Can stealing cows distort the results of feeding trials Can stealing cows distort the results of feeding trials? An experiment for quantification and prevention of stealing feed by dairy cows from roughage intake control feeders  Salla Ruuska, Wilhelmiina Hämäläinen, Auvo Sairanen, Elina Juutinen, Leena Tuomisto, Mikko Järvinen, Jaakko Mononen  Applied Animal Behaviour Science  Volume 159, Pages 1-8 (October 2014) DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.08.001 Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. Terms and Conditions

Fig. 1 Additional barriers for preventing stealing. (A) A general view showing the row of troughs from the front in period P3. Long loop dividers (D1.2) were designed to prevent S-DISP and the neck rail to prevent S-GATE. (B) A feeding gate shown from the back. The metal sheet edge on the top of the gate was aimed at preventing S-GATE. (C) A simplified schematic drawing showing successful and unsuccessful loop divider. (i) The effective loop dividers (D1.2) in P3 were sufficiently long and left only a narrow space to enter the trough. (ii) On one trough, there was only one long loop divider (on the left, D1.2) the distance of which to a parallel handling gate (on the right) was 1.2m. This wider space enabled S-DISP. (iii) Short (D0.6) loop dividers in P2 did not help at all against S-DISP. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2014 159, 1-8DOI: (10.1016/j.applanim.2014.08.001) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. Terms and Conditions

Fig. 2 (A) The daily frequencies of stealing feed over a closed gate (S-GATE) in periods P1–P3: Silage (SIL) stealing by the partial mixed ration group (PMRG, n=9) and partial mixed ration (PMR) stealing by the silage group (SILG, n=10). (B) The daily sums of stolen feed (dry matter, DM) stealing over a closed gate for the PMR feed (SILG stealing) and the SIL feed (PMRG stealing). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2014 159, 1-8DOI: (10.1016/j.applanim.2014.08.001) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. Terms and Conditions

Fig. 3 (A) The daily frequencies of stealing feed by displacing a legitimate cow from trough (S-DISP) where SILG (n=10) and PMRG (n=9) animals were displaced. Note that reported frequencies are lower bounds because displacement stealing could only be detected if the displaced cow moved to another trough while the displacer cow was still at the trough. (B) S-DISP frequencies during periods 1–3 (P1–P3) of PMRG. Note that only five PMRG cows (cows 57, 4261, 38, 67 and 33), that were detected to be displaced from a feeder, are presented in the figure. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2014 159, 1-8DOI: (10.1016/j.applanim.2014.08.001) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. Terms and Conditions