Abstract
Heat stress impairs the health and performance of dairy cows, yet only a few studies have investigated the diversity of cattle behavioral responses to heat waves. This research was conducted on an Italian Holstein dairy farm equipped with precision livestock farming sensors to assess potential different behavioral patterns of the animals. Three heat waves, defined as at least five consecutive days with mean daily temperature-humidity index higher than 72, were recorded in the farm area during the summer of 2021. Individual daily milk yield data of 102 cows were used to identify “heat-sensitive” animals, meaning the cows that, under a given heat wave, experienced a milk yield drop that was not linked with other health events (e.g., mastitis). Milk yield drops were detected as perturbations of the lactation curve estimated by iteratively using Wood’s equation. Individual daily minutes of lying, chewing, and activity were retrieved from ear-tag-based accelerometer sensors. Semi-parametric generalized estimating equations models were used to assess behavioral deviations of heat-sensitive cows from the herd means under heat stress conditions. Heat waves were associated with an overall increase in the herd’s chewing and activity times, along with an overall decrease of lying time. Heat-sensitive cows spent approximately 15 min/days more chewing and performing activities (p < 0.05). The findings of this research suggest that the information provided by high-frequency sensor data could assist farmers in identifying cows for which personalized interventions to alleviate heat stress are needed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The effect of environmental heat on livestock species is a topic of growing concern, especially in light of the current climate change (Vitali et al. 2015). Future scenarios for the temperature-humidity index (THI) are not promising: Segnalini et al. (2013) forecasted an increase of THI in the Mediterranean area which will cause growing thermal discomfort to the animals, with negative consequences on their welfare, performance, health, and survival (Vitali et al. 2015). In addition to the overall increase in temperatures, heat waves (HWs) are becoming more and more frequent, intense, and extended (Beniston et al. 2007). In the next decades, the Mediterranean basin is expected to be dominated by increased droughts and HW (Gao and Giorgi 2008) to the point that it has been categorized as a global warming hotspot (Segnalini et al. 2013).
Lactating dairy cows produce a large quantity of metabolic heat, that under heat stress times is coupled with a compromised cooling capability because of environmental conditions (West 2003). This brings heat load in the cows to raise, causing an increase of body temperature and the inability to maintain thermal energy balance (West 2003; Becker et al. 2020). As adaptive response, the animals show physiological and behavioral changes (Islam et al. 2021): increased respiration rate (de Andrade et al. 2017; Becker et al. 2020), decreased lying time (Allen et al. 2015; Becker et al. 2020; Hut et al. 2022), increased shade utilization (Brown-Brandl et al. 2003; Becker et al. 2020), increased water intake (Coimbra et al. 2012; Becker et al. 2020), and reduced feed intake resulting in reduced milk yield (Bohmanova et al. 2007; Becker et al. 2020). Each of these adaptations aims at mitigating metabolic heat production and promoting the dissipation of body temperature (Islam et al. 2021). Furthermore, thermal stress may partially suppress the innate immune functions in lactating cows, leading to a higher risk of clinical diseases such as mastitis and metritis (Becker et al. 2020).
Monitoring dairy cows is crucial to identify and manage heat stress to limit its negative impact on welfare, health, and production (Hut et al. 2022). Nowadays, many sensor systems are commercially available to replace visual observation of the animals, which can be impractical in large commercial herds (Barriuso et al. 2018). Accelerometer-based systems are the most widely available and validated technology for continuous, real-time, and autonomous monitoring of core behaviors like eating, rumination, lying, and walking (Allen et al. 2015; Stygar et al. 2021; Islam et al. 2021). The information provided by sensor-based behavioral data can be used to assist farmers in the early identification of climate-related distress (Abeni and Galli 2017), minimizing the negative economic and welfare implications of heat stress.
Several studies have already investigated the main overall effects of heat stress on dairy cows’ behavior, as described above. However, to our knowledge, only Islam et al. (2021) analyzed changes in cows’ behavior based on the animals’ different responses to thermal stress. To further explore this topic, we retrospectively identified the “heat-sensitive” cows of a dairy herd based on their drop in milk yield associated with summer heat waves. Individual high-frequency sensor data were analyzed to detect different behavioral patterns of heat-sensitive animals and to explore the potential of sensor systems to early identify cows for which personalized interventions to alleviate heat stress are needed.
Materials and methods
Dataset
The study used data (Ranzato 2023) of 369 Holstein-Friesian cows (43% primiparous, 57% multiparous) from a dairy farm located in the Po Valley, Italy. The animals were housed in two barns equipped with high-volume low-speed horizontal ceiling fans and with cooling showers along the feeding alleys (“new ventilation system”) in the period between 25 days in milk (DIM) and 280 DIM. During the post-partum days and in the late lactation phases, the cows were moved to two barns equipped with only old vertical fans (“old ventilation system”). For the period from 28 March to 30 September 2021 covered by the study, the animals were fed with total mixed rations based on maize silage, grass silage, maize and soybean meals.
Behavioral data regarding lying (LIE), chewing (CHEW), and activity (ACT) times were collected by an ear-tag-based accelerometer (Smartbow GmbH, Weibern, Austria) that registered the time budgets of each cow by measuring head and ear movements (Krieger et al. 2019). The ear tag captured and sent acceleration data once per second (1 Hz); daily minutes of LIE (lying + standing = 1440 min/day), CHEW (chewing + “not chewing” = 1440 min/day), and ACT (activity + inactivity = 1440 min/day) were used in the study. Individual cow health events and individual daily milk yield (MY) data, automatically recorded in the milking parlor, were also retrieved from the farm databases.
Climate data were restored from the online archive of the local environmental protection agency (Agenzia Regionale Protezione Ambiente 2022), by referring to the nearest weather station to the farm (7 km of distance). The average daily temperature and average daily relative humidity were used to compute average daily THI according to the equation by Kelly and Bond (1971). A HW is generally described as a prolonged period of excessively hot weather, but no official definition is available (Maggiolino et al. 2022). Commonly, a THI of 72 is considered the threshold after which milk production starts to decrease in Holstein cows because of thermal discomfort (Segnalini et al. 2013; Heinicke et al. 2018). In this study, a HW was then defined as a period of at least 5 consecutive days (Frich et al. 2002) with a mean daily THI ≥ 72. If successive HW were less than 3 days apart from each other, they were considered as one HW (therefore, one HW could contain days with THI < 72). Three HW were identified in the period of summer 2021 (June–September): from 11/06 (dd/mm) to 18/06; from 17/07 to 31/07; and from 08/08 to 16/08. Table 1 gives an overview of the meteorological characteristics of each HW.
Data mining, processing steps, and statistical analyses were carried out with RStudio software (R version 4.1.2; RStudio PBC, Boston (MA), USA).
Heat-sensitive cows
Daily MY data were used to identify the cows that were more sensitive to thermal heat. Given that at any production level dairy cattle show an inverse relationship between milk yield and heat stress (Ravagnolo et al. 2000; West 2003; Becker et al. 2020), we assumed “heat-sensitive” cows to be the ones that started at least one consistent drop in milk production during a HW. Following the work by Adriaens et al. (2021), drops in milk production were identified as perturbations in the lactation curve compared with the theoretical production for that lactation (i.e., potential milk production when no disturbances are present). Unlike in Adriaens et al. (2021), we did not have access to complete lactations data due to the restricted time period of the study. Therefore, lactations were selected based on the following criteria: (i) MY data were available from before DIM 30 for at least 100 days or (ii) MY data were available from beyond DIM 150 for at least 50 days. These filters were necessary to grasp a proper image of the lactation curves in the observation period. We removed records beyond DIM 305 for standardization purposes, because the last part of the lactation curve can be influenced by the gestation stage and feed changes towards dry-off (Adriaens et al. 2021; Ben Abdelkrim et al. 2021). After data editing to remove recording errors (e.g., MY = 0 kg/d), we kept only lactations with no more than 2 gaps of at most 5 days each. To determine the theoretical shape of the lactation curves of the 108 cows left in the dataset, a Wood model (Wood 1967) was iteratively fitted on the MY data of each animal (for more details, see Adriaens et al. 2021). Next, the periods classified as perturbations of the milk production curve were identified as at least 5 days of successively negative residuals with at least 1 day of MY lower than 80% of the theoretical curve. To illustrate this methodology, MY data of 4 cows are plotted in Fig. 1, and MY perturbations, if present, are highlighted in blue.
Cows with registered pathologies or health events that influenced their lactation curve (e.g., mastitis) were removed from the dataset to retain only animals with MY perturbations potentially due to heat stress. Nonetheless, for some lactations, perturbations of MY were detected also outside HW. These were handled with the following criteria: (i) when they started before a HW and overlapped with the HW itself, the respective records during HW days were removed to consider only perturbations originated under thermal stress; (ii) when they started during a HW and continued under the next HW, they were kept as prolonged heat stress effects; and (iii) when they were completely outside HW, they were kept as perturbations caused by unknown reasons. Two examples of cows found to be heat-sensitive to one or more heat waves are shown in Fig. 1b and d.
Data processing and statistical analysis
A categorical variable identifying the stage of the lactation was created according to the observed time period of each animal: “early lactation” when DIM ≤ 100, “mid lactation” when 100 < DIM ≤ 200, and “late lactation” when DIM > 200 (Niozas et al. 2019). A binary variable was created to indicate the type of barn where the cows were housed (i.e., “old ventilation system” vs. “new ventilation system”). On specific dates, the sum of daily minutes of each behavior (i.e., LIE, CHEW, ACT) with its complementary (i.e., standing, not chewing, inactivity) was lower than 1440 min/day, probably due to recording errors: when the sum was below 1320 min/day (i.e., more than 2 h of the day were missing), that record was deleted from the dataset; when the sum was between 1320 and 1439 min/day, the respective values were reproportioned to sum to 1440 min/day. The final dataset contained 102 cows with a number of observations ranging between 48 and 159 days of data.
To detect different behavioral trends of heat-sensitive cows, we first used linear mixed-effects models, which are traditionally applied for analyzing longitudinal data. They produced non-normal residuals, even when using transformations of the response variables (i.e., LIE, CHEW, ACT). Accordingly, we used a semi-parametric technique that handles repeated measures, referred to as generalized estimating equations (GEE; R package “geepack,” Halekoh et al. 2006). Generalized estimating equations are used to estimate the parameters of a (generalized) linear model specifying a working correlation structure that accounts for within-subject correlation of the response variable (Hardin and Hilbe 2013). Different correlation structures can be specified, including independence of observations, exchangeable correlation, first-order autoregressive structure, and unstructured correlation; the most appropriate working correlation structure is the one that produces the smallest correlation information criterion (CIC; Hin and Wang 2009). Generalized estimating equations models are population average models, meaning that the estimated effects are interpreted as for (generalized) linear models but at “population” level (Hubbard et al. 2010).
The GEE models for the different behaviors were specified as follows:
where μij represents the mean of the response variable yij (j = 1, …, 159 daily measurement of cow i = 1, …, 102) corresponding to LIE, CHEW, or ACT times. The variance of yij is a function of a known variance function v of the mean and a known scale parameter (V(yij) = v(μij)ϕ), accounting for within-subject correlation of the observations. The information on the HW was expressed by a binary time-dependent variable (“no HW” as reference class, and “HW”), as well as for the presence of drops in the milk curve (“no perturbation” as reference class, and “perturbation”). The interaction term referred to heat-sensitive cows, i.e., cows experiencing one or more MY perturbations (perturbation = 1) started during a HW (HW = 1). The reference categories of the variables used to adjust the comparison between cows were “primiparous” for the parity information, “early lactation” for the variable indicating the stage of the lactation, and “old ventilation system” for the variable distinguishing the barn based on the type of ventilation system.
The effect of each variable in Eq. 1 was quantified by the estimation of the related regression parameter. The effect of HW and perturbation had to be averaged over the levels of the other variable involved in the interaction term (e.g., HW effect \(={\hat{\mu}}_{HW}-{\hat{\mu}}_{no\ HW}={\hat{\beta}}_5+{\hat{\beta}}_7 perturbation=\left\{{\hat{\beta}}_5+\left({\hat{\beta}}_5+{\hat{\beta}}_7\right)\right\}/2\)). The behavioral variation of heat-sensitive cows with respect to the farm means during HW (i.e., HW = 1, perturbation = 1 vs. HW = 1, perturbation = 0) was estimated by \({\hat{\beta}}_6+{\hat{\beta}}_7\).
Results and discussion
Three HW were identified during the summer of 2021 (June–September) in the area of the Po Valley where the farm was located. The percentage of heat-sensitive cows in the herd, i.e., the percentage of cows that experienced one or more MY perturbations during a HW, increased from the first to the last HW (Table 1). This result was somehow expected, as the last HW (from 8 to 16 August) was the most severe with a maximum daily THI of 78.2. A THI ≥ 75, in fact, generates alarming conditions for both the welfare and performance of dairy cows (Segnalini et al. 2013). However, we cannot exclude that a heat stress carry-over effect may also have played a role in the increase of the percentage of heat-sensitive cows as a function of the number of HW (Herbut et al. 2018).
Sensor technologies provide opportunities to constantly monitor dairy cattle behavior, and they may assist farmers in the early identification of thermal stress symptoms (Abeni and Galli 2017; Hut et al. 2022). To our knowledge, the ear-tag-based accelerometer sensor used in this study has been validated for chewing monitoring (Borchers et al. 2016; Reiter et al. 2018), but no references could be found for lying and activity times in dairy cows. Only Roland et al. (2018) reported that the ear tag reached a satisfying accuracy in detecting posture (i.e., lying vs. standing) and a substantial agreement for some activities in dairy calves. The average sensor-based LIE time of the herd, recorded in the period 28 March–30 September 2021, was 693 min/day, while mean CHEW and ACT times were respectively 596 min/day and 1097 min/day (Table 2). Data available in the literature show that lactating dairy cows spend 660 to 840 min/day lying down under thermoneutral conditions (Becker et al. 2020). Chewing time may vary across dairy herds as chewing activity can be affected by physical properties of the diet (Beauchemin et al. 2003) and selective feed intakes of the animals (Maulfair et al. 2010), but also by farmers’ decisions on cows’ grouping (Grant and Albright 2001). Even activity is a rather variable measure for which it is difficult to define a reference range, as it can vary due to barn design, herd management, and especially type of sensor system used for its recording.
Results from the three GEE models fitted on LIE, CHEW, and ACT times are reported in Table 3. No model simplification strategy was applied. The working correlation structure that produced the smallest CIC was, for all the models, the exchangeable structure, meaning that all pairs of observations within a subject could be considered equally correlated.
Cow’s parity affected all the recorded behaviors (Table 3). Multiparous cows had longer LIE and CHEW times being less active than primiparous ones. Behavioral differences across parities have been described earlier, although mostly focused on the animals’ transition period (Azizi et al. 2010; Neave et al. 2017). As an effect of hierarchical differences between primiparous and multiparous cows, younger animals entering the milking herd for the first time spend less time lying down and increase their daily activity.
Overall, the average LIE time of the herd decreased during HW periods by 42 min/day. By standing, in fact, cattle expose a greater body surface to the air which helps heat loss due to the convection phenomenon (Allen et al. 2015). Chewing time increased by 52 min/day under prolonged periods of environmental heat. This result may seem in contradiction with some works affirming a tendency of chewing activity to decrease under heat stress conditions (Karimi et al. 2015; Maia et al. 2020). Considering chewing time as the summation of rumination and eating times (Perdomo et al. 2020), the increase of CHEW found in this study could be determined by an increase of eating time due to the presence of cooling systems along the feeding alleys. However, the accuracy of accelerometer ear tags in monitoring chewing activity can be variable depending on the conditions of use, and it can be biased by other movements of the animal’s head (Beauchemin 2018). The average ACT time increased by 64 min/day during HW. The ear tag recorded a cow being active when the animal was actively moving either standing or lying down. Therefore, ACT could include walking, exploring, drinking, urination, defecation, grooming, head swing, and estrus expression (Zambelis et al. 2019; Becker et al. 2020). Consistent with this finding, Abeni and Galli (2017) reported higher daily activity times associated with higher THI exposure in dairy cows: the animals tend to have more frequent movements of the head, recorded by the sensor, when the environmental temperature increases (Cook et al. 2007). Brzozowska et al. (2014) stated that also the number of steps per day increases during heat stress periods.
Focusing on the heat-sensitive cows (\({\hat{\beta}}_7\), HW ∗ perturbation effect in Table 3), their behavioral patterns were similar to those of all the cows exposed to HW, but more severe variations were detected for CHEW and ACT times. Heat-sensitive cows chewed 15 min/day more and were 16 min/day more active with respect to the herd means during HW. To our knowledge, only Islam et al. (2021) compared the behavior of “heat-susceptible” and “heat-tolerant” dairy cows by making a distinction based on their panting scores. These authors compared sensor-based eating, rumination, and lying times of the two groups of cows during 3 different HW events, but without involving thermoneutral conditions in the study. They found that heat-susceptible cows spent more time eating (p < 0.001) and less time lying down (p = 0.04) compared to heat-tolerant cows, suggesting that heat-tolerance can be at the expense of reduced production either by inborn genetic merit or by adaptive reduced feed intake. Similarly, we could assume that heat-sensitive cows increased their daily eating time resulting in longer chewing times.
Our results indicate that cows belonging to the same herd, therefore under the same environmental and management conditions, can have different behavioral adaptations to heat stress. Fig. 2 is an example of different CHEW (Fig. 2a) and ACT (Fig. 2b) patterns of two cows of the herd, one of which resulted to be sensitive to the HW from 17 to 31 July. The identification of the more sensitive animals to thermal distress through the monitoring of their behavioral responses could allow targeted interventions by the farmers to alleviate heat stress symptoms. Farmers could decide to create specific groups of heat-sensitive cows to be housed in areas where the cooling is more effective, or to adjust their feeding schedule as limiting feed availability during the hottest hours of the day can reduce heat stress (Davis et al. 2003). In parallel, they could select “heat-tolerant” cows (i.e., the ones that did not experience any MY perturbations during HW) for breeding purposes and optimize breeding schemes and culling decisions (Ranzato et al. 2022). Recent studies have in fact shown that selection for heat-tolerant cows’ genotypes is feasible and leads to improvements in milk production and feed intake during and after heat stress events (Liu et al. 2017).
As sensors systems are in continuous progress in the dairy farming sector, it is possible that heat stress sensitivity will be even more accurately assessed combining behavioral information with additional parameters automatically detected. Chen et al. (2018) found that cows more sensitive to thermal stress have higher rectal temperature than less sensitive ones, along with upregulated metabolisms and downregulated neurodegenerative disease pathways. Liu et al. (2017) obtained differences in lipid concentration of milk between heat-sensitive and heat-tolerant cows during heat stress. Finally, Herbut et al. (2018) affirmed that the time of the year and the breed of the cows may have a big impact on when the animals become sensitive to increasing heat loads.
Under heat stress conditions, a consistent decrease in daily milk production is usually registered 48 h after the thermal stress onset (Spiers et al. 2004). The advantage of referring to high-frequency behavioral data for heat stress detection is that the sensor system could immediately give an alarm when, for example, chewing and activity times overpass specific thresholds, thus preceding the actual milk yield drop. Further research involving more farms and covering more years of recorded behavioral data could be useful to lay the foundations for a decision-support tool for dairy farmers.
Conclusions
This study aimed at exploring differences in Holstein-Friesian dairy cows’ lying, chewing, and activity times, recorded by ear-tag-based accelerometer sensors, when exposed to summer heat waves. “Heat-sensitive” cows were identified by the presence of one or more drops in milk yield that started during a given heat wave. The percentage of cows that resulted to be sensitive to heat stress increased progressively from the first to the last heat wave detected during the observation period. Heat-sensitive cows revealed significant deviations from the herd mean behaviors during heat waves. In particular, they spent more daily time chewing and being active, probably in the attempt to better cope with the environmental heat. The identification of more sensitive animals to thermal distress through the automatic monitoring of their behavior could allow targeted interventions by the farmers to alleviate heat stress symptoms.
Data Availability
Data openly available in a public repository that issues datasets with DOIs.
References
Abeni F, Galli A (2017) Monitoring cow activity and rumination time for an early detection of heat stress in dairy cow. Int J Biometeorol 61:417–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-016-1222-z
Adriaens I, van den Brulle I, D’Anvers L et al (2021) Milk losses and dynamics during perturbations in dairy cows differ with parity and lactation stage. J Dairy Sci 104:405–418. https://doi.org/10.3168/JDS.2020-19195
Agenzia Regionale Protezione Ambiente (2022) Meteorologia. In: ARPA Lombardia. https://www.arpalombardia.it/Pages/Meteorologia/Richiesta-dati-misurati.aspx. Accessed 13 Jul 2022
Allen JD, Hall LW, Collier RJ, Smith JF (2015) Effect of core body temperature, time of day, and climate conditions on behavioral patterns of lactating dairy cows experiencing mild to moderate heat stress. J Dairy Sci 98:118–127. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7704
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 Anim Breed 53:130–140. https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-53-130-2010
Barriuso AL, Villarrubia González G, De Paz JF et al (2018) Combination of multi-agent systems and wireless sensor networks for the monitoring of cattle. Sensors 18:108. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18010108
Beauchemin KA (2018) Invited review: Current perspectives on eating and rumination activity in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 101:4762–4784. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13706
Beauchemin KA, Yang WZ, Rode LM (2003) Effects of particle size of alfalfa-based dairy cow diets on chewing activity, ruminal fermentation, and milk production1. J Dairy Sci 86:630–643. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73641-8
Becker CA, Collier RJ, Stone AE (2020) Invited review: Physiological and behavioral effects of heat stress in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 103:6751–6770. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17929
Ben Abdelkrim A, Puillet L, Gomes P, Martin O (2021) Lactation curve model with explicit representation of perturbations as a phenotyping tool for dairy livestock precision farming. Animal 15:100074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2020.100074
Beniston M, Stephenson DB, Christensen OB et al (2007) Future extreme events in European climate: an exploration of regional climate model projections. Clim Change 81:71–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9226-z
Bohmanova J, Misztal I, Cole JB (2007) Temperature-humidity indices as indicators of milk production losses due to heat stress. J Dairy Sci 90:1947–1956. https://doi.org/10.3168/JDS.2006-513
Borchers MR, Chang YM, Tsai IC et al (2016) A validation of technologies monitoring dairy cow feeding, ruminating, and lying behaviors. J Dairy Sci 99:7458–7466. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10843
Brown-Brandl TM, Nienaber JA, Eigenberg RA et al (2003) Thermoregulatory responses of feeder cattle. J Therm Biol 28:149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4565(02)00052-9
Brzozowska A, Łukaszewicz M, Sender G et al (2014) Locomotor activity of dairy cows in relation to season and lactation. Appl Anim Behav Sci 156:6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.04.009
Chen S, Wang J, Peng D et al (2018) Exposure to heat-stress environment affects the physiology, circulation levels of cytokines, and microbiome in dairy cows. Sci Rep 8:14606. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32886-1
Coimbra PAD, Machado Filho LCP, Hötzel MJ (2012) Effects of social dominance, water trough location and shade availability on drinking behaviour of cows on pasture. Appl Anim Behav Sci 139:175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.04.009
Cook NB, Mentink RL, Bennett TB, Burgi K (2007) The effect of heat stress and lameness on time budgets of lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 90:1674–1682. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-634
Davis MS, Mader TL, Holt SM, Parkhurst AM (2003) Strategies to reduce feedlot cattle heat stress: Effects on tympanic temperature1,2,3. J Anim Sci 81:649–661. https://doi.org/10.2527/2003.813649x
de Andrade FR, Mogollón Garcia HD, Vallejo Aristizábal VH et al (2017) Thermoregulatory responses of Holstein cows exposed to experimentally induced heat stress. J Therm Biol 66:68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2017.03.014
Frich P, Alexander LV, Della-Marta P et al (2002) Observed coherent changes in climatic extremes during the second half of the twentieth century. Clim Res 19:193–212
Gao X, Giorgi F (2008) Increased aridity in the Mediterranean region under greenhouse gas forcing estimated from high resolution simulations with a regional climate model. Glob Planet Change 62:195–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.02.002
Grant RJ, Albright JL (2001) Effect of animal grouping on feeding behavior and intake of dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 84:E156–E163. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)70210-X
Halekoh U, Højsgaard S, Yan J (2006) The R Package geepack for generalized estimating equations. J Stat Softw 15:1–11. https://doi.org/10.18637/JSS.V015.I02
Hardin JW, Hilbe JM (2013) Generalized Estimating Equations, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York (NY), USA
Heinicke J, Hoffmann G, Ammon C et al (2018) Effects of the daily heat load duration exceeding determined heat load thresholds on activity traits of lactating dairy cows. J Therm Biol 77:67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2018.08.012
Herbut P, Angrecka S, Walczak J (2018) Environmental parameters to assessing of heat stress in dairy cattle—a review. Int J Biometeorol 62:2089–2097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-018-1629-9
Hin LY, Wang YG (2009) Working-correlation-structure identification in generalized estimating equations. Stat Med 28:642–658. https://doi.org/10.1002/SIM.3489
Hubbard AE, Ahern J, Fleischer NL et al (2010) To GEE or not to GEE: comparing population average and mixed models for estimating the associations between neighborhood risk factors and health. Epidemiology 21:467–474
Hut PR, Scheurwater J, Nielen M et al (2022) Heat stress in a temperate climate leads to adapted sensor-based behavioral patterns of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 105:6909–6922. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-21756
Islam MA, Lomax S, Doughty AK et al (2021) Revealing the diversity in cattle behavioural response to high environmental heat using accelerometer-based ear tag sensors. Comput Electron Agric 191:106511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106511
Karimi MT, Ghorbani GR, Kargar S, Drackley JK (2015) Late-gestation heat stress abatement on performance and behavior of Holstein dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 98:6865–6875. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-9281
Kelly CF, Bond TE (1971) Bioclimatic factors and their measurement. In: A guide to environmental research on animals. National Academy of Sciences, Washington (DC), USA, pp 7–92
Krieger S, Oczak M, Lidauer L et al (2019) An ear-attached accelerometer as an on-farm device to predict the onset of calving in dairy cows. Biosyst Eng 184:190–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2019.06.011
Liu Z, Ezernieks V, Wang J et al (2017) Heat stress in dairy cattle alters lipid composition of milk. Sci Rep 7:961. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01120-9
Maggiolino A, Landi V, Bartolomeo N et al (2022) Effect of heat waves on some Italian brown swiss dairy cows’ production patterns. Front Anim Sci 2:800680. https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2021.800680
Maia GG, Siqueira LGB, de Vasconcelos COP et al (2020) Effects of heat stress on rumination activity in Holstein-Gyr dry cows. Livest Sci 239:104092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104092
Maulfair DD, Zanton GI, Fustini M, Heinrichs AJ (2010) Effect of feed sorting on chewing behavior, production, and rumen fermentation in lactating dairy cows1. J Dairy Sci 93:4791–4803. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3278
Neave HW, Lomb J, von Keyserlingk MAG et al (2017) Parity differences in the behavior of transition dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 100:548–561. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-10987
Niozas G, Tsousis G, Malesios C et al (2019) Extended lactation in high-yielding dairy cows. II. Effects on milk production, udder health, and body measurements. J Dairy Sci 102:811–823. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15117
Perdomo MC, Marsola RS, Favoreto MG et al (2020) Effects of feeding live yeast at 2 dosages on performance and feeding behavior of dairy cows under heat stress. J Dairy Sci 103:325–339. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17303
Ranzato G (2023) Environmental and behavioral sensor data to identify heat stress in dairy cows ver 1. Environ Data Initiat. https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/4a8cbfc4011ff759a0b5a3f08d7fc872
Ranzato G, Adriaens I, Lora I et al (2022) Joint models to predict dairy cow survival from sensor data recorded during the first lactation. Animals 12:3494. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12243494
Ravagnolo O, Misztal I, Hoogenboom G (2000) Genetic component of heat stress in dairy cattle, development of heat index function. J Dairy Sci 83:2120–2125. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)75094-6
Reiter S, Sattlecker G, Lidauer L et al (2018) Evaluation of an ear-tag-based accelerometer for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 101:3398–3411. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-12686
Roland L, Schweinzer V, Kanz P et al (2018) Technical note: evaluation of a triaxial accelerometer for monitoring selected behaviors in dairy calves. J Dairy Sci 101:10421–10427. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-14720
Segnalini M, Bernabucci U, Vitali A et al (2013) Temperature humidity index scenarios in the Mediterranean basin. Int J Biometeorol 57:451–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-012-0571-5
Spiers DE, Spain JN, Sampson JD, Rhoads RP (2004) Use of physiological parameters to predict milk yield and feed intake in heat-stressed dairy cows. J Therm Biol 29:759–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2004.08.051
Stygar AH, Gómez Y, Berteselli GV et al (2021) A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Front Vet Sci 8:634338. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.634338
Vitali A, Felici A, Esposito S et al (2015) The effect of heat waves on dairy cow mortality. J Dairy Sci 98:4572–4579. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9331
West JW (2003) Effects of heat-stress on production in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 86:2131–2144. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73803-X
Wood PDP (1967) Algebraic model of the lactation curve in cattle. Nature 216:164–165. https://doi.org/10.1038/216164a0
Zambelis A, Wolfe T, Vasseur E (2019) Technical note: validation of an ear-tag accelerometer to identify feeding and activity behaviors of tie stall-housed dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 102:4536–4540. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15766
Acknowledgements
This work is part of the GenTORE project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant No. 727213. The authors would like to thank “Eredi di Zambianchi Paolo e Giuseppe” for providing the sensor data and Dr. Nazzareno Soriani for the technical support.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Padova within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: G.R, I.L, G.C. Methodology: G. R, B.A. Formal analysis and investigation: G.R, B.A, I.A. Writing—original draft preparation: G.R. Writing—review and editing: I.L, G.C, B.A, I.A. Funding acquisition: G.C, F.G. Resources: G.C, F.G. Supervision: B.A, G.C.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ranzato, G., Lora, I., Aernouts, B. et al. Sensor-based behavioral patterns can identify heat-sensitive lactating dairy cows. Int J Biometeorol 67, 2047–2054 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-023-02561-w
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-023-02561-w