In recent years, an increasing number of farmers are choosing to keep their cows indoors throughout the year. Indoor housing of cows allows farmers to provide high-yielding individuals with a nutritionally balanced diet fit for their needs, and it has important welfare benefits for both cows and their calves, such as protection from predators, parasites, and exposure to extreme weather conditions. However, it also confronts cows and calves with a wide range of environmental challenges. These include abiotic environmental sources of stress (e.g., exposure to loud and aversive sound) and confinement-specific stressors (e.g., restricted movement and maintenance in abnormal social groups). Cows and calves that live indoors are also faced with the challenge of occupying long periods with a limited range of possible behavioral patterns. Environmental enrichment can improve biological functioning (measured as increased lifetime reproductive success, increased inclusive fitness, or a correlate of these such as improved health), help animals to cope with stressors in their surroundings, reduce frustration, increase the fulfillment of behavioral needs, and promote more positive affective states. Here, we review recent findings on the effect of social, occupational, physical, sensory, and nutritional enrichment on dairy cows and calves, and we assess the appropriateness and practicality of implementing different enrichment practices on commercial dairy farms. Some of the enrichment methods reviewed here may also be applied to those more extensive cattle-raising systems, where similar challenges occur.

Non-human animals often produce different types of vocalisations in negative and positive contexts (i.e. different valence), similar to humans, in which crying is associated with negative emotions and laughter is associated with positive ones. However, some types of vocalisations (e.g. contact calls, human speech) can be produced in both negative and positive contexts, and changes in valence are only accompanied by slight structural differences. Although such acoustically graded signals associated with opposite valence have been highlighted in some species, it is not known if conspecifics discriminate them, and if contagion of emotional valence occurs as a result. We tested whether domestic horses perceive, and are affected by, the emotional valence of whinnies produced by both familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics. We measured physiological and behavioural reactions to whinnies recorded during emotionally negative (social separation) and positive (social reunion) situations. We show that horses perceive acoustic cues to both valence and familiarity present in whinnies. They reacted differently (respiration rate, head movements, height of the head and latency to respond) to separation and reunion whinnies when produced by familiar, but not unfamiliar individuals. They were also more emotionally aroused (shorter inter-pulse intervals and higher locomotion) when hearing unfamiliar compared to familiar whinnies. In addition, the acoustic parameters of separation and reunion whinnies affected the physiology and behaviour of conspecifics in a continuous way. However, we did not find clear evidence for contagion of emotional valence. Horses are thus able to perceive changes linked to emotional valence within a given vocalisation type, similar to perception of affective prosody in humans. Whinnies produced in either separation or reunion situations seem to constitute acoustically graded variants with distinct functions, enabling horses to increase their apparent vocal repertoire size.

Animals allocate time and effort to a range of core (e.g., sleeping, feeding, drinking) and "luxury" (e.g., playing, exploring) activities. A luxury activity is characterized by low resilience and, as such, will be reduced when time or energy resources are limited, including under conditions of stress or discomfort. One seemingly luxurious activity available to cows on an increasing number of dairy farms is rubbing against an automated brush. The current study examined the effect of distance from food, heat load, and an intrusive medical procedure (i.e., artificial insemination and transrectal pregnancy examination) on the resilience of brush usage. The probability of using the brush decreased significantly when food was located distantly from the brush (mean=0.53) compared with days when food was located closer to the brush (mean=0.81). Brush usage also decreased at high temperature and humidity levels, with an average decrease of 0.062 brushing events for an increase of 1 temperature-humidity index unit (95% confidence interval=-0.93-0.030). In addition, a significant reduction of approximately 50% in brushing activity was observed on days of artificial insemination compared with the preceding 3d and the following 3d. These findings show that brush usage is a low resilience activity that reduces under a range of conditions. It may thus have the potential to be used as an indicator of a range of health and welfare problems in cows. Further research should be conducted to assess the sensitivity and specificity of this suggested tool and its possible contribution to the early detection of morbidity.

Metritis, a prevalent disease on dairy farms, is negatively associated with reproduction, milk production, and the welfare of cows. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of monitoring low-resilience activities (i.e., behaviors that typically decrease when energy resources are limited or when the cost involved in the activity increases; e.g., brush usage) in the early detection of metritis. Data on daily brush usage (i.e., proportion of cows using the brush and the duration of usage) were collected from 28 metritic and 60 control cows 28 d postpartum using an automated monitoring system developed for the purpose of this study. During the first week following partum (before clinical diagnosis), we found no differences in brush usage between sick and control cows. However, 8 to 21 d postpartum (the week of clinical diagnosis and the first week of medical treatment), a lower proportion of metritic cows used the brush compared with control cows (0.49 compared with 0.64, respectively, at brushes installed away from the feed bunk). In addition, the daily duration of brush usage was 50% lower among cows diagnosed with metritis compared with control cows 8 to 28 d postpartum (44 s/d compared with 88 s/d, respectively). The results of this study suggest that on-farm monitoring of low-resilience behaviors, combined with existing systems that monitor core behaviors (e.g., activity and rumination), may serve as an improved method for detecting events that compromise the welfare of animals. The slow recovery of low-resilience behaviors following medical treatment (wk 4) might serve as a particularly useful indicator of progress of recovery from disease.

Lameness in dairy cattle is a common welfare problem with significant economic implications. All too often, appropriate treatment is delayed or neglected due to insufficient detection of lame cows. Brush usage is considered a low-resilience activity; that is, one that typically decreases when energy resources are limited or when the cost involved in the activity increases, such as during sickness and stress. The aim of this study was to determine the association between brush usage and different degrees of lameness. Locomotion scores of 209 lactating Holstein dairy cows were collected individually once a week for 14 consecutive weeks, using a 5-point visual assessment scoring system (1 = nonlame, 2 = uneven gait, 3 = mild lameness, 4 = lameness, 5 = severe lameness). Daily brush usage was collected automatically from 3 cowsheds of similar size and structure located on a commercial dairy farm. In each of the 3 cowsheds, 2 brushes were installed, one next to the feed bunk, and the other away from the feed bunk (on the opposite side of the cowshed). Linear and generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to evaluate the association between locomotion scores and daily measures of brush usage. We found a significant interaction between locomotion score and brush location (near to/distant from feed bunk) on the daily proportion of cows using the brush at least once and on daily duration of brush usage. Specifically, we showed that lame and severely lame cows did not use brushes that were installed away from the feed bunk but continued to use brushes that were installed next to the feed bunk. Brush usage by cows with uneven gait (locomotion score 2) or with mild lameness (locomotion score 3) did not differ from that of nonlame cows (locomotion score 1). The results of this study suggest that monitoring of daily usage of brushes located away from the feed bunk could be a useful method for detecting lameness and severe lameness in dairy cows. However, the use of this method to detect mild lameness or cases of abnormal gait is, at this stage, less promising.