the production and welfare of farm animals: photoperiod. In Farm animals and the environment (ed. Phillips, C. J. C. and Piggins, D.), pp. 49–65. CAB International, Oxford.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. J. C. and Arab, T. M. 1998. The preference of individually-penned cattle to conduct certain behaviours in the light or the dark. Applied Animal Behaviour Science In press.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. J. C. and Hecheimi, K. 1989. The effect of forage supplementation, herbage height and season on the ingestive behaviour of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C. J. C., Johnson, P. N. and Arab, T. M. 1997. The effect of supplementary light during winter on the growth, body composition and behaviour of steers and heifers. Animal Science 65: 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C. J. C. and Leaver, J. D. 1986. The effect of forage supplementation on the behaviour of grazing dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C. J. C. and Schofield, S. A. 1989. The effect of supplementary light on the production and behaviour of dairy cows. Animal Production 48: 293–303.Google Scholar
Piggins, D. 1992. Perception of the environment by farm animals: visual perception. In Farm animals and the environment (ed. Phillips, C. J. C. and Piggins, D.), pp. 131–158. CAB International, Oxford.Google Scholar
Schmidt, G. H. and Van Vleck, L. D. 1974. Principles of dairy science, p. 91. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Smith, A. 1988. Measurement of light intensity. Technical report no. 4, pp. 27–29. Dairy Research Unit, University College of North Wales, Bangor.Google Scholar
Stanisiewski, E. P., Mellenberger, R. W., Anderson, C. R. and Tucker, H. A. 1985. Effect of photoperiod on milk yield and milk fat in commercial dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 68: 1134–1140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tarn, C. Y., Rosenkrans, C. F. Jr, Steelman, C. D., Brown, A. H. Jr and Johnson, Z. B. 1994. Plasma characteristics of beef cattle classified as resistant or susceptible to horn flies. Journal ofAnimal Science 72: 886–890.Google ScholarPubMed
Taylor, W. and Leaver, J. D. 1984. Systems of concentrate allocation for dairy cattle. 1. A comparison of three patterns of allocation for autumn-calving cows and heifers offered grass silage ad libitum. Animal Production 39: 315–324.Google Scholar
Terqui, H. A., Delouis, C. and Ortavant, R. 1984. Photoperiodism and hormones in sheep and goats. In Manipulation of growth in farm animals (ed. Roche, J. F. and O'Callaghan, D.), pp. 246–259. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, K. M. and Rodway, R. 1983. Effect of trenbolone acetate on adrenal function and hepatic enzyme activity in female rats. Journal of Endocrinology 98: 121–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varner, M. A. and Johnson, B. H. 1983. Influence of adrenocorticotropin upon milk production, milk constitutents and endocrine measures of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 66: 458–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegner, T. N., Schuh, J. D., Nelson, F. E. and Stott, G. H. 1976. Effect of stress on blood leucocyte and milk somatic cell counts in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 59: 949–956.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiguo, L. and Phillips, C. J. C. 1991. The effects of supplementary light on the behaviour and performance of calves. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30: 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yurkov, V. M. 1982. Influence of cowshed illumination on the resistance of cows to disease. Veterinariya 11: 22–24 (abstract no 2857, Veterinary Bulletin 53).Google Scholar
Yurkov, V. M. and Kartushin, S. S. 1984. Disease resistance of calves housed in buildings with monochromatic light. Veterinariya 3: 25–27 (abstract no. 4757, Veterinary Bulletin 54).Google Scholar
Zinn, S. A., Purchas, R. W., Chapin, L. T., Petitclerc, D., Merkel, R. A., Bergen, W. G. and Tucker, H. A. 1986. Effects of photoperiod on growth, carcass composition, prolactin, growth hormone and cortisol in prepubertal and post-pubertal Holstein heifers. Journal of Animal Science 1804–1815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar