Content uploaded by Henning Lyngsø Foged
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Henning Lyngsø Foged on Aug 29, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Dairy cow behaviour in relation to precision mineral
supplementation
Henning Lyngsø FOGED1, Organe Institute
An IoT system for precision mineral supplementation of dairy cows is invented to challenge
dysfunctional immune response, oxidative stress and an imbalanced energy metabolism among
dairy cows in the critical transition period from about three weeks before calving and until about
3 months after calving, assuming a certain correlation between these problems and dairy cows’
sufficient and daily supply of minerals and vitamins according their needs. Major pre-conditions
for the feasibility of precision mineral supplementation include cow’s willingness to eat extra
mineral feed supplements in amounts that corresponds a typical 20% gap between needs and
the intake with the Total Mixed Ration during the critical period. To clarify whether these
important pre-conditions for the system functions are met, analyses were made of dairy cows’
behaviour towards precision mineral supplementation, based on logged data during April 2019
in a Danish dairy herd. The system had logged 41,726 data records during the month for the
three feeders, including 2,259 successful feedings. The records were distributed on 142 different
cows, whereas there were 138 lactating cows in the herd on the milk recording date 25 April,
which is evidencing the cows’ general motivation and willingness to use the feeders and eat
more mineral feed supplements, even considering most cows were not given any supplements
when they visited the feeders. The average consumption for cows with access to eat up to 100
gram of mineral feed supplements per day was 68 gram per day for lactating cows and 94
gram per day for dry cows, corresponding to an average extra consumption of 8.8 kg mineral
feed supplements per cow per lactation. The consumed amount of mineral feed supplements is
satisfactory in relation to the theoretically estimated gap between need and supply of a typical
transition cow. Individual cows were recorded by the feeders averagely 24 times per day. Listed
cows with access to get mineral feed supplements from the feeders were recorded averagely 37
times per day with a variation from 31 to 44, whereas other cows were recorded averagely 19
times per days with a variation from 2 to 40 times. A cow is first recorded by the system when
the front flap is pushed open. No exact statistics were made, but the impression is that a cow
typically is recorded by the feeders about 6-10 times for each visit to the feeders, given current
system operations. Thus, cows with access to get supplements from the feeders are typically
visiting the feeders 3-5 times per day and they get minerals dosed upon almost every visit.
Cows without access to minerals are typically checking the feeders 2-3 times per day. Analysis of
the visit behaviour of six cows that were in heat during April 2019 did not show a clear relation
between visit behaviour and heat. Four of these cows were without access to get mineral feed
supplements and had a relatively low activity toward the feeders, and the appearance of heat
did not influence on that. One of the cows had an elevated activity on the day of insemination
and another the day after. The visit behaviour pattern in connection to heat and disease shall be
further analysed on a larger data set.
1 MSc Agricultural Sciences, Coordinator of IoF2020 Use Case 2.6 concerning “Precision Mineral Supplementation”
2
Background
The dairy production is worldwide dominated by large herds, kept all year-round in cubicle
stables and fed a total mixed ration (TMR). Typically, one TMR is used for all the lactating cows
and another for dry cows, even if the herd is divided into more groups (Foged, 2016). TMR
feeding is from many perspectives advantageous. It was developed around 1950 and is
according to Heinrichs (2016) now the most adopted method worldwide for feeding high-
productive, indoor-housed dairy cows.
In TMR, minerals and vitamins are mixed in a constant ratio to other feed ingredients and this
creates a situation of undersupply with minerals and vitamins in the mobilisation phase and in
the entire critical transition period – see figure 1. In that period, cows' intake of their ration is
averagely about 20%, with variations, under their nutritional needs for their production,
estimated on basis of their typical weight loss in that period. This undersupply causes a
dysfunctional immune response, oxidative stress and an imbalanced energy metabolism among
the cows in the critical period of the lactation and increases risks for loss-giving health and
reproduction problems Sordillo and Aitken, 2009). Affected cows have increased mortality rates,
apart from negative impacts on their milk yields.
On this background, an IoT (Internet of Things) system for precision mineral supplementation of
dairy cows in the critical transition period from about three weeks before calving and until about
three months after calving, called Pitstop+ (or PitstopPLUS) has been developed by
MicroFeeder.
Figure 1: Nutritive needs and feed intake of a dairy cow throughout a lactation. The blue area illustrates
the negative gap between nutritive needs and feed intake of a dairy cow in the critical transition period.
Practical tests of the system in commercial dairy farms started in November 2018. The technical
functions of the system, both with respect to software and hardware including dosing
aggregates, electronic components and the Pitstop+ Manager user interface, have been
satisfactory since March 2019. The feeder was in April 2019 considered to be advanced to
Technology Readiness Level 7 (TRL7) according EU’s scale, and a first zero-series produced for
making a first Minimum Viable Product (MVP) available shortly thereafter.
3
Pitstop+ is the innovative technology behind a Use Case concerning Precision Mineral
Supplementation of the Internet of Food and Farming 2020 (IoF2020)2 and has also been
supported by the Danish Innovation Fund and EU's Horizon2020 SME Instrument.
Figure 2 shows a principle sketch of the Pitstop+ system. Further presentation of the Pitstop+
system is given at https://www.pitstopplus.eu.
A fundamental pre-condition for the applicability of precision mineral supplementation is that
dairy cows are willing to use the feeders and eat mineral feed supplements in raw form, not
being mixed into other feeds such as a TMR. It is furthermore important to prove that the intake
of mineral feed supplements corresponds to an amount theoretically fills the gap between
needs and intake in the critical transition period, with reference to Figure 1, given normal
variations. A dairy cow would typically need 250 - 350 gram of mineral feed supplements
through their daily ration, divided on different sources, such as mineral mixtures, fodder salt,
fodder chalk and alike. If the daily feed intake averagely is 20% lower than the needs, with
variations, the cows would get an undersupply of 20% of the 250 - 350 gram of mineral feed
supplements per day, or 50-70 gram of mineral feed supplements too little every day, which is
the amount that the precision mineral supplementation system shall compensate for. In addition
to the 50-70 gram of mineral feed supplements, there could be a wish to add extra, specific
feed additives with known effects for transition cows, such as choline chloride, Oceanfeed
Bovine or other.
The purpose of the analyses that are reported in this article is to clarify to which extent these
fundamental pre-conditions are met by the Pitstop+ system.
Pitstop+ is a cloud-based Internet of Things (IoT) technology for
precision mineral supplementation. The Pitstop+ system consists
of Pitstop feeders + electronics and software:
A. The cows have electronic ear tags in their left or right ear,
based on HDX or FDX ISO standards.
B. A master unit do the main computing and handles the
communication; wireless LoRa-based communication with
the feeders, and communication to the Cloud via wired
connection to a router. The Master Unit holds information
about the cows, their daily allowance of mineral
supplements, the already eaten amount, etc.
C. The feeders are equipped with RFID antennas to identify
the cows, slave units that communicates with the master
and controls the function of the dosing aggregates - one
or two per feeder.
D. Data is stored in “The Cloud”.
E. The user interface is the Pitstop+ Manager Progressive
Web App (WPA) app which e.g. handles algorithms for
alarm and observation cows.
F. Monitoring, remote-controlled software updating, and
analysis of "big data" for patterns related to yield response,
health, climate, geography, etc.
Figure 2: Principle sketch of a Pitstop+ system.
2 https://www.iof2020.eu/trials/dairy/precision-mineral-feeding
4
Materials and methods
Testbed description
The analysis is based on data from the dairy farm where tests have been made for the longest
time. The farm had 152.5 Jersey cows during the last milk recording year with an average yield
of 10,200 kg ECM, or 800 kg fat and protein. There were 138 lactating cows on 25th April, the
date of milk recording. All lactating cows are kept in one large group, and two Pitstop+ feeders
are placed in that group. Older, close-up dry cows are kept in a box with typically 5-7 cows at a
time the last three weeks before planned calving, and one Pitstop+ feeder is placed with them.
Lactating cows are fed a maize silage dominated Total Mixed Ration (TMR), prepared according
the principles of compact feeding and being fully mineralised based on NORFOR3 norms and an
optimisation according needs of the cows when they are 80 days after calving. The daily ration
is optimised to contain 280 gram of mineral feed supplements and 30 gram fodder salt per cow
per day. Dry cows are given another maize-based mixed ration, with the basic minerals added
manually as topdressing with 200 gram per cow per day. Close-up pregnant heifers are kept in
another group, not having access to a Pitstop+ feeder.
Mineral feed supplements used
Two special mineral feed supplements developed by Vilomix4, one for the lactating cows and
another for the close-up dry cows were used. The main characteristics of these are that they are
mixtures, they contain a variety of feed additives with proven effect for the cow groups in
question, including ProGut Rumen for dry cows and Ronozyme Rumistar for both groups, as
well as yeasts, chelated minerals, and natural sources of selenium and vitamins. The taste is
improved by use of flavour, and the physical properties includes low hygroscopicity and a good
ability to flow to the dosing aggregates. 15% dextrose is added with the intent to improve
palatability, energy content and physical properties. Both lactating and dry cows were given the
possibility to eat up to 100 gram of the mentioned mineral feed supplements per cow per day in
average, for dry cows in the period from 21 days before expected calving, and for lactating cows
from calving and until 98 days after calving.
Pitstop+ Manager and system operations
Cows were listed in the Pitstop+ Manager app manually by a quarterly procedure. A precise
listing of dry cows is challenging as the actual calving date normally differ from the planned
calving date, and because cows come in and out of that group quite frequently. There was no
procedure for removing cows that for various reasons had been culled in the transition period.
According settings in Pitstop+ Manager, the maximally allowed dosing to both lactating cows
and dry cows was set to 100 gram per day, whereas the cows could accumulate mineral feed
supplements for up to a rolling period of seven days. The system was calibrated to give 28 gram
per feeding in the case of lactating cows, and 50 gram per feeding in the case of dry cows.
3 http://www.norfor.info/
4 https://vilomix.dk/
5
The analysis is largely based on data from a MS SQL table that contains archived records. The
records comprise information about the ear tag ID, the visit time, the amount of dosed feed and
type of feed, and a code for the result. Most results are rejections. Some rejections are due to
not-listed cows, meaning the cows were not among those with access to receive extra mineral
feed supplement. Other reasons for rejection include that the cows came back too soon after
another cow were given feed, because the cows had exceeded the maximal number of feedings
per 24 hours, or because she already had eaten her allocated ration. The records for April 2019
were copied to an MS EXCEL file and cleaned for data from other farms before analysis.
Figure 2: PC screenshot of Pitstop+ Manager’s dashboard from 21 April 2019.
Used terms
In the analysis, we distinguish between visits, recordings and feedings. A visit is a cows’ physical
visit to a feeder. A visit would typically lead to a number of records being logged in the
database, as the cow could be identified more times during the same visit, most often with only
a few seconds internval. The cow is not standing still during a visit, but could stick its head into
the feeder more times before she decides to go away. A feeding is a recording with an activity
code 1, meaning a feeding was done. A feeding can be one or more doses of mineral feed
supplements, according settings in Pitstop+ Manager. One dose is the amount of mineral feed
supplements that is relased with the operation of the auger of the dosing aggregate for 5
seconds.
Results of analyses
Recording times
Table 1 shows the total number of records during April 2019. It is noted that feeder #6 is placed
in the same large group of lactating cows as feeder #2, but feeder #2 has more than 8 times as
many records as #6. Feeder #2 is placed so that most cows pass the feeder when they return
from the milking parlour.
MicroFeeder recommends one feeder per 25 cows that use it, equivalent to about one feeder
per 75 cows in the herd + at least one feeder for the close-up dry cows. It is otherwise feared
6
that there could be too much hassle around the feeders and that the low-ranking cows would
be afraid to use the feeders. In the given herd, there were 29 (21 + 5 + 3) lactating cows with
access to get extra mineral feed supplements on 21 April 2019, as seen from figure 1, and we
consider this number to be representative for the whole month. It is not clear, how large the
effect of having two feeders rather than one feeder among the app. 130 lactating cows in this
herd in April 2019 would be, and this should be analysed further.
Table 1: Number of records during April 2019.
All records Feedings
Consumption of
mineral feed
supplements for
listed cows Records
per
feeding
Number
% Number
% Kg in
total
Gram per
cow per
day
Records in total (34 cows*) 41.726
100
2259
100
73,43
72
18
Feeder #1 (5 dry cows*) 2.318
5,6
283
12,5
14,15
94
8
Feeder #2 (29 lactating cows*)
35.197
84,4
1655
73,3
49,65
68
21
Feeder #6 (29 lactating cows*)
4.210
10,1
321
14,2
9,63
68
13
* The indicated number of cows is based on Figure 2, whereas the number changed during April, especially for the
dry cows, but the number of listed cows at a given date is not logged.
Timing of recordings
Figure 3 shows the timing of recordings by the three feeders during April 2019. The number of
daily recordings varies from 362 on 7 April to 2,463 on 12 April. From 2 to 7 April is seen a
gradual declining number of recordings. In these days, the recordings by feeder #6 stopped
completely, and we anticipated this was due to a technical problem with that feeder, wherefore
the antenna and the slave unit was replaced in the feeder on 12 April. As Figure 3 shows, the
recordings had, however gone up again already in the days 8 to 10 April.
The reason for the sudden drop in recordings on the 22 April is not clear. We have earlier
experienced a fallout of the power supply to feeder #2. It is connected to the power supply of a
rotating brush, which from time to time is disordered, and a power cut for some hours to the
most active feeder #2 could explain such an incident.
7
Figure 3: Total number of recordings on the days of April 2019.
Figure 4 shows that the number of feedings went up in the days 7 to 10 April, meaning before
the slave unit and antenna was replaced in feeder #6, which could be an indication that nothing
was technically wrong with that slave and antenna. The reason for the relatively low number of
feedings in the first week of April is not clear. It could be due to normal variations, to minerals
building bridge and avoiding a free flow of it to the dosing aggregates, or that one or more
feeders had been emptied.
Figure 4: Total number of feedings and visits per feeding on days during April 2019.
Figure 5 shows the distribution of the recordings during the 24 hours cycle. It is clear from the
figure that the recordings, and thereby the activity towards the feeders follows the general
activity level in the stable.
8
Figure 5: Number of recorded visits to the three feeders in April 2019, distributed over the 24 hours.
Figure 6 shows that the number of feedings follows the same pattern. 62% or 1,390 feedings
happened in the 12-hour period from 8:00 in the morning till 20:00 in the evening. The activity is
lowest in the first 3 hours after midnight, and almost zero between 2:00 and 3:00, where the
lights in the stable are switched off.
Figure 6 illustrates that the number of feedings shows the same pattern as the number of
recordings.
Figure 6: Number of feedings from the three feeders in April 2019, distributed over the 24 hours.
The peak activity is in the 16th hour, meaning between 15:00 and 16:00. This is in the test herd
the normal time of feeding and for the afternoon milking to begin, and a period where all cows
are active, standing or walking around in the stable. The peak in the 9th hour, meaning between
8:00 and 9:00 is more difficult to explain. Cows are milked in the morning from 5 to 7 and the
only fixed routine between 8:00 and 9:00 is to push up feed.
9
Activities of individual cows
For investigating the visit behaviour of individual cows, five cows were selected randomly by the
row number of the excel file data record set. In this way, cows no. 2767, 2723, 2436, 2413, and
2719 were selected for further analyses.
The detailed visit data for these cows is shown in Annex 1.
It turned out that cow no. 2436 calved on 4 April, and she started to visit the feeders on 9 April
after having been kept with her calf for the first days after calving – this period of normally 4
days was in this case a bit prolonged as the cow suffered from hypocalcaemia. There is no
recorded feeding from 1 to 4 April, because the cow was placed in the calving box in these days,
without access to a Pitstop+ feeder.
Figure 7: Number of feedings and visits to the feeders per feeding for cow no. 2436 during the days of April
2019.
Cow no. 2767 was a close-up dry cow for the most of April but calved on 22 April and appeared
among the lactating cows, where it started to visit the feeders on 30 April. The curves show
large variations between 9 April and 22 April, because the planned calving date was 9 April, and
the recorded feedings from 9 to 22 April were fake, as the Pitstop+ system automatically had
considered the cow to be in the group of lactating cows.
10
Figure 8: Number of feedings and records per feeding for cow no. 2767 during the days of April 2019.
With round figures, both cow no. 2436 and cow no. 2767 visited the feeders around 40 times
per day, and received 4-5 feedings per day, including the fake feedings for cow no. 2767,
meaning they were recorded 9-10 times per feeding.
Figure 9: Number of records for cow no. 2723, 2413 and 2719 during the days of April 2019.
Cow 2723 was situated in mid to late lactation, and despite she did not have access to get
minerals from the feeders, she visited them anyway every day during the whole month, with an
average number of 14 records per day, varying from 2 to 39.
Cow 2413 calved on 6 December 2018, meaning she had already in beginning of March passed
the period, where she could get extra mineral feed supplements from the feeders, and she was
in April 2019 still in the first half of her lactation period. The cow was recorded by the feeders
11
from 0 to 182 times per day, with an average of 39, during the whole April month. The herd
owner could not give a likely reason for the high number of recordings on 10 April.
Cow 2719 was expected to calve on 31 July 2019, meaning she was situated at the end of the
lactation. She was recorded averagely 39 times per day, exactly like the case for cow no. 2413.
The variation was from 0 to 102 records per day.
Possible impact of heat
Heat does normally mean an elevated activity level. The herd owner identified six cows that
were inseminated during April 2019, randomly picked from the insemination registration book in
the stable office. Annex 2 show the number of records for these cows during the month.
The day of insemination must be considered the peak of the heat period, whereas it is less likely
that the peak heat appears on the day before or after the insemination day.
Four of the cows had a low visit activity to the Pitstop+ feeders, compared to the randomly
selected five cows (Annex 1), and they were only recorded from 2 to 7 times per day. The
appearance of heat did not influence their low visit behaviour.
However, cow no. 2718 had almost the double number of recordings on the insemination day,
and cow no. 2636 had three times as many recordings on the day after the insemination day.
Figure 10: Number of recordings for cow no. 2636 during the days of April 2019. The red marker indicates
the day of insemination and the yellow the highest activity level for the cow during the entire month.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 6 11 16 21 26
NUMBER
DATE, APRIL 2019
12
Figure 11: Number of recordings for cow no. 2718 during the days of April 2019. The red marker indicates
the day of insemination. The number of records for that day was almost the double of the average for the
whole month and the highest in the 11-days period from 13 to 24 April.
Although the recordings do not show a clear relation between heat and cow activity towards
the Pitstop+ feeders, the data could indicate such a relation for cows no. 2636 and 2718. The
possible relation should be explored further on a larger dataset.
All data
The following Figure 12 shows a box and whisker chart with the timing of individual cows’ visits
to the feeders during the dates of April 2019, including the chronology in quartiles, and the “x”
sign the meridian of the visits.
According Figure 12, 142 individual cows have visited the feeders. Most cows are persistent in
the use of the precision mineral supplementation system. Some cows stopped visiting the
feeders during the month, which could be caused by culling or removal to the calving section
without feeders. Other cows started using the feeders during the month, which similarly could
have its reason in their entering of the herd via the calving section, where they are kept for a
minimum of 4 days. Also, pregnant heifers are not having access to use the feeders before they
have calved and are included in the group of lactating cows. No further analyses were made,
but it is assumed that cows with few and single visits to the feeders are some without access to
receive mineral feed supplements in the feeders.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
NUMBER
DATE, APRIL 2019
13
Figure 12: Box and whisker chart with the timing of individual cows’ visits to the feeders during April 2019.
14
Conclusions
Preliminary analyses of the behaviour of dairy cows towards precision mineral supplementation,
based on logged recordings from a herd of Jersey cows during April 2019 gives reason for the
following main conclusions and results:
A Pitstop+ Manager snapshot from 21 April shows that 75% of the 34 cows visited the
feeders within the last 24 hours, and 82% within the last week. This means that six of 34
cows were designated as alarm cows and two as observation cows on that specific date.
However, after checking the alarm and observation cows with the herd owner, it was
clarified that three of the alarm cows were culled, one had lost its electronic ear tag and
one had problems walking. The observation cows were designated as such due to
calvings happening at other dates than planned and their 4-5 days stay in a calving box
after calving without access to use a Pitstop+ feeder.
Given this clarification, we can conclude that probably all listed cows with access to get
extra mineral feed supplements from the feeders has used their opportunity for that. The
analysis is evidencing a high motivation of transition dairy cows for eating extra mineral
feed supplements, although this is provided from feeders in a raw form, not mixed into
other feeds.
The average consumption for cows with access to eat up to 100 gram of mineral feed
supplements was 68 gram per day for lactating cows and 94 gram per day for dry cows,
corresponding to an average extra consumption of 8.8 kg mineral feed supplements per
cow per lactation. The consumed amount of mineral feed supplements corresponds to
the theoretically estimated gap between need and supply of a typical transition cow.
Analysis of the behaviour of five randomly selected cows plus six cows selected due to
insemination during April 2019 shows the following:
Individual cows were recorded averagely 24 times per day. Cows with access to get
mineral feed supplements from the feeders were recorded averagely 37 times per day
with a variation from 31 to 44, whereas other cows were recorded averagely 19 times per
days with a variation from 2 to 40 times.
No exact statistics were made, but the impression is that a cow typically is recorded by
the feeders about 6-10 times within a few seconds for each visit to the feeders. Thus,
listed cows with access to get supplements from the feeders are typically visiting the
feeders 3-5 times per day and they get minerals dosed upon almost every visit. Cows
without access to minerals are typically checking the feeders 2-3 times per day.
The dosing in the test period, 28 gram per feeding for the lactating cows and 50 gram
per feeding for dry cows, seems to work fine and fit well with the visit frequency of the
cows when the maximally allowed average dosing was set to 100 gram per cow per day.
Analysis of the visit behaviour of six cows that were in heat during April 2019 did not
show a clear relation between visit behaviour and heat. Four of the cows were without
access to get mineral feed supplements and had a relatively low activity toward the
15
feeders, and the appearance of heat did not influence on that. One of the cows had an
elevated activity on the day of insemination and another one the day after. The visit
behaviour pattern in connection to heat shall be further analysed.
Discussion
Jersey cows are known to be curious by nature, and it may be that cows of other dairy breeds
would behave otherwise.
The list of cows with access to extra mineral feed supplements is in a herd of this size changed
almost daily, along with cows entering the period where they can get close-up mineral feed,
and along with cows leaving the transition period, or being culled. The Pitstop+ system is not
logging movements on the cow list. We are therefore not certain that the screenshot from 21
April is fully representative for the entire month.
The subjective impression, based on experience with precision mineral supplementation, is that
lactating cows eats more mineral feed supplements than dry cows, which is opposite to the
analysis results.
142 cows were recorded during April 2019 while the herd alone had 138 lactating cows on the
milk recording day 25 April. Cows are continuously entering the herd as heifers that have just
calved and leaving the herd as cows that are culled. We have not analysed animal movements
in detail, and can therefore not be sure, how many cows that maximally could have been
recorded during April 2019.
The analysis is based on a relatively small data set from alone one herd and alone one month,
and due to this and the other mentioned conditions, its conclusions should alone be regarded
as indications until similar analyses are done more in-depth on larger datasets from more herds.
16
References and further information
DMS Dyreregistrering – a web platform for Danish farmers access to record, view and edit data
about their herd, animal registration, milk recording, feeding, reproduction, etc. The
system is accessed via https://www.landmand.dk.
Foged, Henning Lyngsø. 2016. Praksis omkring mineraltildeling kan forbedres (In English: There
is room for improvement of mineral supplementation practices). Bovi, October 2016: 28:31.
Heinrichs, Jud. 2016. Total Mixed Rations for Dairy Cows. https://extension.psu.edu/total-mixed-
rations-for-dairy-cows
Sordillo L.M. & S. L. Aitken. 2009. Impact of oxidative stress on the health and immune function
of dairy cattle. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2009 Mar 15;128(1-3):104-9. doi: 10.1016 /
j.vetimm.2008.10.305. Epub 2008 Oct 17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19027173
17
Annex 1: Data for randomly selected, individual cows’ visits and feedings
Day
2436
Calving 04-04-2019
2767
Calving 22-04-2019
2723
Calving 30-
10-2018
2413
Calving 06-
12-2018
2719
Calving 31-
07-2019
Recordings Feedings Recordings
/ feeding Recordings Feedings Recordings
/ feeding Recordings Recordings Recordings
1 0 0 38 3 13 17 18 65
2 0 0 70 7 10 16 60 26
3 0 0 38 4 10 0 15 60
4 0 0 29 3 10 12 25 26
5 0 0 30 3 10 2 11 69
6 0 0 85 8 11 6 21 20
7 0 0 7 2 4 5 5 0
8 0 0 47 6 8 8 0 42
9 14 2 7 26 4 7 10 99 17
10 46 4 12 61 6 10 15 182 24
11 43 3 14 20 4 5 20 45 103
12 27 3 9 5 3 2 5 87 66
13 34 4 9 63 5 13 6 10 79
14 18 4 5 75 5 15 15 17 76
15 37 3 12 53 6 9 4 69 52
16 43 6 7 46 8 6 36 9 36
17 8 3 3 20 6 3 37 34 51
18 59 8 7 69 8 9 39 31 27
19 19 3 6 47 3 16 8 26 4
20 39 5 8 53 6 9 8 4 31
18
Day
2436
Calving 04-04-2019
2767
Calving 22-04-2019
2723
Calving 30-
10-2018
2413
Calving 06-
12-2018
2719
Calving 31-
07-2019
Recordings Feedings Recordings
/ feeding Recordings Feedings Recordings
/ feeding Recordings Recordings Recordings
21 37 3 12 42 6 7 10 59 66
22 19 6 3 0 0 7 25 7
23 41 7 6 0 0 15 100 31
24 42 3 14 0 0 19 12 19
25 48 4 12 0 0 25 31 45
26 35 2 18 0 0 13 28 32
27 60 5 12 0 0 3 30 40
28 54 3 18 0 0 16 39 21
29 31 2 16 0 0 14 37 28
30 59 6 10 3 3 1 20 30 8
Average
37 4 10 44 5 9 14 39 39
19
Annex 2: Data for six cows that were inseminated during April 2019
Day
2336
Inseminated
02-04-2019
2492
Inseminated
02-04-2019
2749
Inseminated
17-04-2019
2718
Inseminated
18-04-2019
2541
Inseminated
21-04-2019
2636
Inseminated 02-04-2019
Recordings Recordings Recordings Recordings Recordings Recordings Feedings Recordings
/ feeding
1 0 0 2 26 8 12 0
2 0 0 2 36 10 0 0
3 4 0 11 18 0 18 0
4 4 0 2 35 7 0 0
5 0 3 39 16 0 0 0
6 1 0 9 1 0 0 0
7 4 0 4 9 14 0 0
8 5 0 0 3 11 0 0
9 8 0 18 10 12 35 1 35
10 6 35 5 51 8 79 5 16
11 0 22 8 36 8 11 1 11
12 0 5 11 95 32 76 5 15
13 0 1 1 53 15 32 5 6
14 2 2 1 56 0 45 6 8
15 3 5 8 6 0 50 7 7
16 0 14 0 64 0 77 8 10
17 0 12 3 28 3 29 3 10
18 0 1 0 77 6 25 4 6
19 0 0 4 34 5 85 5 17
20 0 0 1 41 0 70 7 10
20
Day
2336
Inseminated
02-04-2019
2492
Inseminated
02-04-2019
2749
Inseminated
17-04-2019
2718
Inseminated
18-04-2019
2541
Inseminated
21-04-2019
2636
Inseminated 02-04-2019
Recordings Recordings Recordings Recordings Recordings Recordings Feedings Recordings
/ feeding
21 1 1 1 18 0 40 5 8
22 0 0 0 4 2 22 4 6
23 0 2 7 42 9 50 6 8
24 13 11 0 34 0 18 2 9
25 0 0 4 95 0 12 1 12
26 0 0 9 76 10 24 1 24
27 1 0 1 52 8 21 2 11
28 2 0 21 48 25 91 7 13
29 0 0 6 89 2 0 0
30 0 0 18 42 11 0 0
Average
2 4 7 40 7 31 3 12
