NUTRITION, FEEDING, AND CALVES
Feeding Behavior of Dairy Cattle 1,2,3
ABSTRACT
Feed accessibility may be more im-
portant to cows than the actual amount
of nutrients provided. Competition for
feed, water, and space can be reduced by
fenceline feeding of TMR, which allows
all cows to eat at once. Holstein cows
that were fenceline fed a TMR of com
silage and concentrates ate 26% longer
following feeding than the same size
group eating from bunks around which
they traveled. Many dairies practice
fenceline feeding during which cows'
heads are in the natural grazing position.
Cows eating with their heads in the
downward position produce 17% more
saliva, which directly affects rumen
function, than cows eating with heads
held horizontally. When fed in shallow,
elevated bunks, 10% of cows exhibited
year-round rooting, sorting, feed tossing
behavior, and feed wastage (0 to 5%).
Groups fed at ground level or in head-
locks showed little or no feed tossing
behavior. This apparent livestock en-
gineering problem is remedied easily by
feeding cows in the natural head down
position. Concrete mangers renovated
with epoxy-type finishes, wood, or tile
aid feed consumption. Social facilitation
strongly influences eating bouts and feed
consumption in cows reared in group
housing compared with isolated cows.
Palatability has a major influence on
feed intake in ruminants, and the sense
Received June 24, 1992.
Accepted October 16, 1992.
IJoumal Paper Number 13468 of the Purdue Univer-
sity Agricultural Experiment Station.
2Invited paper.
3This research was conducted as part of Regional
Research Project NC-119, Dairy Herd Management Strate-
gies for Improved Decision Making and Profitability.
1993 J Dairy Sci 76:48s-498
J. L ALBRIGHT
Department of Animal Sciences
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907
of taste is highly developed in cattle.
Pasturing supposedly would reduce
stocking density, environmental pollu-
tion (waste disposal, odor, nuisance),
energy costs, and use of housing.
Detailed observations, using intact and
ruminally cannulated cows, suggest a be-
havioral need for the cow to rest and to
ruminate on her left side.
(Key words: feeding, behavior, grazing,
rumination)
Abbreviation key: REM = rapid eye move-
ment.
INTRODUCTION
The primary concern of all animals is the
gathering of food (1). All animals eV~lve as
products of their dietary needs: the gllaffe's
neck. the lion's teeth, the cow's stomach, and
the suckling instinct in young mammals are B.!l
diet-oriented. An animal is not only what It
eats but it also is designed so that it can eat
(29). Dairy cattle responses to vari~us types.of
feeds and feeding arrangements differ. Darry
farmers can use knowledge of animal behavior
to improve cow well-being and yield (6). For
instance, feeding and watering systems must
be placed where young or inexperienced
animals can find them. Accessibility of feed
may be more important than the actual amount
of nutrients provided. Efforts must be made to
reduce the competition for feed, water, miner-
als, and shelter. Also, cow space, cow density,
and distribution of feed are closely related
factors. Feed intake and consequent milk yield
are improved by provision of feed when cows
need and want to eat (88). When one cow eats,
another might be stimulated to do likewise,
whether she is hungry or not. This behavior is
an example of social facilitation (38). When
cows eat in groups, they eat more than when
they are fed separately. Furthermore, cows
kept in groups "are likely to be less fearful,
and hence, more contented, healthier, and more
485
486 ALBRIGHT
productive. The common practice of feeding
and milking cows in groups thus has a sound
psychological basis" (90).
Dairy cattle are social animals that operate
within a herd structure and follow a leader
(leadership-followership) to and from pasture,
feedbunk, and milking parlor. Such behavior
can be beneficial (e.g., following a leader onto
a scale) or detrimental (e.g., a stampede) (21).
Behavior becomes a balance of interacting
driving forces: for newly mixed cows, aggres-
sion is dominant, but it soon diminishes as the
social order becomes established and the feed-
ing drive becomes dominant (43). Cows ex-
hibit wide differences in temperament, and
their behavior is determined by inheritance,
prior experience, and training (37). Cows nor-
mally are quiet and thrive on consistency and
gentle treatment by handlers (37). Handling
procedures are more stressful for isolated
cows; therefore, attempts should be made to
have several cows together during medical
treatment, during artificial insemination, or
during movement from one group to another
(17, 102).
Research on feeding behavior may be found
in the reviews of Baile and Della-Fera (20) and
Campling and Morgan (28). Aspects of feeding
behavior relative to confinement housing,
management, and innovations in feeding
devices were reviewed by Coppock et al. (36).
This paper summarizes current and relevant
knowledge of eating and feeding behavior; de-
velopments in feeding and grazing behavior
because of the renewed interest in intensive
grazing and seasonal dairying; and the be-
havioral aspects of rumination. Suckling be-
havior in calves-rates, patterns, and
frequency-is a subject unto itself and has
been covered earlier (54). Recently, drinking
behavior and water intake and deprivation
were summarized elsewhere (76).
Eating Behavior
The amount of grains and ground feed mix-
tures consumed is determined largely by the
quantity offered. However, cattle on silage eat
larger quantities of less nutritious feed than
when on pasture, presumably because of the
preclusion of selective choosing (54). Dry mat-
ter consumption is higher when cows are fed
hay than when they are fed silage or pasture
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 76, No.2, 1993
(54). Some evidence (62, 73) indicates that
cattle eat less hay when fed individually than
when group fed, possibly because of the in-
creased anxiety exhibited by temporarily iso-
lated cows. In joint research (16), group-reared
calves spent a significantly (P < .05) greater
percentage of a 24-h d eating than did calves
reared in isolation (10.9 vs. 5.4%).
Cattle have a distinct diurnal grazing pat-
tern, which includes a major meal beginning
approximately at sunrise (47, 54, 56). Further,
cattle are crepuscular, that is, most active at
sunrise and again at sunset. In Kenya, approxi-
mately 35 km south of the equator, day length,
sunrise to sunset, is 12 h and 8 min throughout
the year. Arousal of cattle from a lying to a
grazing state occurs predictably between 20
min before and 30 min after sunrise. The rate
of arousal varies considerably and is related to
the rate of increase of illumination and cloud
cover. The maximum temperature of the previ-
ous day, humidity at 0700 h, wind, and radia-
tion of the previous day do not affect behavior
(50). Feeding behavior is affected by climate,
condition of teeth, age of cattle, and nature and
kind of feed. In general, feed consumption (in
a controlled climate laboratory) is depressed
by increasing environmental temperature (83).
Patterns of feeding vary according to the
physical consistency of the ration. Cracked,
ground, processed grains are usually offered to
dairy cattle while they are restrained in a stan-
chion, headlock, or stall. Feed is put in front of
them in a manger, from which the cattle eat by
gathering feed up with the tongue and sucking
it into the mouth. Most feed is in moderately
small particles; thus, no biting action is neces-
sary, although chewing movements take place.
The major organs for prehension of feed are
the lips, teeth, and tongue. The general direc-
tion of movement of the jaws during eating in
the cow is the same as other mammals. Chew-
ing movements in ruminants differ from those
of most other mammals. At centric occlusion,
only a narrow strip of their molars is in contact
because domestic ruminants are highly anisog-
nathous (having the upper jaw much wider
relatively than the lower one) (89). For further
details on eating procedures (i.e., jaw move-
ments, teeth, and voluntary and involuntary
swallowing), see the paper by Campling and
Morgan (28).
Whole grain, pellets, silage, chopped
forages, and small roots also are scooped into
 FEEDING BEHAVIOR
the mouth by lip and tongue movements, fol-
lowed by vigorous chewing. Cows discern
quickly how to select the leaves from hay and
how to figure out the transponder system to get
what they want (e.g., hay rather than corn
silage diets). Cattle bite and eat large tubers,
roots, and fruits, such as potatoes, sugar beets,
carrots, and apples, just as humans would. Salt
blocks, stil1 common on many farms and feed-
lots, are licked by cattle. Earth eating (geopha-
gia) is widespread in Africa and in confined
cattle the world over. Cattle are inquisitive
creatures that supposedly go to earth licks for
salt because the Na content of herbage is often
low. This hypothesis is not supported by
chemical analysis (54). The reason why cattle
eat earth is unknown. Also, cattle might as-
sociate sensory information about harmful
phytochemicals (poisonous plants) with ap-
propriate behavior through instinct, leaming as
an individual, leaming as part of a social
group, or combinations of the given behaviors
(82).
Time spent masticating different rations
varies directly with the total number of chews
(54). In a series of papers (47, 48, 49), the
number of chews per unit of time spent
ruminating varied with diet. Campling and
Morgan (28) have summarized the duration
and pattern of eating in noncompetitive and
competitive situations.
Noncompetitive Eating Situations
Metz (73) analyzed and described in detail
the eating and ruminating patterns of seven
dry, nonpregnant Dutch cows offered hay
wafers for ad libitum intake. Among cows, the
duration of eating ranged from 248 to 392 mini
d (average 330 min/d), and this variability was
not associated with either the amounts eaten or
the BW of the cows. Daily rumination times
ranged from 464 to 579 min/d (average 511
min/d), and daily number of rumination bouts
ranged from 10.8 to 16.9 (average 14.0) Bouts
of eating (meals) tended to be most frequent at
the beginning and end of the daylight period;
the cows were in a room illuminated continu-
ously for 16 h. Daily feed intake averaged 14.7
kg and ranged from 10.3 to 18.5 kg. The
number of meals varied between cows from
5.9 to l1.4/d (average 8.3). Metz (73) estab-
lished that the prevention of rumination during
487
3 h of feed deprivation increased rumination in
the subsequent period. This finding supports
the assumption that feeding has priority over
rumination whenever the causal factors of the
two behaviors are in conflict. [However, earlier
research (80) indicates that rumination can
have priority over eating when the former is
restricted.] Similar data on the duration of
eating can be found in a study by Hafez and
Bouissou (54) and summarized by Balch (23).
Few data show the extent of variability be-
tween days in eating time by cows given the
same amount of feed each day.
In an earlier 24-h observation study, Ful1er
(46) reported that cows in box stalls fed hay
for ad libitum intake spent 6 h eating and 8 h
ruminating, but cows in stanchions spent 3 h
eating hay and 8 h ruminating. The number of
jaw movements per minute eating for Ayrshire,
Guernsey, Holstein, and Jersey cows were 94
for grain and silage, 78 for hay, with 55 for
ruminating. A summary of approximate jaw
movements was 4700 (eating grain and silage),
10,530 (eating hay), and 26,400 (ruminating)
for a total of 41,630 movements/d. The effects
of dietary NDF concentration on chewing and
milk yield were assessed using alfalfa silage-
based diets with and without supplemental
long hay (24). Increased NDF resulted in a
quadratic increase in ruminating and total
chewing time from 344 and 558 for 26% NDF,
to 403 and 651 for 30% NDF, and to 414 and
674 minld for 34% NDF, respectively. Added
hay increased milk yield by .7 kg/d but did not
increase daily ruminating and chewing time;
ruminating time per unit of NDF intake was
reduced by hay supplementation (75.3 vs. 69.4
minlkg). Other relevant data on chewing and
rumination can be found (24).
Another important factor influencing eating
rate was the amount of feed offered to the cow.
Milking cows took 1.6 min to eat 1.0 kg of
pel1eted concentrate, but, if presented with 4
kg, the eating rate was 1.05 minlkg (60). The
authors suggest that smal1er amounts of con-
centrates are more thinly spread over the area
of the base of the manger than a larger amount,
thus increasing the time and maneuverability
by cows to gather the feed into their mouths.
This idea has appeal in conjunction with the
TMR concept. Campling and Morgan (28)
summarized other work, concluding that lactat-
ing cows eat slightly more rapidly than nonlac-
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 76, No.2, 1993
488 ALBRIGHT

TABLE 1. Effects of reducing manger space on visits, cow numbers, total feeding time, and manger space occupied for
each 24-h observation period.
Manger space per cow
.45 m .3 m .25 1 m .2 m .18 m .15 m
Visits. no. 11.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 10.0
Cows, no. 4.4 3.8 3.7 4.0 3.5 3.1
Total time feeding. 2 min 191.0 186.0 139.0 178.0 163.0 158.0
Mean manger space occupied. % 19.6 25.5 29.9 40.4 39.8 41.9
IFive cows in estrus disturbed other cows while feeding.
2Mean feeding lime per cow = 169 min.

tating, pregnant cows; older, socially dominant
cows ate forages and concentrates in the milk-
ing parlor faster than younger cows; Jerseys
ate less rapidly than Holsteins; and correlation
was direct between rate of eating hay and BW;
jaw movements while eating hay, herbage, and
silage were 75 to 90/min with little variation
among cows; and fresh feed given during a
meal or a large meal divided into two small
meals led to an increased rate of jaw move-
ments.
Competitive Eating Situation.
Competition for feed may develop when
cows are kept in groups .and when manger
space is insufficient to allow all cows to feed
at once. The critical length of manger space
below which competition occurs depends on
the time that feed is in the manger. Also, the
presence of manger divisions may affect eating
behavior of submissive cows, enabling them to
eat longer (27). Friend et al. (44) examined the
time that cows spent at the manger and their
voluntary intakes when each cow was allowed
.5, .4, .3, .2, or .1 m of manger space; a TMR
including 25% ground hay was available for
21 hid. Only when the length of manger was
below .2 m were eating time and intake
reduced. In another trial comparing mangers of
.5 and .25 m per cow, time spent by the cows
in using the mangers and feed intakes were
similar (45).
Collis (1978, personal communication) con-
ducted a similar study with 60 British Friesian
cows comparing 1.1, .5, .3, .25, .2, .18, or .15
m of manger space. At the end of each week,
before the reduction in manger space, this
group of cows was observed continuously for
24 h. Visits to the manger, cow numbers, total
time feeding, and manger space occupied are
presented in Table 1. The 24-h milk yields
(kilograms) of treatment and control groups for
each observation period are in Table 2. Reduc-
tion in manger space had no effect on the
mean number of visits. The mean total feeding
times decreased during the 6-wk trial, but not
significantly. No significant differences oc-
curred between the treatment and control
groups for percentages of cows observed
standing, lying, or feeding. The mean milk
yields of both groups decreased, but differ-
ences between them were not significant. How
this short-term experiment with smaller num-
bers fits actual current herd conditions is not
known. A gradual reduction in manger space
for an established group of cows may be ac-
cepted more than adaptation of a new group to
limited manger space.

TABLE 2. Effects of reduced manger space on 24-h milk yield for each observation period.
Manger space per cow
1.07 m .45 m .3 m .25 m .2 m .18 m .15 m 1.07 m
Milk yield, kgld
Treatment group 21.9 22.4 21.3 20.4 21.2 20.8 19.3 19.9
Control group 23.6 23.6 22.7 21.6 22.3 20.9 19.6 19.9

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 76. No.2, 1993

 FEEDING BEHAVIOR
In a Michigan herd of approximately 600
cows over 200 d, milk yield, conception, ani-
mal health, behavior, and labor input at 61
versus 46 cm of bunk space were checked, and
there were no differences (5, 94). High build-
ing investments suggest that the most efficient
use should be made of dairy facilities. There-
fore, 46 cm of bunk should be provided instead
of 61 cm of space per cow for heavy com
silage diets or complete feeds. With cows aver-
aging 36 kg/d, no difference in milk yield was
found, but Bickert (25), an agricultural live-
stock engineer, asks the question: "What is the
effect if cows are averaging 45 or 57 kgld of
milk or more per day?" (page 17).
When a competitive situation exists at the
manger, dominant cows tended to spend more
time eating than did cows of lower social rank
(27, 44, 45); this feeding situation led to a
greater ,intake of feed by dominant than by
midranked or submissive cows (44). The more
competitive the situation was caused by
reduced length of manger (from .5 to .1 m)
available to each cow, the stronger was the
correlation between intake and dominance
value (45). With 12 dairy cows using a
10-variable model, time spent eating, time in
free stalls, and individual DMI were described
predominantly by yield variables (45). The
social rank or dominance hierarchy, which is
based on the number and strength of aggres-
sive interactions between cows, is usually
complex and difficult to describe as a simple
linear function (13, 26, 33), and social rank
may not adequately describe motivation of the
cows and competition for feed (44, 45, 97).
Studies have reported a weak correlation be-
tween social rank (13) and milk yield, although
social rank sometimes has been associated
directly with BW, age, or breed (33, 65, 87).
Manson and Appleby (70) studied lactating
cows fed diets offered for ad libitum intake in
a food trough divided into 44 feeding posi-
tions, each .65 m wide. Agonistic interactions
were recorded, and cows were classified as
low, medium, and high ranking. When from 4
to 14 cows were feeding, positions chosen
were nonrandom. When <4 or >14 cows were
at the trough, their distribution was not signifi-
cantly different from random. Choice of posi-
tion was affected by dominance relationships.
Neighboring cows similar in rank were, on
average, 3.0 positions apart; dissimilar neigh-
489
bors (low and medium or medium and high
rank) were further apart (3.8 positions); and
most dissimilar neighbors (low and high rank)
had the greatest separation (4.4 positions).
When a competitive situation existed at the
manger, dominant cows tended to spend more
time eating than did cows of low social rank,
leading to a greater intake of feed by dominant
than by submissive cows (70).
Developments In Feeding
Several recent papers report the effects of
feeding variables and additives upon feed in-
take and milk yield in dairy cows. In a mul-
tivariate data acquisition system to measure
feed and water intake and chewing behavior
continuously, Dado and Allen (39) found that
cows at higher yields achieved greater DMI by
increasing meal size while spending less time
eating and ruminating per unit of intake. Nom-
bekela and Murphy (77) suggested that cows
ranked sweeteners (sucrose at 1.5% of dietary
DM) over control, followed by sour, bitter, or
salt flavors. In a second trial, control and
monosodium glutamate ranked over anise, de-
hydrated alfalfa, and molasses flavors; there-
fore, the potential exists to enhance feed intake
by exploiting flavor additive preferences in
early lactation through free-choice feeding.
Arana et al. (12) reported that flavomycin
beneficially (but not significantly) affected
milk yield and efficiency of feed utilization.
The sense of taste in dairy cattle is highly
developed, and taste sensitivity of cows
changes with feeding. Cows fed predominantly
silages had decreased taste sensitivity to sour
things and increased sensitivity to sweet ones
(64). Hence, com silage addition to complete
feeds and TMR development were logical
choices (59). With grass-legume-based TMR,
DMI was higher for cows fed buffered TMR
(P < .05) than for control cows (57).
Recently, considerable interest has devel-
oped in utilizing fat as an economical alterna-
tive energy source in lactating cow diets. Eat-
ing patterns were studied in two trials with
lactating cows fed grain mixtures (50% of feed
DM) containing 10% tallow or blended
animal-vegetable fat. The number and use of
spontaneous meals tended to increase when
either fat source was fed so that daily feed
consumption was not different. A word of
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 76, No.2, 1993
490
caution is recommended: because the first
meal is smaller, high fat in the concentrate
ration should not be used under feeding condi-
tions with restricted time (58). The TMR help
to mask flavors and, thus, provide an excellent
means of incorporating high fat into the feed-
ing system. Likewise, Megalac<!!l (Church and
Dwight Co., Inc., Princeton, NJ), a calcium
salt of palm fatty acid distillate, which pro-
vides high energy (without rumen effects)
when it is fed to milk cows and growing cattle,
has initial palatability problems. However,
most cows adapt quickly, and energy intake
was not compromised (79). In order to facili-
tate adaptation, there are ample opportunities
to use flavor compounds and TMR rations.
When cows calve during daylight hours,
opportunity is greater for assistance; thus,
night calving is a dairying disadvantage. Com-
plete feeds given once daily for at least 2 wk
to 129 dry cows altered their calving times.
Morning feeding (0800 h) had 62.5%, and
night feeding (2000 h) had a slight increase
(68%), for cows that calved during daylight
hours (0600 to 1800 h) (81). Three 24-h be-
havioral observations were made in a l-ha
grass-covered grove with 45 of the 129 cows
being dry. Data collection was designed so that
relatively inexperienced technicians could han-
dle behavioral observations (7). General obser-
vations were that the two groups with differing
feeding strategies and physically separated by
a wire fence in the same wooded grove had
significantly different herd behavior patterns.
Cows fed at night stood longer and rested less
than control cows. It has been reported else-
where (31) that 55% of total lying time in
dairy cattle occurs between the 6-h period of
2200 to 0400 h. In this study, control cows had
49%, and experimental cows fed at night had
40%, of their total rest during this same time
span (7, 81). Cows fed at night spent 40% of
their daytime hours lying, and the control
group spent 25% lying. In both years follow-
ing feeding of complete feeds once daily, sig-
nificantly more (83%) control cows and 85%
of cows fed at night calved from 0600 to 1800
h and from 0500 to 2100 h than the one-half
and two-thirds random calving pattern ex-
pected (81).
Electronic grain feeders placed near the
milking parlor exit in a loose housing bam
were subjected to continuous winter month
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 76, No.2, 1993
ALBRIGHT
observations (two 72-h and three 48-h watch-
es). After 3 d of continuous observation, 28
cows used the feeders regularly. The remaining
4 cows and all subsequent parturient cows
were trained successfully to use the feeders by
placing cows in the stall for 5 min. The feeders
initially caused strong competition, and cows
would accept vigorous repeated butts to the
rear without backing out of the stall area, even
though the feeder was not dispensing. During
the 4-mo trial, cows became more willing to
back out of the feeder even when concentrate
was being dispensed. The position of a cow in
the group social organization did not influence
this response; cows backed out as readily for
younger or subordinate as for older, dominant
cows (34, 35). Computerized dispensing of
concentrates, applied properly, can economize
on consumption of concentrates when group-
ing and feeding of different rations are impos-
sible (69).
Fenceline or auger feeding of TMR should
be practiced to allow all cows to feed at once
and to reduce aggression. Holstein cows fence-
line fed a TMR of silage and concentrates ate
for 26% more of the time following feeding
than the same size group eating from a trough
around which they had to travel (2, 5). Many
visitors to the Purdue Dairy Research Center,
at which weighed, complete blended (com si-
lage plus concentrates) rations were first fed
with a mixer wagon 25 yr ago, have com-
mented on how tame, docile, and relaxed the
cows appear (8, 59). Much of the mechaniza-
tion that underlies this system was developed
for commercial cattle feedlots, especially those
in Nebraska and Colorado in the 1960s.
Universal application of this feeding system
was inhibited somewhat by the lack of knowl-
edge about how to formulate complete diets
(78).
Many dairies practice fenceline feeding
with cows eating with their heads in the natu-
ral grazing position. During her world milk
yield record, US Holstein, Beecher Arlinda
Ellen, ate hay at floor level (3). Evidence
exists (67, 68) that cows eating with their
heads in the downward position produce 17%
more saliva than cows eating with their heads
held horizontally, which directly influences the
efficiency of ruminal functions. A 24-h be-
havioral watch (3, 104) has been summarized
in Table 3.
 FEEDING BEHAVIOR
TABLE 3. Behavioral profile (24-h) of cow yielding world
milk record.
Eating time l 6 h 15 min
Resting (Iying)2 13 h S5 min
Other3 3hSOmin
Chew per min, no. 60
Chews between swallows, no. 82
lin a 24-h period in late Iactalion, Beecher Arlinda
~len consumed different feeds: hay, 13 times; grain, 12
tunes; straw, 2 times; water, 7 times; and mineralized salt,
5 times.
2Eyes closed for 30 min, broken into about four peri-
ods of 5 to 10 min each. Cow spent 7 h 30 min ruminating
(5 h 5 min on her left side and 1 h 50 min on her right
side). Of the 14 h lying, 8 h were spent lying on her right
side and 6 h on her left side.
3Ruminating while standing, 30 min; defecating 12
times and urinating 7 times; milked twice daily in a
milking parlor; grooming; interaction with other cows,
calves, cats. humans; and idling.
An attempt was made to establish basal
salivation rates for early lactation dairy cows
fed TMR and to determine differences in sali-
vation between diets based on haycrop and
com silages. Diet did not affect feeding be-
havior, salivation rates, saliva volumes
produced while cows were eating or resting, or
saliva composition, but degree of feed ensali-
vation (fresh basis) and volume of saliva per
bolus were higher for cows fed the haycrop
silage diet because of its higher OM content.
Ruminal pH was lower for the haycrop silage
diet. Resting salivation rate and volume
produced while resting were greater at wk 8
than wk 4 of lactation, even when corrected to
constant OMI; this result indicates that adapta-
tion to diet postpartum involved increased
basal resting salivation rate (30).
Concrete mangers can be renovated with
epoxy-type finishes or relined with wood or
tiles to aid feed consumption (5). Over time,
silages, with their lower pH, tend to etch con-
crete, thus exposing the cow's tongue and
mouth to rough edges and stones. Deep,
46-cm troughs facilitate once daily feeding and
ease labor requirements on weekends. Con-
versely, shallow, 30- to 46-cm troughs require
more frequent distribution of feed, which
results in fresher feed. Cows exhibit more root-
ing behavior in shallow, elevated troughs. For
more than a year, milking cows at Purdue
University were observed about once weekly
491
for feed tossing behavior. About 10% of the
cows participated in this rooting, sorting ritual.
Feed wastage from feed tossed over their backs
or along their sides was 0 to 5% each week.
Feed tossing occurred especially in summer
during heavy fly concentration but took place
in winter as well. When cows were given the
alternative option of eating from an elevated
feedbunk with the floor and top of the trough
28 and 76 cm from ground level, respectively,
or from the same trough at ground level, they
chose the lower level. The group fed at ground
level showed no feed tossing behavior. This
livestock engineering problem appears to be
remedied easily by feeding cows so that they
consume feed in the natural head down, graz-
ing position (4, 8).
Graves (53) suggested eliminating feed-
bunks based upon feeding observations. A rea-
son some farmers give for not offering their
high yielding cows more to eat is that they
have to shovel the orts out of the bunk. Conse-
quently, they only feed enough ration so that
the cows clean it up every day, and this
amount probably is not enough feed. By leav-
ing some orts (5% or so), provided they are of
good quality and not too wet, the cows have an
opportunity to eat their fill at the bunk. The
orts feed can be fed advantageously to weaned
calves, heifers, and dry cows. In the long run,
another construction option for feed bunks is
flat feeding floors with headlocks in drive-
through barns (53).
The floor of the trough should be level or
slope no more than I % along the length of the
feed bunk. When troughs have slopes of 3 to
5% or more, cows shift and move in the
direction of the slope. The cows keep shifting
and moving. Likewise, with excessive slopes
of 5% or more in holding pens, cows eventu-
ally become hesitant about entering the area as
well as the milking parlor (5, 8).
Low yielding boss cows should be culled.
Hog rings can be placed in the poll of obvious
boss cows. In order to eliminate fighting at the
feedbunk, all cows should be dehorned to
eliminate potential boss cows. Culling of
weak, submissive cows as well as low yielding
boss cows will result in a more stable herd (5,
68). The effects of different types of physical
barriers on side by side feeding times of hun-
gry cows were classified according to domi-
nance and submission status. Barriers provid-
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 76, No.2, 1993
492 ALBRIGHT
ing complete protection of the cow's head
allowed subordinates to feed for more than
two-thirds of the test period, whereas partial
protection allowed feeding for about half of
the time (27).
Cows should be shifted from one group to
another when necessary, and small groups of
cows should be moved. Not only is there so-
cial pressure on the cow in her new group, but
she also may have different amounts of feed, a
new milker, and a different milking time (5).
Handling procedures are more stressful for iso-
lated cows; therefore, attempts should be made
to keep several cows together during medical
treatment, artificial insemination, or movement
from one group to another (17, 102).
When corn silage is the only forage fed, hay
should be provided, allowing 2.3 to 4.5 kgld of
long hay per cow. Accompanying the move to
all or high corn silage diets in the US has been
an increase in digestive upsets, displaced
abomasums, and fat cow syndrome. Cows fed
all corn silage diets or feed chopped too finely
(92) do not ruminate for as long as those on
hay diets. All corn silage diets need a great
deal of buffering plus added protein to com-
pare favorably with grass and hay crops such
as alfalfa hay.
Previous research suggested that metabolic
disorders, such as milk fat depression, may be
induced by changes in rate and duration of
chewing activities (93, 96, 100, 103). The ef-
fects of forage particle size upon behavior in
dairy cows, especially chewing activity, have
been reviewed and studied by Grant et al. (51,
52). They fed TMR differing in silage particle
size (fine, medium, coarse), and they observed
cow behavior at 5-min intervals during 24 h
for each of three periods. Results indicated that
decreasing particle size of the forage reduced
time cows spent ruminating, whether standing
or recumbent, and had no effect on rumination
rate or number of rumination bouts per
24-h period. Eating time was unaffected by
treatment. Effect of forage particle size upon
baseline rumination activity appeared to be
most pronounced from 0800 to 2000 h, al-
though maximum rumination activity occurred
during nighttime hours.
In a series of water experiments by Ander-
son (11), when eating time was restricted to
2.5 h at each feeding with no water during the
first 2 h, feed consumption, milk yield, and
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 76. No.2. 1993
water intake were significantly lower than
when feed and water were available for 24 hid.
Anderson (11) also found that when pairs of
tied cows shared a water bowl, the dominant
cow ate, drank, and yielded significantly more
than the submissive cow. It was hypothesized
that the submissive cow suffered from chronic
stress. The only way to be certain in all situa-
tions that cows have access to sufficient
amounts of water is to have one water bowl
per cow.
Grazing Behavior
Interest in grazing dairy cattle in the US has
waned during the past 30 yr (14). Year-round
drylot feeding, especially of the milking herd,
has become the norm. Variation in perfor-
mance when cows graze may arise from many
sources, and variation is basic to drylot prefer-
ence. Extensive grazing behavior information
has been completed (1, 19, 54, 63, 75). Allen
(10) recently published a helpful compilation
of terminology used for grazing lands and
grazing animals (10).
In New Zealand, 40 yr ago, animal behavior
research with identical twins was initiated and
conducted by Hancock (55, 56); this classical,
detailed work on grazing behavior is summa-
rized as baseline values in Table 4 (seven
24-h periods throughout one season).
Slightly less than 60% of the total grazing
time was between 0700 and 1500 h, and
slightly more than 40% was between 1700 and
0445 h. This ratio was fairly constant under all
weather and pasture conditions. On average,
almost 85% of the total grazing time was spent
during daylight and only 15% during darkness.
There generally were six cycles of grazing:
four between morning and afternoon milkings,
one immediately after the cows were let out on
the pasture following milking at 1700 h, and
one (sometimes two) during the night. Approx-
imately 50% of the available time between
0700 and 1500 h was spent grazing. It seems
that, even under ideal grazing conditions, dairy
cows do not spend much more than half of the
time between morning and afternoon milkings
in actual grazing. The rest of the time is used
partly for searching for food and partly for rest
and rumination. Of the period following the
afternoon milking (1700 to 0445 h), only ap-
proximately 25% was occupied with grazing.
 FEEDING BEHAVIOR
TABLE 4. Behavioral patterns for monozygotic cattle
twins on pasture.
Grazing time, min 411
Loafing time,l min 195
Lying down time, min 580
Distance covered, m 2778
Defecations. no. 12.2
Urinations, no. 10.1
Water, drinks 3.7
Total bites grazing, no. 23,966
Bites, min 51.3
Rumination time, min 324
Total chews (rumination), no. 17,117
Rumination: grazing .752
lTime spent standing or walking, not grazing.
2Ratio of ruminating to grazing time was .95 in steers
and .46 in sheep grazing the same pasture (66).
Considering the distribution of all activities
together, the habits of dairy cows in New
Zealand are essentially diurnal, as best illus-
trated by the ratio of grazing to loafing (time
spent standing or walking, not grazing) to ly-
ing down, which was approximately 5:2:2 dur-
ing daylight compared with 1:1:8 during dark-
ness (56).
Cows seldom stopped more than a few mo-
ments on the same spot but moved continu-
ously, apparently searching for more palatable
grass and frequently grazing as they walked
along (56). Grass of poor palatability thus
conceivably may increase the distance walked.
When a cow felt the urge to drink, she would
suddenly stop grazing and walk straight to the
water trough, rarely pausing to graze on the
way. Because all paddocks were of the same
size, daily differences cannot be accounted for
by variation in the distance to the trough. The
frequency of drinking varied considerably from
day to day, and this variation influenced the
amount of walking. While grazing, the cows
generally were spread quite evenly over the
paddock. However, they tended to congregate
in lying down. This tendency was especially
noticeable at night when often only a few cows
were grazing simultaneously; when a cow had
finished grazing, she immediately returned to
the area where the other cows were lying. This
action sometimes was initiated by a short leap
accompanied by a bellow. This was interpreted
as play behavior. The twins provided a special
case of gregariousness. Members of a set of
493
twins, after having strayed some distance from
each other while grazing, sought each other's
company at frequent intervals. In general, iden-
tical twins tend to graze together and to behave
similarly while at pasture (61). The differences
in grazing times between identical twins was
very small, averaging only 7.5 min, whereas
the range among sets of twins was as great as
2.25 h (56). Also, single born calves that have
been reared together in pairs usually are found
together when they are turned out with a graz-
ing herd (40).
Worldwide, the most continuous grazing
periods occur in the early morning at sunrise
and near sundown. Thus, in a given locality,
the initiation of early morning grazing is cor-
related with the season of the year. Under
some conditions, one or two periods occur
during the night, but they are less sharply
defined than the day periods. Night grazing
may be more frequent during the summer and
under tropical conditions because, under hot
weather conditions, dairy cattle prefer to graze
during the cooler mornings and evenings. In
the hot midday, they seek cover, idleness, rest,
or rumination. Seath and Miller (91) inves-
tigated the influence of air temperature on the
grazing habits of dairy cows in Louisiana. Hot
weather (30°C) lowered the grazing time by
about an hour compared with time during
cooler weather (22°C). Behavior patterns were
different; during 30°C weather, cows grazed
1.9 h in the day and 6.5 h at night, and, during
22°C weather, they grazed 4.5 h in the day and
4.7 h at night.
The amount of time that a cow spends
grazing can be recorded by a grazing clock
strapped to a halter on the cow's head. The
swing of the pendulum in the clock is recorded
as the cow's head moves through an arc of 60
to 80° while eating. [For further details about
grazing clocks and grazing behavior, see the
work of Kilgour and Dalton (63) and Stobbs
and Cowper (95).]
Pasturing supposedly reduces stocking den-
sity, environmental pollution (waste disposal,
odor, nuisance), energy costs, and use of hous-
ing for shorter periods (15, 98). Many dairy
managers continue to pasture dry cows and
heifers, but the trend is toward drylot manage-
ment of the milking herd. Because data are
limited on the long-term effects of intensive
production systems, concern has been ex-
10urnal of Dairy Science Vol. 76, No.2, 1993
494 ALBRIGHT
pressed about the comfort, well-being, be-
havior, reproduction, and udder, foot, and leg
health of cattle kept on concrete. Whenever
possible, many dairy producers let cows out of
their barns in the middle of the day to sun and
to groom themselves and each other, to stretch
and exercise their limbs, and to show estrus
behavior and overall health. As a safeguard,
many cows are removed from concrete to dirt
lots or pasture, at least during the dry period
(6).
Rollin (84) noted that legislation in Sweden,
which granted cattle the right to graze, indi-
cates that "U.S. society will soon demand that
agriculture back off, at least to some extent.
from confinement and pay greater attention to
agricultural animal comfort and happiness, and
encode this demand in legislation" (page
3461). Pasturing has its problems, however,
and may not be as ideal as animal rights
activists perceive. Weather limits the grazing
season (150 d or less) in several northern
states. Pasture probably will not supply
nutrients needed to maintain high milk yield
because forage of uniform quality and quantity
is difficult to provide. Shade, water, heat, in-
sects, susceptibility to bloat. energy expended
in grazing and travel to the milking parlor, and
toxicity from soil are other considerations as-
sociated with pasturing. For example, high
yielding cows spent much less time lying
down and significantly more time grazing from
the beginning to the end of the grazing season
(15).
Rumination and Resting
Ewbank (41) speculated that rumination
acts as an "anti-boredom" activity in the adult
bovine. Considerable self-stimulation and "in-
wardness" occurs in cattle because of the rumi-
nation process. During rumination, whether ly-
ing or standing, cows are quiet and relaxed
with their heads down and their eyelids lo-
wered. Cows can ruminate while standing, but
they usually lie down with their chests against
the ground (6, 8).
It has been suggested (6, 8, 51) that left-side
laterality is of strategic value to the ruminant
animal for rest and to optimize positioning of
the rumen within the body for most efficient
rumination. Together with an upright posture,
the esophageal opening is not allowed to fall
Journal or Dairy Science Vol. 76. No.2. 1993
below the ruminal fluid level, thus avoiding
interference with rumination, eructation, belch-
ing of ruminal gasses, and, possibly, bloat.
Although most nonruminants (i.e., horse, dog)
sleep on their side, ruminants must maintain
sternal recumbency (6, 32). Also, the self-
stimulatory aspects of rumination may provide
the physiological rest and rejuvenation nor-
mally provided by deep sleep. Cows spend
much less time sleeping than do people, dogs,
and horses. Cattle are drowsy for about 7 (71)
to 8 hid (85). Balch (22) concluded that, if
cattle sleep, their sleep is of a short and tran-
sient nature. Merrick and Scharp (72), using
electroencephylograph readings, concluded
that cattle rest without loss of vigil or con-
sciousness. Rukebusch et al. (86) present con-
vincing evidence that cows do indeed practice
REM sleep (rapid eye movement or "true
sleep") in short 2- to 8-min periods. Theoreti-
cally, sleep serves two functions: recuperation
for physiological and psychological restoration
and increased response thresholds to prevent
disturbance of rest from insignificant environ-
mental stimuli. Some recumbency is necessary
to prevent fatigue. Cattle deprived of resting
(lying) compensate for loss of REM sleep by
indulging in non-REM ("quiet") sleep while
standing (14).
Cows aim to achieve a rather fixed amount
of lying, and their well-being is impaired when
lying time is restricted for several hours (74).
Earlier, the variability in the behavior of in-
dividual cows in comfort tests appeared to be
more influential on resting habits than was the
type of stall~omfort. tie, or stanchion (42).
(That study was conducted before invention of
the free stall and technological improvements
of comfort and tie-stall barns.) For further de-
tails on dairy cow comfort and resting be-
havior, see studies by Albright and Stricklin
(8) and Curtis et al. (37).
Left-side ruminally cannulated cows are
used in experiments that measure chewing ac-
tivity and ruminal function. This observation
raises an important, but largely overlooked,
behavioral and physiological issue. Normally,
cows exhibit left-side laterality; i.e., they pre-
fer to lie on their left side on a level surface (9,
14, 99, 101). Prepartum dairy cows in a
wooded lot spent 55% recumbency on their
left side (7). Cows also exhibit increased (P <
.01) left-side laterality as calving approached.
 FEEDING BEHAVIOR 495
TABLE 5. Laterality in intact and rumina1ly cannulated dairy cows.

Laterality
Intact Cannulated
Activity Left' Right2 Left' Right2
Lying, %3 53· 47 30 70-
Lying, ruminating, % 55· 36 55- 46
Lying, no chewing, % 45 64- 45 54'
-Significantly different from 50:50 (P > .05).
ILying on left side, dorsal process uphill, stall slope, .7%.
2Lying on right side, dorsal process downhill. stall slope•.7%.
3Data from three intact and three ruminally cannulated cows observed for 48 h.

With increasing age and size. the tendency for the cow's upright resting posture and rumen
cows to lie more on their right side shifts positioning is considered.
significantly (18). Such was the case with To categorize postural differences in resting
Beecher Arlinda Ellen (Table 3). dairy cattle, Coo et aI. (32) observed 80 bull
Six Holstein cows (three intact and three calves at 20-min intervals from 1900 to 0330 h
ruminally cannulated) were observed for 48 h at 5, 10, and 17 wk of age. They also observed
to examine the effect of ruminal cannulation 68 (62 to 75) lactating cows at IS-min inter-
upon laterality and recumbent rumination ac- vals from 1900 to 0330 h twice (3 mo apart) in
tivity (51). Cows were housed in a free-stall winter in two barns in northern Indiana with
barn equipped with an individual feeding sys- 40 calves housed in stalls (.93 m 2 each) and 40
tem that allowed continual access to feed in eight group pens (6.5 m 2 or 1.3 m 2 each),
(American Calan, Inc., Northwood, NH). The all with slatted wood flooring. Cows were
free-stall barn had an open exposure to the housed in 64 free stalls (2.8 m2 each) on
south and an upward stall slope of .7% from bedded wood or bedded concrete. As part of a
south to north. The slope was upward, right to larger study, each calf was observed for vari-
left, from the cow's perspective when facing ous resting postures (Table 6). No significant
into the stall. The free stalls were 2.3 m long differences existed between calf postures in
and 1.1 m wide, and the slope was 5.5% from stalls or pens, so those data were pooled. For
front to rear of the stall. A neck rail was both calves and cows, the results demonstrated
located .36 m from the front of the stall at a that sternal recumbency with their eyes open is
height of .94 m. The dimensions of the stall the most common resting position. Resting
alleyway and adjacent exercise lot were ap-
proximately 20 x 3.1 m. Stalls were bedded
daily with dry sawdust.
Ruminally cannulated cows demonstrated TABLE 6. Resting postures as a percentage of total obser-
increased right-side laterality (70%) compared vations.
with intact cows (47%), but the cows tended to Postures Cows Calves
ruminate while lying on their left side. The
percentage of time spent ruminating while --(%)--
recumbent on the left side was similar (55%) Erect, eyes open 74.2 58.6-
for intact and cannulated cows (Table 5). The Erect. eyes closed 10.0 7.2'
Head on neck 6.2 18.5'
percentage of time ruminating on the right side Head on leg or flank .4 13.2'
was significantly less than the time spent Head on stalls or floor 7.5 .6'
ruminating on the left side. These observations Lateral, on side 1.7 1.9
indicate a behavioral need for the cow to rumi- "The t test for significance (P < .01) signified that
nate on her left side. This concept is quite values for calves were different from cows for various
logical when the evolutionary significance of postures except lateral recumbency.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 76, No.2, 1993

496 ALBRIGHT
with the head on the neck, leg, or flank is less
prevalent in the adult bovine. Lateral recum-
bency is similar in both calf and adult, but
environment may influence this behavior. Up-
right posture was more prevalent with advanc-
ing maturity.
CONCLUSIONS
As herd animals, dairy cattle are adept and
efficient at gathering of feed at the bunk or on
pasture. They practice leadership-followership
to and from the pasture, feedbunk, and other
locations, and they practice social facilitation;
thus, cows fed in groups eat more than in-
dividuals.
Dairy cattle are crepuscular; however, they
are adaptable at fitting grazing into other times
of the day as a result of hot weather and
nutritive needs. They are consistent in biting,
jaw movements, eating, and rumination times.
The sense of taste in dairy cattle is highly
developed and can be manipulated to suit the
preferences of both nutritionists and cow.
Rumination acts as an "anti-boredom" ac-
tivity in the adult bovine with considerable
self-stimulation accompanied by a relaxed
state. Left-side laterality is of strategic value to
ruminants for rest and to optimize rumen posi-
tioning for efficient rumination.
REFERENCES
1 Albright, J. L. 1969. Social environment and growth.
Page 107 in Animal Growth and Nutrition. Lea and
Febiger, Philadelphia, PA.
2 Albright, J. L. 1974. Let cow sociology help you
plan a feeding system. Successful Fanning 72:(7)D1.
3 Albright, 1. L. 1978. The behaviour and management
of high yielding dairy cows. Page 4 in The Be-
haviour and Management of High Yielding Dairy
Cows. Br. Oil and Cake Mills Silcock Dairy Conf.
Heathrow, England. January 30. Booklet publ.
BOCM, Silcock, Basingstoke, Engl.
4 Albright, J. L. 1983. Incidence and control of feed-
tossing behavior in cows fed complete feeds (total
mixed rations) at the feed bunk.. J. Anim. Sci.
57(Suppl. 1): 135.(Abstr.)
5 Albright, J. L. 1983. Putting together the facility, the
worker and the cow. Page 15 in 2nd Natl. Dairy
Housing Conf., Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph,
MI.
6 Albright, J. L. 1987. Dairy animal welfare: current
and needed research. 1. Dairy Sci. 70:2711.
7 Albright, J. L., and J. A. Pennington. 1984. The
influence of diet upon time of calving and behavior
in dairy cattle. Page 184 in Proc. Int. Congr. Appl.
Ethol. Farm Anim. J. Unshelm, G. Van Putten, and
K. Zeeb, ed. Univ. Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 76, No.2, 1993
8 Albright, 1. L., and W. R. Stricklin. 1989. Recent
developments in the provision for cattle welfare.
Page 149 in New Techniques in Cattle Production.
C.J.C. Phillips, ed. Butterworths, London, Engl.
9 Albright, J. L., D. H. Yungblut, C. W. Arave, and J.
C. Wilson. 1975. Bovine laterality: resting behavior.
Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci. 85:407.
10 Allen, V. G. 1991. Terminology for Grazing Lands
and Grazing Animals. Pocohontas Press, Inc.,
Blacksburg, VA.
11 Anderson, M. 1984. Drinking water supply to housed
dairy cows. Svergies Lantbruksuniversitet Diss. Rep.
130, Uppsala, Sweden.
12 Arana, M. J., J. T. Huber, J. L. Sullivan, M. Denigan,
1. M. Simas, J. K. Taylor, S. K. DeNise, and L. E.
Deetz. 1992. Influence of bambermycins (flavomy-
cin) on milk yield and feed intake of lactating cows.
J. Dairy Sci. 75:(Suppl. 1):294.(Abstr.)
13 Arave, C. W., and J. L. Albright. 1976. Social rank
and physiological traits of dairy cows as influenced
by changing group membership. J. Dairy Sci. 59:974.
14 Arave, C. W., and J. L. Albright. 1981. Cattle be-
havior. J. Dairy Sci. 64:1318.
15 Arave, C. W., and J. L. Albright. 1992. Animal
welfare/rights. USDA-Ext. Servo Animal Welfare-
Rights Fact Sheets, Washington, DC.
16 Arave, C. W., J. L. Albright, D. V. Armstrong, W.
W. Foster, and L. L. Larson. 1992. Effects of isola-
tion of calves on growth, behavior, and first lactation
milk yield of Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 75:3408.
17 Arave, C. W., J. L. Albright, and C. L. Sinclair.
1974. Behavior, milk yield and leucocytes of dairy
cows in reduced space and isolation. J. Dairy Sci. 57:
1497.
18 Arave, C. W., and J. L. Walters. 1980. Factors
affecting lying behaviour and stall utilization of dairy
cattle. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 6:369.
19 Arnold, G. W., and M. L. Dudzinski. 1978. Ethology
of free-ranging domestic animals. Elvesier, Amster-
dam, Neth.
20 Baile, C. A., and M. A. Della-Fera. 1981. Nature of
hunger and satiety control systems in ruminants. J.
Dairy Sci. 64:1140.
21 Baker, F. H. 1981. Scientific aspects of the welfare
of food animals. Counc. Agric. Sci. Technol. Rep.
No. 91, Iowa State Univ., Ames.
22 Balch, C. C. 1955. Sleep in ruminants. Nature
(Lond.) 175:940.
23 Balch, C. C. 1971. Proposal to use time spent chew-
ing as an index of the extent to which diets for
ruminants possess the physical property of fibrous-
ness characteristics of roughages. Br. J. Nutr. 26:383.
24 Beauchemin, K. A., and J. G. Buchanan-Smith.
1989. Effects of dietary neutral detergent fiber con-
centration and supplementary long hay on chewing
activities and milk production of dairy cows. J. Dairy
Sci. 72:2288.
25 Bickert, W. G. 1992. Best free stall layout. Hoard's
Dairyman 137:17.
26 Bielharz, R. G. 1983-1984. Social dominance: reply
to G. 1. and L. A. Syme. Letter to the Editor. Appl.
Anim. Ethol. 11:67.
27 Bouissou, M. F. 1970. R61e du contact physique dans
la manifestation des relations hi6rarchiques chez les
 FEEDING BEHAVIOR
bovins. Consequences pratiques. Ann. Zootech.
(Paris) 19:279.
28 Campling, R. c., and C. A. Morgan. 1981. Eating
behaviour of housed dairy cows-a review. Dairy
Sci. Abstr. 43(2):57.
29 Caras, R. 1981. Page 85 in The Private Lives of
Animals. Chanticleer Press, Inc., New York, NY.
30 Cassida, K. A., and M. R. Stokes. 1986. Eating and
resting salivation in early lactation dairy cows. 1.
Dairy Sci. 69:1282.
31 Cennak, I. P. 1977. The behavior of dairy cows.
Farm Bldg. Progr. 49:19.
32 Coe, B. L., J. L. Albright, D. K. Stouffer, N. I.
Kenyon, and M. E. Einstein. 1990. Postural adjust-
ments in Holstein dairy calves and cows. I. Anim.
Sci. 68(Suppl. 1):257.(Abstr.)
33 Collis, K. A. 1976. An investigation of factors
related to the dominance order of a herd of dairy
cows of similar age and breed. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 2:
167.
34 Collis, K. A. 1980. The effect of an automatic feed
dispenser on the behaviour of lactating dairy cows.
Appl. Anim. Ethol. 6:139.
35 Collis, K. A., A. I. Quick, G. Newman, and I. L.
Albright. 1979. Behavior of lactating dairy cows in
an electronic concentrate feeding system. 1. Dairy
Sci. 62(Suppl. 1): 159.(Abstr.)
36 Coppock, C. E., D. L. Bath, and B. Harris, Ir. 1981.
From feed to feeding systems. 1. Dairy Sci. 64: 1230.
37 Curtis, S. E., 1. L. Albright, J. V. Craig, H. W.
Gonyou, K. A. Houpt, 1. 1. McGlone, and W. R.
Stricklin. 1988. Guidelines for dairy cattle hus-
bandry. Page 28 in Guide for the Care and Use of
Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and
Teaching. Consortium, Assoc. Headquarters, 309
West Clark Street, Champaign, IL.
38 Curtis, S. E., and K. A. Houpt. 1983. Animal ethol-
ogy: its emergence in animal science. I. Anim. Sci.
57(Suppl. 2):234.
39 Dado, R G., and M. S. Allen. 1992. Relationships
among feeding variables for lactating cows offered a
common diet. I. Dairy Sci. 75(Suppl. 1):294.(Abstr.)
40 Ewbank, R 1967. Behavior of twin cattle. 1. Dairy
Sci. 50:1510.
41 Ewbank, R 1978. Stereotypies in clinical veterinary
practice. Proc. 1st World Congr. Ethol., Appl.
Zootech., Min. Agric., Gnificas ORBE, Madrid,
Spain 1:499.
42 Foreman, C. F., N. H. Curry, P. D. Homeyer, and A.
R. Porter. 1958. A comparison of different stalls for
dairy cattle. Iowa State Coli. J. Sci. 33:43.
43 Fraser, A. F., and H. Herchen. 1979. The behavior of
liberated livestock. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 5:95.
44 Friend, T. H., and C. E. Polan. 1974. Social rank,
feeding behavior, and free stall utilization by dairy
cattle. I. Dairy Sci. 57:1214.
45 Friend, T. H., C. E. Polan, and M. L. McGilliard.
1977. Free stall and feed bunk requirements relative
to behavior, production and individual feed intake in
dairy cows. 1. Dairy Sci. 60: 108.
46 Fuller, 1. M. 1928. Some physical and physiological
activities of dairy cows under conditions of modem
herd management. New Hampshire Agric. Exp. Stn.
Tech. Bull. 35, Durham.
497
47 Fujihara, T. 1980. The eating and rumination be-
haviour in sheep fed only grass diets in either the
fresh or dried fonn. 1. Agric. Sci. (Camb.) 95:729.
48 Fujihara, T. 1981. Eating and rumination behaviour
in sheep given silage made from the fibrous residue
of ladino clover. I. Agric. Sci. (Camb.) 95:485.
49 Fujihara, T., and T. Nakso. 1982. Eating and rumina-
tion behaviour in sheep given silage made from the
fibrous residues of broad bean (Vicia faba L.) I.
Agric. Sci. (Camb.) 98:237.
50 Gonyou, H. W., S. K. Tallam, 1. M. Ottaro, and P.
M. Mutulu. 1990. Meterological factors affecting the
rate of arousal in grazing cattle. Rep. Egerton Univ.
Res. Board, Njoro, Kenya.
51 Grant, R 1., V. F. Colenbrander, and J. L. Albright.
1990. Effect of particle size in forage and rumen
cannulation upon chewing activity and laterality in
dairy cows. 1. Dairy Sci. 73:3158.
52 Grant, R. J., V. F. Colenbrander, and D. R Mertens.
1990. Milk fat depression in dairy cows: role of
particle size of alfalfa hay. 1. Dairy Sci. 73:1823.
53 Graves, W. E. 1992. Outlaw feedbunks? Country
Folks of Pennsylvania (Feb. 17):2.
54 Hafez, E.s.E., and M. F. Bouissou. 1975. The be-
haviour of cattle. Page 209 in Behaviour of Domestic
Animals. 3rd ed. Williams and Wilkins Co., Balti-
more, MD.
55 Hancock, I. 1950. Grazing habits of dairy cows in
New Zealand. Emp. 1. Exp. Agric. 18:249.
56 Hancock, 1. 1954. Grazing behavior in studies in
monozygotic cattle twins. N.Z. Dep. Agric. Anim.
Res. Div. Publ. No. 63, Hamilton, N.Z.
57 Harrison, J. H., S. Xu, B. Riley, and K. Loney. 1992.
Effect of buffer addition to grass-legume based TMR
or rumen pH, feed intake, milk production and com-
position. I. Dairy Sci. 75(Suppl. l):295.(Abstr.)
58 Heinricks, A. I., D. L. Palmquist, and H. R Conrad.
1982. Feed intake patterns of cows fed high fat grain
mixtures. I. Dairy Sci. 65: 1325.
59 Howard, W. T., 1. L. Albright, M. D. Cunningham,
R. B. Harrington, and R W. Taylor. 1968. Least-cost
complete rations for dairy cows. I. Dairy Sci. 51 :595.
60 lones, G., K. D. Maddever, D. L. Court, and M.
Phillips. 1966. The time taken by cows to eat con-
centrates. Anim. Prod. 8:489.
61 Ioubert, D. M. 1952. Twin births among callie in
South Africa. Farming S. Afr. 27:9.
62 Kidwell, J. F., V. R. Bohman, and 1. E. Hunter.
1954. Individual and group feeding of experimental
beef cattle as influenced by hay maturity. I. Anim.
Sci. 13:543.
63 Kilgour, R, and C. Dalton. 1984. Cattle. Page 30 in
Livestock Behaviour-A Practical Guide. Westview
Press, Boulder, CO.
64 Kudryavtzev, A. A. 1962. Higher nervous activity
and the physiology of the senses in lactating cows.
Int. Dairy Congr. Andelsbogtrykkeriet i Odense,
Copenhagen, Denmark 16(D):565.
65 Lamb, R. C. 1976. Relationships between cow be-
havior patterns and management systems to reduce
stress. J. Dairy Sci. 59: I630.
66 Lofgreen, G. P., J. H. Meyer, and 1. L. Hull. 1957.
Behavior patterns of sheep and cattle being fed
pasture on sortage. J. Anim. Sci. 16:773.
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 76, No.2, 1993
498 ALBRIGHT
67 McFarlane, I. S. 1972. Bovine behavior patterns.
Livest. Breed. 1. (Dec.):6.
68 McFarlane, I. S. 1976. A practical approach to ani-
mal behavior. Dairy Sci. Handbook 9:67.
69 Maltz, E., S. Devir, O. Kroll. B. Zur, S. L. Spahr,
and R. D. Shanks. 1992. Comparative responses of
lactating cows to total mixed rations or computerized
individual concentrates feeding. 1. Dairy Sci. 75:
1588.
70 Manson, F. 1., and M. C. Appleby. 1990. Spacing of
dairy cows at a food trough. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
26:69.
71 Meddis, R. 1975. On the function of sleep. Anim.
Behav. 23:676.
72 Merrick, A. W., and D. W. Scharp. 1971. Electroen-
cephalography of resting behavior in cattle. with
observations on the question of sleep. Am. 1. Vet.
Res. 32:1893.
73 Metz, I.H.M. 1975. Time patterns of feeding and
rumination in domestic cattle. Meded. Land-
bouwhogesch. Ph.D. Diss. NL 75-12, Wageningen,
Neth.
74 Metz, 1.H.M. 1985. The reaction of cows to short-
term deprivation of lying. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
13:310.
75 Moseley, T. W., D. Stuart, and R. R. Graves. 1929.
Dairy work at the Huntley Field Station, Huntley,
Montana, 1918-1927. USDA Agric. Tech. Bull. 116,
USDA, Washington, DC.
76 Murphy, M. R 1992. Water metabolism of dairy
cattle. 1. Dairy Sci. 75:326.
77 Nombekela. S. W., and M. R Murphy. 1992. Prefer-
ence ranking of diets by cows in early lactation as
affected by additives representing primary tastes and
some common feed flavors. 1. Dairy Sci. 75(Suppl.
1):294.(Abstr.)
78 Owen, 1. B. 1979. Page 127 in Complete Diets for
Cattle and Sheep. Farming Press Ltd.. Ipswich.
Suffolk, Engl.
79 Palmquist, D. L., S. C. Loerch, D. E. Grum, F. L.
Fluharty, S. Hughes, and T. F. Sweeney. 1989. Ac-
ceptability of diets after introduction of Megalac~. 1.
Dairy Sci. 72(Suppl. l):443.(Abstr.)
80 Pearce, G. R, and R 1. Moir. 1964. Rumination in
sheep. I. The influence of rumination and grinding
upon the passage and digestion of food. Aust. 1.
Agric. Res. 15:635.
81 Pennington, 1. A., and 1. L. Albright. 1985. The
effect of feeding time. behavior and environmental
factors on the time of calving in dairy cattle. 1. Dairy
Sci. 68:2746.
82 Provenza. F. D., D. F. Balph, 1. D. Olsen. D. D.
Dwyer, M. H. Ralphs, and 1. A. Pfister. 1988. To-
ward understanding the behavioral responses of live-
stock to poisonous plants. The Ecology and Ec0-
nomic Impact of Poisonous Plants on Livestock
Production. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
83 Ragsdale, A. C., S. Brody, H. 1. Thompson, and D.
M. Worstell. 1948. Environmental physiology with
special reference to domestic animals. n. Influence
of temperature 50' to 105"F on milk production and
feed consumption in dairy cattle. Missouri Agric.
Exp. Stn. Bull. 425, Columbia.
84 Rollin, B. E. 1990. Anima1 welfare, animal rights
and agricu1ture. 1. Anim. Sci. 68:3456.
85 Ruckelbusch, Y. 1972. The relevance of drowsiness
of the circadian cycle of farm animals. Anim. Behav.
Iournal of Dairy Science Vol. 76. No.2. 1993
20:637.
86 Ruckelbusch, Y., R W. Dougherty, and H. M. Cook.
1974. law movements and rumen motility as criteria
for measurement of deep sleep in cattle. Am. 1. Vel.
Res. 35:1309.
87 Schein. M. W., and M. H. Fohrman. 1955. Social
dominance relationships in a herd of dairy cattle. Br.
1. Anim. Behav. 3:45.
88 Schultz, T. A. 1992. Anima1 behavior related to
physical facilities. Page 67 in Proc. Large Dairy
Herd Management Symp.• Univ. Florida. Gainesville.
(Abstr.)
89 Schummer. A.• R Nickel. and W. O. Sack. 1979.
Page 88 in The Viscera of the Domestic Mammals.
2nd rev. ed. Springer-Verlag. New York, NY.
90 Scott, 1. P. 1962. Introduction to animal behaviour.
Page 10 in The Behaviour of Domestic Animals. 1st
ed. Williams & Wilkins Co., Baltimore. MD.
91 Seath. D. M.• and G. D. Miller 1946. Effect of warm
weather on grazing perfonnance of milking cows. 1.
Dairy Sci. 29:199.
92 Sniffen, C. 1.• and L. E. Chase. 1981. Give your
cows something to chew on. Hoard's Dairyman 125:
671.
93 Sniffen, C. 1.• A. P. Hooper. 1. G. Welch, H. A.
Randy, and E. V. Thomas. 1986. Effect of hay
particle size on chewing behavior and rumen mat
consistency in steers. 1. Dairy Sci. 69{SuppI. I):
135.{Abstr.)
94 Speicher, 1. A. 1978. NC-119 Cooperative Regional
Project, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing.
95 Stobbs, T. H., and L. T. Cowper. 1972. Automatic
measurement of the jaw movements of dairy cows
during grazing and rumination. Trop. Grassl. 6:107.
96 Sudweeks, E. M., S. E. Law, L. O. Ely, M. E.
McCullough, and L. R. Sisko 1979. Development and
application of a roughage value index system for
formulating dairy rations. Univ. Georgia Coli. Agric.
Exp. Stn. Res. Bull. 238, Athens.
97 Syme. G. 1. 1974. Competitive orders as measures of
social dominance. Anim. Behav. 22:931.
98 Turner. F., and 1. Strek. 1981. Farm animal welfare:
some economic considerations. Int. 1. Stud. Anim.
Prob. 2:15.
99 Uhrbrock, R S. 1969. Bovine laterality. 1. Genet.
Psychol. 115:77.
100 Ulyatt, M. 1.• D. W. Dellow, A. Iohn, C.S.W. Reid,
and G. C. Waghorn. 1984. Contribution of chewing
during eating and rumination to the clearance of
digesta from the ruminoreticulum. Page 498 in Con-
trol of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants. L. P.
Milligan. W. L. Grovurn, and A. Dobson, ed. Reston
Book. Englewood Cliffs. NI.
101 Wagnon, K. A., and W. C. Ro11ins. 1972. Bovine
laterality. J. Anim. Sci. 35:486.
102 Whittlestone, W. G.• R Kilgour, H. DeLangen. and
D. Duirs. 1970. Behavioral stress and the cell count
of bovine milk. 1. Milk Food Techno!. 33:217.
103 Woodford, S. T., and M. R. Murphy. 1988. Effect of
forage physical form 00 chewing activity, dry matter
intake, and rumen function of dairy cows in early
1aetation. 1. Dairy Sci. 71:674.
104 Worthington. T., and S. Williams. 1975. A 24 hour
study of Beecher Arlinda Ellen (November 1. 1975).
Purdue Univ. Mimeo Anim. Sci. 403-Anim. Behav.,
West Lafayette, IN.