@article {3672,
	title = {Does the source of drinking water (bore vs town supply) influence water intake, milk production and cow drinking preferences?},
	journal = {New Zealand Journal of Animal Science and Production},
	volume = {82},
	year = {2022},
	month = {01/2022},
	pages = {33-38},
	address = {Online},
	abstract = {<p>Cows are sensitive to drinking water quality, however, little is known about the perception of bore water that sometimes contain high concentrations of natural contaminants, such as iron and manganese. Our aim was to investigate if providing drinking water from town supply compared with unfiltered bore water would influence water intake, milk production and cow preferences. Four groups of cows (50 cows/group) milked once-a-day in autumn were offered either town supply water or unfiltered bore water for two weeks, before changing treatment for another two weeks in a cross-over design. Group water intake and individual milk production was measured daily (n=4 groups/treatment). Water source did not influence water intake or milk production (P>=0.641). A preference study on a subset of animals was undertaken after the initial trial period in which two groups of cows (n=2, 20 cows/ group) had free access to both water sources simultaneously for three days. Cows preferred to drink the unfiltered bore water compared to town supply (descriptive data). It is likely that the cows{\textquoteright} previous experience with drinking the unfiltered bore water influenced the results. The cows may also have perceived components of the town supply aversive compared to the bore water to which they were accustomed.</p>
},
	issn = {1176-5283},
	author = {K, Sch{\"u}tz and Huddart F and Hardie E}
}
@article {3672,
	title = {Do cows with facial eczema feel pain?},
	journal = {New Zealand Journal of Animal Science and Production},
	volume = {81},
	year = {2021},
	month = {01/2022},
	pages = {122-128},
	address = {Online},
	abstract = {Facial eczema (FE) negatively influences production and welfare. One consequence of FE is reduced feed intake, which could possibly be a consequence of cows experiencing nausea or pain or both. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of cortisol and acute phase protein (APP) concentrations (indirect measures of pain) with gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT) and bile acid concentrations (indirect measures of liver damage) in dairy cattle. Blood samples were collected from 2,080 lactating dairy cattle from seven farms that were affected by FE and located in the North Island of New Zealand. Blood samples were analysed for GGT, bile acid, cortisol and APP (serum ferroxidase (SF), serum amyloid A and haptoglobin) concentrations. Data were analysed using best subsets linear regression including farm as a factor and various other prediction variables. There was a significant positive relationship between GGT and bile acid (P<0.001, Adjusted R2=37.3\%), SF (P<0.001, Adjusted R2=27.4\%), and haptoglobin (P<0.001, Adjusted R2=1.9\%) concentrations, but not with cortisol. The positive association between GGT concentrations and APP (SF, haptoglobin) may partly reflect the degree of liver damage caused by sporidesmin intoxication, however, it could also suggest that animals with higher GGT levels are experiencing systemic inflammation and potentially pain.


Keywords: acute phase proteins; facial eczema; gamma-glutamyl transferase; inflammation; pain},
	issn = {1176-5283},
	author = {Sutherland M and Huddart F and Cox NR and Cuttance E and Sch{\"u}tz K}
}
@article {3672,
	title = {Relationship between gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) concentrations and lying behaviour in dairy cattle},
	journal = {New Zealand Journal of Animal Science and Production},
	volume = {80},
	year = {2020},
	month = {09/2020},
	pages = {24-28},
	address = {Online},
	abstract = {Facial eczema (FE) in livestock results in liver damage, impaired production and welfare, and is a significant problem in New
Zealand. The pathology of this disease has been described in sheep and cattle, however, few studies have investigated the behavioural
response to FE and whether behaviour can be used as an indicator of FE. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate lying
behaviour of dairy cattle with FE. Six farms located in the North Island of New Zealand with confirmed cases of FE were selected
(n=391 lactating cows). Blood samples were collected to analyse gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) concentrations and three
days of continuous lying behaviour were recorded using accelerometers. There was no correlation between GGT concentrations
and either lying times (r2=0.0008) or lying bout frequency (r2=0.0008) when all animals were included in the analysis. In addition,
lying times (means{\textpm}SEM: Low: 9{\textpm}0.1 h/d, High: 9{\textpm}0.1 h/d; P=0.347) and lying bout frequency (means{\textpm}SEM: Low: 8{\textpm}0.2 no.
bouts/d, High: 8{\textpm}0.2 no. bouts/d; P=0.149) did not differ between pair-matched cows with Low (<= 89 IU/L) or High (>= 123 IU/L)
GGT concentrations. Therefore, it does not appear as though lying behaviour, measured using accelerometers, is associated with
GGT levels in dairy cattle.

Keywords: facial eczema; gamma-glutamyl transferase; lying behaviour},
	issn = {1176-5283},
	author = {Sutherland M and Huddart F and Lowe G and Cox N and Cuttance E and Sch{\"u}tz K}
}
@article {3672,
	title = {To train or not to train heifers to the milking parlour prior to calving? That is the question for New Zealand dairy farmers},
	journal = {New Zealand Journal of Animal Science and Production},
	volume = {78},
	year = {2018},
	month = {07/2018},
	pages = {177-182},
	address = {Lincoln},
	abstract = {A survey was conducted to identify: 1) the number of dairy farms that train their heifers to the milking parlour prior to calving,
2) the reasons why farmers chose to train or not and 3) what training methods farmers use. The questionnaire was sent to 250
randomly selected dairy farmers within New Zealand. Of the 93 respondents, 52\% trained their heifers to the milking parlour prior
to calving and 48\% did not. Of those that trained, 79\% trained to reduce stress levels, 13\% to increase milk production and 19\%
to reduce risk of injury to animal/farmer. Conversely, of the farmers that did not train their heifers to the milking parlour prior to
calving, 56\% reported that {\textquotedblleft}cows teach the heifers{\textquotedblright}, 24\% reported that they were too busy and 31\% indicated that training did
not work. The main methods of training included walking heifers through the milking parlour, holding heifers in the parlour and
exposing them to people. The results from this survey provide interesting information regarding the motivation of farmers to train
(or not train) heifers to the milking parlour prior to calving and what training methods are used. Information gained from this
survey can inform the direction of future research so that science-based farmer friendly recommendations for heifer training can
be developed.},
	issn = {1176-5283},
	author = {Sutherland M and White T and Chen K and Hempstead M and Huddart F}
}
