# Enhancing movement opportunity to support behavioral needs for movement-restricted cattle through different conditions of access to exercise

Marjorie Cellier, Elise Shepley, Nadège Aigueperse, Marianne Villettaz

Robichaud, Elsa Vasseur

► To cite this version:

Marjorie Cellier, Elise Shepley, Nadège Aigueperse, Marianne Villettaz Robichaud, Elsa Vasseur. Enhancing movement opportunity to support behavioral needs for movement-restricted cattle through different conditions of access to exercise. Scientific Reports, 2025, 15 (1), pp.5917. 10.1038/s41598-025-89891-4. hal-04970864

HAL Id: hal-04970864

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04970864v1

Submitted on 28 Feb 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

OPEN

# Enhancing movement opportunity to support behavioral needs for movement-restricted cattle through different conditions of access to exercise

Marjorie Cellier<fnref n="1" />, Elise Shepley<fnref n="2" />, Nadège Aigueperse³, Marianne Villettaz Robichaud⁴ & Elsa Vasseur<fnref n="1" />✉

Intensification in animal production has led to increased indoor confinement for animals, limiting opportunities to meet some behavioral needs such as exploration and locomotion. This poses a crucial question as to how these restrictions can be alleviated by providing additional space designed with that specific purpose in mind. Working with cows housed in tie-stalls, our study aimed to: (1) quantify how providing an exercise area outside the normal housing environment affects locomotor behavior; (2) evaluate how exercise access conditions can contribute to increase locomotor benefits for animals; (3) investigate cows' time budgets during exercise access. Six trials involving different exercise access conditions (indoor vs. outdoor, outing duration, exercise area size, type of ground surface) enrolled 141 tie-stall-housed lactating Holsteins. A meta-analysis compared daily steps for exercise vs. non-exercise treatments, while generalized linear mixed models determined exercise conditions' impact on daily steps. Providing 1-hour exercise access increased daily steps by 53% (304 more steps), influenced by type of access (167 more steps outdoor vs. indoor), larger space (146 more steps) and longer outings (84 more steps). Cows spent 50-85% of exercise time idle, exploring (5-20%) and socializing (5%). Our results highlight the significant impact of 1 h daily exercise on tied cattle.

**Keywords** Behavioral needs, Locomotor behavior, Movement opportunity, Steps

In recent decades, the animal production sector, including the dairy industry, has undergone an intensification characterized by changes in animal housing, notably an increase in indoor housing<fnref n="1" /> with limited to non-existent outdoor access in most high-input-high-output milk production systems. Arguments put forward for the use of such housing systems are, among others, feed rationing, and in the case of tie-stall housing, individualized care and reduced risk of agonistic behaviors<fnref n="2" />. This change has been met with public criticism by a society increasingly concerned about farm animal welfare and the way animals are maintained in indoor housing systems³. What is missing from most stakeholders' arguments on the matter, however, is the cow's experience from her own perspective. As we cannot ask her directly, other means must be utilized in order to shed light on this important stakeholder within this debate. How does she use her home environment, and what utility does its features have in her eyes? Can new elements be introduced to mitigate the negative effects of certain housing systems (e.g., hard and slippery flooring in free-stalls, lack of movement opportunities in tie-stalls), or bring novel positive features? If so, how does she perceive and make use of these elements? We often rely on what is known as environmental enrichment to add to the captive environment. This is a broad term that covers any change or addition to the living environment or routine of an individual with the goal of providing more opportunities for choice, agency, and natural behaviors⁴. The effectiveness and utility of any enrichment can then only be evaluated through the perception of the individual and will thus depend on how the cow perceives and uses what is provided to her⁴. Moreover, evidence suggests that the greatest positive benefit to animals comes from additions that fulfil existing

<footnote n="1">¹Department of Animal Science, McGill University, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec H9X 3V9, Canada.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA. ³Université Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, Saint Genès-Champanelle 63122, France. ⁴Faculté de médecine vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, 3200 rue Sicotte, St-Hyacinthe, Québec J2S 2M2, Canada. ✉email: elsa.vasseur@mcgill.ca</footnote>
behavioral needs⁵, further emphasizing our need to understand the cow's existing needs and perception of her environment to modify current housing and management systems towards more welfare-friendly options.

One such need impacted by the increase of indoor housing is the need for movement and particularly the need for locomotion. The improvement of movement opportunities via the regular provision of exercise area access, represents a potential avenue to meet a cow's need for movement, as well as a variety of other natural behaviors not available to her in a restrictive home environment⁶. For example, cows provided with regular access to an exercise area get more opportunities to engage in social interactions, to explore their environment, and to groom hard-to-reach body parts such as their hindquarters⁷. Movement opportunity can be defined as the level and ease of movement provided to an animal in its (housing) environment⁸. This includes the number of steps achieved by the cow⁹, freedom of movement, and locomotor behaviors⁸. The average number of daily steps taken by cows, differs across housing systems: it ranges from 700 steps/day in tie-stall housing to 4000 steps/day in pasture-based systems, with zero-grazing free-stall housing sitting in-between at 1500 steps/day (reviewed by⁹). These quantitative data support the idea that systems offering more opportunity of movement can positively influence the level of locomotor behavior performed by a cow (i.e. the cow will make use of the additional space provided). However, new scientific knowledge is necessary relating to the benefits of providing exercise access and the conditions of exercise access, like outdoor or indoor access, required to enhance such benefits. In particular, we need to know if and how cows actually use the exercise area as a movement opportunity to meet their locomotion needs by increasing their locomotor activities.

Moreover, cow motivation to engage in locomotor behaviors such as walking, trotting, or running has been studied both in individuals kept in tie-stalls given access to an exercise area¹⁰ and in those usually housed on pasture (summer) or free-stalls (winter) kept tied for the duration of the experiment¹¹. Though being tied reduced locomotor behavior for these cows, when additionally provided with daily access to an exercise area (e.g., indoor exercise area, outdoor paddock, or pasture), they showed an increase in locomotor behaviors¹⁰,¹¹. However, it is not known to what extent access to an exercise area for cows continuously living in a movement-restrictive environment (i.e., cows that are not used to moving) affects their level of locomotor behavior, most notably in terms of number of steps. It is further unknown how the conditions of access to exercise, such as the duration of access or the size of the exercise area, can influence these outcomes.

Our study aimed to (1) quantify how providing movement opportunity outside of the stall impacts the locomotor behavior of cows housed in one of the most restrictive environments, i.e., tie-stalls; (2) evaluate which conditions of access to exercise opportunities can be provided to cows to ensure that they make the most of increased movement opportunities, including a comparison of: indoor vs. outdoor, duration of outing, size of the exercise area; and (3) investigate which other behaviors cows perform when granted access to an exercise area.

We hypothesized that regardless of the specific conditions, providing access to exercise would lead cows to take more steps than when confined to their stalls. We also hypothesized that cows would take a similar number of steps regardless of the conditions of access to the exercise area and that it is the overall experience provided to the cow outdoors (companionship, etc.) rather than the exercise area per se that would have a greater influence on the increase in locomotor behavior in cows provided with regular exercise access. Finally, we hypothesized that cows would engage in a variety of behaviors (as opposed to solely engaging in locomotor behaviors) when provided with opportunity for movement outside of their stalls.

# Results

## Dataset 1. Exercise vs. non-exercise treatments: meta-analysis

Descriptive statistics for each trial are shown in Table 1.

The forest plot of the meta-analysis is presented in Fig. 1. The meta-analysis of all comparisons between Exercise and non-Exercise treatments resulted in a between-study heterogeneity variance estimated at $\tau^2 = 2686$ (95% Confident Interval (CI): 0-26859), with an $I^2$ value of 9.5% (95% CI: 0 - 68.1%), meaning that less than 10% of the variation is due to between-study heterogeneity. The nonsignificant Q score suggests that the studies

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Descriptive statistics for each trial, after the data cleaning steps. For Winter 2020 and Summer 2020, treatment A and B corresponded to Outdoor Exercise and Indoor Exercise, respectively. For Summer 2021, treatment A and B corresponded to Outdoor-Biofilter1 Exercise and Outdoor-Biofilter2 Exercise, respectively. Note that for Winter 2020, Summer 2020 and Summer 2021, the cows went through each treatment (Exercise vs. non-Exercise) consecutively, while in Winter 2019, Summer 2019 and Fall 2019, Exercise and non-Exercise cows were different individuals.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Winter 2019</th><th>Summer 2019</th><th>Fall 2019</th><th>Winter 2020</th><th>Summer 2020</th><th>Summer 2021</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">N of cows</td><td>Non-exercise</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>15</td><td>18</td><td>18</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Exercise</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>15</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Treatment A</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>19</td><td>18</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Treatment B</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>18</td><td>17</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">LSmean number of daily steps ± SD</td><td>Non-exercise</td><td>543 ± 155</td><td>616 ± 671</td><td>442 ± 228</td><td>547 ± 197</td><td>725 ± 207</td><td>528 ± 207</td></tr><tr><td>Exercise</td><td>777 ± 264</td><td>1233 ± 482</td><td>763 ± 393</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Treatment A</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>835 ± 314</td><td>1239 ± 354</td><td>770 ± 279</td></tr><tr><td>Treatment B</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>765 ± 282</td><td>954 ± 266</td><td>968 ± 380</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Forest plot of nine modalities (distributed within six trials) associated with number of daily steps. An increase of the number of daily steps compared to the control (non-Exercise treatment) is represented by a deviation of the square (difference in the means) to the right. The length of the horizontal line represents the 95% confidence interval, and the diamond represents the summarized effect. W20_Indoor: Winter 2020 trial with an indoor exercise area, W20_Outdoor: Winter 2020 trial with an outdoor exercise area; S20_Indoor: Summer 2020 trial with an indoor exercise area; S20_Outdoor: Summer 2020 trial with an outdoor exercise area; W19: Winter 2019 trial; S19: Summer 2019 trial; F19: Fall 2019 trial; S21_Biofilter1: Summer 2021 trial with the ground covered by the biofilter 1 (composed of either wood chips and gravel); S21_Biofilter: Summer 2021 trial with the ground cover by the biofilter 2 (composed of either wood chips, biochar and sphagnum moss); MD: Group Mean difference; CI: Confidence Interval.</figcaption></figure>

represent samples from a common population and that the coalescing of their data was justified (Q=8.84, degrees of freedom (df)=8, P=0.356). The prediction interval ranged from g=151 to 457. The number of daily steps was significantly higher when cows had access to an exercise area, with an average increase of 304 steps per day (95% CI: 215–393; P<0.001), equivalent to 53% more steps (923±65 daily steps) compared to the 578 (±32 daily steps) mean daily steps taken in the stall.

## Dataset 2. Type of exercise area

The number of daily steps differed depending on whether cows had access to an indoor or outdoor exercise area. Cows took 167, or around 20%, more daily steps in an outdoor exercise area (987±50.3 daily steps) than in an indoor one (820±42.4 daily steps; $\chi^2$ = 44.980, df=1, P<0.001).

## Dataset 3. Duration of outing and size of the exercise area

The number of daily steps was influenced by the duration of the outing ($\chi^2$ = 10.090, df=1, P=0.002) and by the size of the exercise area ($\chi^2$ = 18.317, df=3, P<0.001). Cows took 84, or around 9%, more daily steps when staying in the exercise area for 2 h (1009±22.8 daily steps) compared with 1 h (925±21.3 daily steps; Fig. 2a). They also took more daily steps when provided access to a larger exercise area compared to smaller areas. More precisely, they took 16% more daily steps in the large area compared to the smaller (20 m²: 902±28.4 daily steps; 40 m²: 929±27.8 daily steps; 60 m²: 992±27.6 daily steps; 80 m²: 1048±31.0 daily steps; Fig. 2b).

## Dataset 4. Other behaviors

When granted access to an exercise area, cows spent more than 2/3 of their time idle (Fig. 3). In the trials where rumination behavior was recorded (Winter 2019 (W19), Fall 2019 (F19) and Summer 2019 (S19)), the cows were observed spending between 25 and 70% of their idle time ruminating. This behavior was observed 10 to 50% of the time when a second hour of outing was provided. Cows dedicated between 5 and 30% of their time to locomotor behaviors and between 5 and 20% to exploration behaviors. When they were with other individuals in the same exercise area, the cows spent about 5% of their time engaging in social behaviors. Cows also spent about 15% of their time lying down in the indoor area (Summer 2020 (S20)), while there were little (3% in Summer 2021 (S21)) to no records of lying down in the outdoor exercise areas.

## Discussion

While cows spent only 4% of their daily time in an exercise area, their number of steps increased by 53%. The use of exercise areas, such as the ones used in our study for one hour, led cows to take an extra 300 steps per day compared to when they were kept in tie-stalls for the whole day (700 daily steps, review by⁸). Animals perform locomotor behaviors when granted with the opportunity, indicating that it might represent an important behavioral need¹¹,¹². Therefore, providing an exercise area with sufficient space for locomotion, regardless of the other conditions of access, allows cows to increase their level of locomotor activity.

When in the exercise area, cows were observed spending one third of their time engaging in locomotor behaviors, a result which corroborates the extra number of steps recorded by the accelerometers (although some of this extra number of steps may also have occurred at the stall, in response to access to exercise areas). In
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Number of daily steps (LSmeans ± SE) taken when cows had access to an outdoor exercise area for 1-hour or 2-hours (a) and when the size of the exercise area varied from 20 m² to 80 m² (b). Significant differences indicated by the model (*P* < 0.05) are represented by different letters.</figcaption></figure>

addition to walking, however, providing access to the exercise areas allowed cows to engage in a number of additional behaviors unavailable (or less available) to them in their home pens. Exploration was one of the most frequently observed behaviors, encouraged by the sudden plethora of untrodden space (as opposed to the familiar stalls to which the cows were accustomed). Given that, exploration is a behavior for which animals generally show a strong motivation, it may represent another possible need the outdoor areas aimed to address<sup>5,10,13</sup>. Similarly, while in stalls cows are limited to interacting only with their direct neighbors, across our trials, cows were observed performing social behaviors when exercised in dyads or triads and allowed to have visual and vocal contact with cows in other paddocks. Grooming, and other maintenance behaviors were also observed, albeit to a lesser extent. Access to exercise areas therefore gave cows the opportunity to improve the quality of expression of a number of natural behaviors<sup>7</sup>, beyond those tied directly to locomotion, indicating that the outdoor area offered more than just a contribution to the need for locomotion. Moreover, some of the observed behaviors either involve a degree of locomotion or are further enhanced by locomotion. Exploration, for example, is often carried out while walking, to better scan the environment. Certain social behaviors, such as following one another, also increase the proportion of animal's locomotion. As such, these behaviors also contribute to increasing the animals' overall locomotion, while combining locomotion with these behaviors offered a more extensive behavioral repertoire with which to meet their needs. With this in mind, it is important to note that our study likely under-estimated non-locomotor behaviors. In fact, some behaviors occurred only rarely, and/or lasted for a short duration of time; the scan sampling methodology employed to observe the cows in our study was thus unlikely to capture every occurrence of such behaviors (exploration for example). It is clear, however, that the cows outdoors engaged in a number of behaviors unavailable to them in stall. Moreover, while not directly quantifiable, the presence of such behaviors, despite a method that was not made to capture them, indicates a strong motivation to engage, and thus a potential behavioral need being met.

Nevertheless, in exercise areas, we observed cows spent two-thirds of their time idle, despite the noted increase in both locomotor and other behaviors. This does not imply, however, that the cows did not benefit from or did not need exercise area access. Environmental conditions may have had an impact on behavior in the exercise areas as the outdoor conditions differed from those in the tie stalls, including the type of ground
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Time budgets of different behaviors' categories (definitions in Table 2) that cows displayed during the different trial: (a) the first hour of outing during Winter 2019 trial, (b) the second hour of outing during Winter 2019 trial, (c) the first hour of outing during Summer 2019 trial, (d) the second hour of outing during Summer 2019 trial, (e) Summer 2020 trial with an indoor exercise area, (f) Summer 2020 trial with an outdoor exercise area, (g) Fall 2019 trial, and (h) Summer 2021 trial. Social, eating, and vigilance behaviors were not recorded in Summer 2020 and Summer 2021 trials, whereas lying behavior was not recorded in Summer 2019 trial.</figcaption></figure>
surface. The unfamiliarity of these conditions may have deterred cows from lying down, even when they were idle. Despite this, a non-negligible proportion of the idle time was spent ruminating, which is consistent with resting behaviors observed indoors.

The noted increase in locomotor activity, regardless of the conditions of access, indicates an important improvement in locomotor activity. The high level of inactivity may show that moving for the sake of moving is a need which was rapidly met in the conditions provided, and that additional resources or sources of motivation should be added for cows to engage in more locomotion, albeit via other activities. Indeed, in our study, the exercise areas were empty, i.e. without food, water, shelter or any additional objects. Only access to the exercise area itself was offered to the cows. This made it possible to observe the cows' behavior in relation to access to the exercise area only, without any other interference. Having the opportunity to perform other behaviors could therefore further increase locomotor activity. Other studies have shown that when additional resources, such as food or shade, are provided in an outdoor area, cows will make use of them¹²,¹⁴⁻¹⁶. However, such studies do not distinguish between the benefits provided from the outing itself and from additional items added to the outing environment. Cow behavior outdoors is moderated based on their needs for the resource in question. When provided with feed at a manger, cows will spend more time at the manger¹². When provided with shade, cows will modify behavior while outside to access it¹⁶. In both cases, cows show an increase in activity, but it is not possible to determine if this activity is a result of the outdoor access itself or surrounding variables.

It should also be noted that we looked at the number of steps on a daily basis, which therefore includes both access to exercise areas and time spent in the stall. The increase in the number of daily steps we observed could therefore be extended to the time spent in the stall.

Factors that have been found to modulate cow motivation for outdoor access are the individual conditions of the access themselves. Features such as paddock size, outing duration, and handling during trips to and from outdoor areas can all impact how cows perceive and make use of the spaces provided to them¹⁷. In the present study, several controlled conditions for outings (indoor vs. outdoor, size, duration) were tested, with the aim of maximizing the opportunity for movement and, more specifically, the locomotor behavior, measured in number of steps, of dairy cows when provided access to an exercise area. One factor that was found to affect locomotor behavior was the type of exercise area (indoor vs. outdoor): we found that cows took around 20% more steps when they had access to an outdoor exercise area compared to an indoor one. There was a clear difference in the activities and level of stimulation offered when indoors vs. outdoors. The indoor exercise area consisted of a loose-pen, without water or feed, which was already known to the animals from other contexts (for example, the loose-pen also serves as calving pen). In contrast, the outdoor exercise area, although it is of equivalent size, represented an entirely new and unpredictable environment which contains different stimuli than the cows may experience inside (e.g., rain showers, vehicles driving past the area), with associated behavioral responses specific to these stimuli (e.g., searching for shelter during rain), as well as a slightly more complex alleyway to traverse (curved rather than a straight line indoors). These factors, in addition to potential differences in handling from handlers equally responding to the two areas, may explain the slight discrepancy in step activity between the two areas.

Our study also assessed the impact of the duration of the outing as well as the size of the exercise area. Increasing the size of the outdoor exercise area led cows to take a higher number of steps, but this increase was not proportional to the increase in area. Doubling the size of the exercise area (20 m² vs. 40 m²) led to no increase in the number of daily steps. Comparatively, quadrupling the size of the exercise area (20 m² vs. 80 m²) only increased the number of daily steps by 16%. As such, our findings corroborate results from previous studies conducted in other housing environments (indoor free-stall housing¹⁸; pasture¹⁹) showing that the animals moved more in a bigger environment, but that this increase in locomotor behavior was modest. In the smallest exercise area (20 m²), the available space per cow was 10 m². At this density, it is unlikely that other cows could represent a physical barrier if a cow decided to move freely¹⁸, which allowed cows to meet the same needs as in the larger areas. Indeed, if the smallest area was large enough to meet baseline needs for locomotion, then no significant difference with space augmentation would be expected. Rather, the moderate difference observed could be accounted for by the extra space being of interest, but not necessary for the baseline locomotion needs of cattle.

In terms of outing duration, our results showed a 9% increase in the number of daily steps with 2-hour outings compared with 1-hour outings. Previous studies found that cows given a 3-hour period of free access to an outdoor yard would choose to spend approximately 1 h outdoors before choosing to return indoors, and thus were able to manage their outings to meet their needs¹²,²⁰. Moreover, cows tend to return to the barn faster after a second hour of outdoor access compared to the first, emphasizing a higher motivation to return to their stalls when outing time is doubled¹⁷. Given these results, as well as the moderate increase in locomotor behavior, one might assume that the second hour did not serve to meet any additional needs of locomotion for the cows. However, in contrast to step data, time budgets detailing the activities conducted during the first hour of outing and the second hour of outing appeared numerically similar, indicating that cows performed the same types of behaviors with similar occurrence during the second hour as they did during the first hour of outing. The fact that the same behaviors continue to be practiced in the second hour at the same rate supports the idea that behavioral needs remain, and cows are managing their activities to meet them. The lack of additional resources in the areas may serve to explain why step data did not also double. Though cows were motivated to go outside, and are clearly meeting needs while outdoors (evidenced by the fact that they continue the same activities), there are no other elements in the exercise areas that would serve to motivate the cows to move even more once there, as has been observed in other studies when such resources were provided¹²,¹⁴⁻¹⁶.
## Conclusion

Our study found that the provision of 1–2 h of daily exercise, regardless of conditions, has an impact on the amount of locomotor behavior performed by cows. Providing access to an exercise area for at least 1 h helps cows meet their needs for locomotion, and in our study, led cows to double their number of daily steps, with outing conditions such as the type of access, the amount of space provided, and the duration of the outing playing a role in both step activity and behaviors performed. While this measure addresses some of their locomotion needs, it does not imply that their overall behavioral needs are fully met within this time frame. Additional resources such as shelter structures, feed, or water could provide a more enriching experience to the cows brought to the exercise area, further enhancing the benefits of such a practice on cow locomotor activity and welfare.

## Materials and methods

### Ethical notes

The use of animals in these projects and all procedures were reviewed and approved by the Animal Care Committee of McGill University and affiliated hospitals and research institutes for the experimentations conducted at McGill University (protocol #2016-7794; trials W19, S19, F19) and by the Animal Care Committee of the CRSAD (Deschambault Animal Science Research Centre) for the experimentations conducted at the CRSAD (protocol #1920-BL-387; trials W20, S20, S21). All aspects of this study met the standards established by the Canadian Council on Animal Care to ensure the humane and ethical use of animals in research, and all experiments followed relevant guidelines and regulations.

## Animals and housing

The present study was composed of six independent trials, each with different contexts (exercise area location and size, duration of outing, substrate), in order to test different exercise access conditions intended to increase the opportunity for movement provided to cows housed in a movement-restricted environment, in our case, tie-stall housing with no routine exercise access. While this precluded the possibility of analyzing all six trials together in one single model, it allowed for an in-depth comparison of specific conditions of the outings across trials. Outing conditions tested were as follows: (1) exercise vs. non-exercise treatment, (2) indoor vs. outdoor exercise area, and (3) a combination of outing duration (1 h vs. 2 h) and size of exercise area (20, 40, 60–80 m²). In this section, the experimental setups for each of the six trials are briefly described. An overview of the different setups is shown in Table 3.

In the W19 and S19 trials, 24 naïve, tie-stall-housed Holstein dairy cows from the McGill herd were selected and grouped in eight trios by days in milk and parity. Cows from each trio were then randomly assigned to one of two treatments: Exercise treatment cows (cows provided with outdoor access), and non-Exercise treatment cows (cows remained at their stalls all day). Companion cows (cows for which data was not recorded but which accompanied Exercise treatment cows to avoid isolation and allow for social interaction) completed the trio.

In the F19 trial, 30 cows from the McGill herd were grouped by days in milk and parity into five blocks of six cows each -three Exercise treatment cows (provided with outdoor access) and three non-Exercise treatment cows (who remained at their stalls). One of the three cows in each trio had previous experience outdoors during an earlier trial.

In the W20 and S20 trials, 27 and 30 cows respectively, were selected from the CRSAD herd and grouped by days in milk and parity into respectively nine and six blocks of three cows. Cows from each trio were randomly assigned into one of three treatments: Indoor Exercise (cows provided with indoor area access), Outdoor Exercise (cows provided with outdoor area access) and non-Exercise (cows remaining in their stalls for the duration of the treatment).

Finally, in the S21 trial, 18 cows from the CRSAD herd were selected and grouped into six blocks of three cows by days in milk and parity, and randomly assigned to either: Outdoor-Biofilter1 Exercise treatment (cows provided with outdoor access, the ground of the exercise area covered by the biofilter1 (see biofilter details below)), Outdoor-Biofilter2 Exercise treatment (cows provided with outdoor access, the ground of the exercise area covered by the biofilter2) and non-Exercise treatment (cows remaining in the stall for the duration of the treatment).

All the animals selected to participate in the different trials were healthy and non-lame lactating Holstein cows (evaluated based on a visual locomotion score adapted from²¹). During the study, all cows were housed in a mechanically-ventilated barn consisting of cubicle tie-stalls (stall area 2.7m² (W19, S19, F19) or 2.9m² (W20, S20, S21)) fitted with rubber mats and either wood chips (W19, S19, F19) or straw (W20, S20, S21). Cows had ad libitum access to water and were fed a total mixed ration (TMR) 2–4 times daily which was pushed up throughout the day to ensure feed accessibility. Milking was conducted twice daily at 9.5–14.5 h intervals.

## Procedures

### General process

In all trials, cows underwent a habituation period prior to the implementation of the experimental design. Habituation consisted of gradually increasing the duration of outings (from 10 to 45 min) and acclimating cows to the fence system and paddock. Habituation periods lasted 3 to 8 days, depending on the trial, and were conducted in small groups of 2–3 cows, with each focal cow grouped with her designated companion from the start. Once habituation was completed, the treatment was applied, with each rotation lasting one week, followed by a 2-day washout period during which cows did not access the exercise areas. No behavioral observations or step counts were recorded during the habituation or washout periods.

For the W19, S19, and F19 trials, during 8 weeks (W19 and S19) or 5 weeks (F19) cows went out every morning, five days per week (weekends excluded) for 1–2 h (treatment dependent) at 10AM (shortly after
milking and feeding), to an outside grassland exercise yard (1344 m²) adjacent to the barn (as demonstrated in¹⁷, Fig. 1) in pairs in the winter and summer, and in trios in the fall. The trip distance from the stall to the exercise area measured approximately 56 m and was concrete inside and dirt outside. The outdoor exercise area consisted of paddocks delimited by electric fencing. Neither feed, water nor shelter were provided during outdoor access. In the W19 and S19 trials, the size of and time spent in the paddock changed weekly according to a Latin square design, such that each week each pair was assigned to one of the eight treatments: 1 h-20m², 1 h-40m², 1 h-60 m², 1 h-80 m², 2 h-20m², 2 h-40m², 2 h-60 m², or 2 h-80 m². In the F19 trial, cow trios were assigned to a different paddock each week, followed by a 2-day washout period during which cows did not access the exercise areas. All paddocks measured 117 m² (9 m x 13 m; 39 m² per cow). The ground cover was grass and snow in fall, wood chips and snow in winter, and grass during summer. It should be noted that the grass had disappeared shortly after the start of the trial (mainly during the habituation process), and due to the frequent use of the paddocks (trampling by cows), it did not have the opportunity to grow back.

For the S20, W20, and S21 trials, cows were provided with exercise access either 2 days per week for 1 h per day (W20), or 5 days per week (weekends excluded) for 1.5 h per day (S20, S21) at the same time daily (morning, shortly after milking and feeding or afternoon, shortly after feeding). In the W20 and S20 trials, cows were brought to either one of two outdoor exercise yards located adjacent to the barn (28.73 m² each (5.36 m x 5.36 m; one cow per area)), or to an indoor exercise area (29.60 m² (7.29 m x 4.06 m; one cow allowed at a time)), composed of three full walls and one half-height wall, allowing cows to see other cows in their stalls. The ground surface consisted of a concrete floor covered with a rubber mat and wood shavings. In the S21 trial, cows were brought to one of the two outdoor yards, consisting in this trial of different biofilter substrates composed of either wood chips and gravel, or wood chips, biochar, and sphagnum moss. These trials were designed as Latin square designs, with each cow experiencing one treatment (outdoor, indoor, or non-exercise in W20 and S20 or outdoor biofilters1, 2, or non-exercise in S21) for either 3 (W20) or 1 (S20, S21) week(s) before being rotated to the next treatment. A 2 days of washout period was implemented between each treatment. During winter, snow covered the outdoor areas most of the time. The trip distances from the stall to the outdoor and indoor exercise area measured approximately 34 m and 19 m, respectively, and was concrete inside and dirt outside.

### Specific notes by trial

**Winter 2020.** The original setup of this trial was designed as a 3 × 3 Latin square in which the same treatment was applied for three consecutive weeks before switching to a new treatment. The trial was intended to last nine weeks but, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the last 3-week period had to be dropped. Thus, the trial lasted six weeks, each cow receiving only two treatments for three weeks each.

**Summer 2021.** The trial was initially designed as a 3 × 3 Latin square in which each cow would spend one week in each of the three treatments: Outdoor-Biofilter1 Exercise treatment, Outdoor-Biofilter2 Exercise treatment, and non-Exercise treatment. However, due to difficulties encountered in having some of the cows adapt to the outdoor exercise areas, the final dataset included six cows for three weeks, blocked in two groups of second and third lactation respectively.

## Measures

### Step activity

Locomotor behavior (evaluated as the number of steps) was recorded continuously during each trial, beginning the first day of the trial, using a 3D pedometer (IceTag, Peacock Technology Ltd, Stirling, Scotland, UK), attached to either rear leg of the cows. IceManager software (IceRobotics, Edinburgh, Scotland) was used to extract the raw data in 1-min intervals. The use of these pedometers to record step activity in tie-stall housed cows has previously been validated²².

### Other behaviors

Behavioral observations were conducting using either live observations (W19, S19, F19 and S21) or video recordings (S20) when the cows were in the exercise areas (indoor and outdoor). The frequency of the behaviors observed was recorded (Table 2). Observations began once the cows were calm and the barn staff no longer visible, and lasted either 30 min (F19), 1 h (S20), 1.5 h (S21), or 2 h (W19 and S19). Data was collected by one to three observers, either by scan sampling every 30 s (S20 and S21) or every 4 min (W19, S19 and F19). The observers were trained following a standardized protocol to ensure consistency in data collection across experiments. They were positioned outside the exercise areas to minimize human influence on cow behavior. Inter-observer reliability tests were performed within each experiment to assess consistency between observers, though no inter-experiment reliability tests were conducted. A Kappa test with a minimum repeatability of 85% was used on all ethogram behaviors. The scan sampling interval was determined based on logistical constraints, ensuring all focal cows could be observed within each interval according to the ethogram. The interval was maintained during the Fall 2019 trial despite differences in group sizes, as it was deemed adequate to capture the behaviors of interest. These observations took place once a week for a maximum of one day (S20), two days (F19), three days (S21), six days (W19), or eight days (S19) of observations per cow.

## Statistical analysis

### Data handling

All statistical data handling and analyses were carried out using R (version 1.4.1103, R Core Team, 2021) and its specific packages. Four data sets were created. The first set included all trials described in the "Animals and Treatments" section and allowed us to investigate our primary objective, which was to know if exercise access, regardless of the conditions under which it was provided, had an influence on the number of daily steps. The second dataset included the trials conducted in the W20 and S20 and investigated the influence of the type of
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Detailed ethogram used to assess cow activity during the different trials. W19: Winter 2019 trial; S19: Summer 2019 trial; F19: Fall 2019 trial; W20: Winter 2020 trial; S20: Summer 2020 trial; S21: Summer 2021 trial. As the focus is on locomotion, a distinction is made between behaviours performed without movement and behaviours performed while the cow was moving (the latter being included in the locomotion category).</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Behaviour</th><th>Description</th><th>Trial</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Idle</td><td>Idle + rumination</td><td>Body relaxed, immobile with head down or in the extension of her body. Cow can be ruminating while idling</td><td>F19, S19, W19, S20, S21</td></tr><tr><td>Vigilance</td><td>Vigilance</td><td>Body immobile with head up. Cow standing alert, with the ears facing forward</td><td>F19, S19, W19</td></tr><tr><td>Lying</td><td>Lying</td><td>Cows were considered lying when the flank of the animal was in contact with a surface</td><td>F19, W19, S20, S21</td></tr><tr><td>Exploration</td><td>Exploring</td><td>Cow is sniffing or licking the ground, feed, stall structure, or any other object of her surroundings. Cow is not walking during exploration</td><td>F19, S19, W19, S20, S21</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Locomotion</td><td>Walking + other behaviours</td><td>Movement forward of the feet, with one- or two-feet lift. Walking is considered when the cow takes at least 3 steps. Cow may only be walking or may also be performing other behaviours at the same time such as ruminating and/or exploring the ground or any object on her surroundings</td><td>F19, S19, W19, S20, S21</td></tr><tr><td>Running</td><td>Fast movement forward of the parallel feet which touch and lift simultaneously with a phase of suspension in air</td><td>S20, S21</td></tr><tr><td>Jumping</td><td>Four legs lifted from the ground</td><td>S20</td></tr><tr><td>Social</td><td>Social interactions</td><td>Any positive or negative behaviour involving counterparts (e.g., mutual play headbutt, allo-grooming...)</td><td>F19, S19, W19</td></tr><tr><td>Eating</td><td>Eating</td><td>Cow is actively grabbing and chewing feed with head down, or any chewing movement after gathering a mouthful of feed.</td><td>F19, S19, W19</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Maintenance</td><td>Self-grooming</td><td>Tongue in contact with own skin or fur/scratches with hind legs or any sort of structure to scratch against</td><td>F19, S19, W19, S20, S21</td></tr><tr><td>Defecation</td><td>Elimination of feces from the body</td><td>S19, S20, S21</td></tr><tr><td>Urination</td><td>Elimination of urine from the body</td><td>S19, S20, S21</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>Others</td><td>Any other activity not described here</td><td>F19, S19, W19, S20, S21</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Summary of the characteristics of trials. * depending on the treatment (combination between duration and size) applied.</caption><thead><tr><th>Trial</th><th>Winter 2019</th><th>Summer 2019</th><th>Fall 2019</th><th>Winter 2020</th><th>Summer 2020</th><th>Summer 2021</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Duration of the trial (weeks)</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Number of cows</td><td>24</td><td>24</td><td>30</td><td>27</td><td>18</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Number of blocks</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>9</td><td>6</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Parity per block</td><td>2.0 ± 1.46</td><td>2.5 ± 1.68</td><td>1.9 ± 0.79</td><td>2.2 ± 0.93</td><td>2.0 ± 0.84</td><td>2.7 ± 1.00</td></tr><tr><td>DIM block</td><td>149 ± 63.5</td><td>112 ± 63.5</td><td>163 ± 66.4</td><td>117 ± 65.8</td><td>187 ± 99.5</td><td>173 ± 102</td></tr><tr><td>Treatments</td><td>Outdoor-Duration x Size</td><td>Outdoor-Duration x Size</td><td>Outdoor</td><td>Outdoor, Indoor</td><td>Outdoor, Indoor</td><td>Outdoor-Biofilter1<br>Outdoor-Biofilter2</td></tr><tr><td>Control</td><td>Stall</td><td>Stall</td><td>Stall</td><td>Stall</td><td>Stall</td><td>Stall</td></tr><tr><td>Outings/Week</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Duration per outing (hours)</td><td>1 or 2*</td><td>1 or 2*</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1.5</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Size of the area (m²)</td><td>20, 40, 60, 80*</td><td>20, 40, 60, 80*</td><td>117</td><td>28.73(outdoor)<br>29.60(indoor)</td><td>28.73 (outdoor) 29.60 (indoor)</td><td>28.73</td></tr><tr><td>Localization</td><td>McGill</td><td>McGill</td><td>McGill</td><td>CRSAD</td><td>CRSAD</td><td>CRSAD</td></tr></tbody></table>

exercise area (indoor vs. outdoor) on the number of daily steps. The third dataset included trials conducted in the W19 and S19 and served to evaluate the influence of the duration of access to exercise and the size of the exercise area on the number of daily steps. Finally, the fourth dataset included information on the behaviors performed by the cows while in the exercise areas during all trials. For all analyses, week was coded to correspond to the week of treatment application at the cow level, and not the calendar week. The cleaning data method is available in Supplementary material.

### Dataset 1. Exercise vs. non-exercise treatments

For each trial, the *lme4* package²³ was used to perform the following generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) based on a Poisson distribution in order to evaluate the effect of exercise vs. non-exercise within each trial. For each model, we considered the following factors: (1) treatment as a fixed effect: exercise treatments dependent on trial (outdoor exercise, indoor exercise, outdoor exercise biofilter 1 or 2) vs. non-exercise; (2) week as a fixed effect: each week according to the trial; (3) block as a fixed effect (cows blocked by parity and days in milk); (4) Cow nested within block as a random effect; and, for trials W20, S20, S21, the order in which treatment was applied (as it changed weekly) as a random effect.

For all these GLMMs, the independence between the residuals of the model and the predicted values, as well as the absence of over-dispersion of the residuals were assessed. In case of over-dispersion of the residuals, the model was adjusted by replacing the Poisson distribution by a negative binomial distribution using the *glmer.nb* function from the *lme4* package.
From each model, the Least Square means (LSmeans) and standard deviation (SD) were extracted using the *emmeans* function of the *emmeans* package²⁴. The LSmeans were used to provide adjusted probabilities by accounting for the effect of each significant variable. We used these data to investigate the number of steps taken by cows with and without access to an exercise area. As the number of steps was recorded in the same way in all trials, a between-Group Mean difference (MD) meta-analysis was performed using the *metacont* function of the *meta* package²⁵. Each trial could contribute more than one comparison (if different treatments were used in one trial), but the number of steps in non-Exercise treatment was always used as the control. As between-study heterogeneity was possible due to the trials' different seasons and localizations, a random-effects model was used. The restricted maximum likelihood estimator²⁶ was used to calculate the heterogeneity variance τ². We used Knapp-Hartung adjustments²⁷ to calculate the confidence interval around the pooled effect.

## Dataset 2. Type of exercise area

To determine if the type of exercise area, outdoor vs. indoor, had an impact on the daily number of steps, trials S20 and W20 containing these two outing conditions were grouped in the same dataset. We repeated a similar process to above, using the *lme4* package²³ to perform a generalized linear mixed model based on a Poisson distribution, considering the following factors: (1) treatment as a fixed effect: outdoor exercise vs. indoor exercise; (2) week as a fixed effect: each week according to the trial; (3) block as a fixed effect (cows blocked by parity and days in milk); (4) Cow nested within block as a random effect; and order in which treatment was applied (as it changed weekly) as a random effect.

Independence between the residuals of the model and the predicted values, as well as absence of overdispersion of the residuals, were assessed. Due to over-dispersion of the residuals, the model was adjusted by replacing the Poisson distribution by a negative binomial distribution using the *glmer.nb* function from the *lme4* package. A type II Anova with Wald tests was carried out and LSmeans were used to perform post-hoc pairwise Bonferroni corrected comparisons (2 comparisons). Results are presented as least square means with SEs and p-value adjusted, unless otherwise stated. The significance threshold used was *P* < 0.05.

## Dataset 3. Duration of outing and size of the exercise area

To determine if conditions of access to exercise such as the duration of the outings or the size of the outdoor exercise areas had an impact on the number of daily steps taken by the cows, the trials S19 and W19 containing these outing conditions were grouped in the same dataset. The *lme4* package²³ was used to perform a generalized linear mixed model based on a Poisson distribution, considering the following factors: (1) duration as a fixed effect: 1 vs. 2 h; (2) week as a fixed effect: each week according to the trial; (3) block as a fixed effect (cows blocked by parity and days in milk); (4) Cow nested within block as a random effect; and order in which treatment was applied (as it changed weekly) as a random effect.

Independence between the residuals of the model and the predicted values, as well as absence of overdispersion of the residuals were assessed. In case of over-dispersion of the residuals, the model was adjusted by replacing the Poisson distribution by a negative binomial distribution using the *glmer.nb* function from the *lme4* package. A type II Anova with Wald tests was carried out and LSmeans were used to perform post-hoc pairwise Bonferroni corrected comparisons (6 comparisons). Results are presented as least square means with SEs and p-value adjusted, unless otherwise stated. The significance threshold used was *P* < 0.05.

## Dataset 4. Other behaviors

Descriptive statistics were used to obtain the percentage of time allocated to each of the behavioral activities by each animal within each trial.

## Data availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article are available here: https://github.com/WELL-E-chair/data-movement-behavior?tab=readme-ov-file.

Received: 21 August 2024; Accepted: 10 February 2025

Published online: 18 February 2025

## References

1. Haskell, M. J., Brotherstone, S., Lawrence, A. B. & White, I. M. S. Characterization of the dairy farm environment in Great Britain and the Effect of the farm environment on cow life span. *J. Dairy. Sci.* **90** (11), 5316–5323 (2007).

2. Beaver, A., Ritter, C. & von Keyserling, M. A. G. The dairy cattle housing dilemma: natural behavior versus animal care. *Vet. Clin. North. Am. Food Anim. Pract.* **35** (1), 11–27 (2019).

3. Charlton, G. L. & Rutter, S. M. The behaviour of housed dairy cattle with and without pasture access: a review. *Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.* **192**, 2–9 (2017).

4. Kresnye, K. C., Chung, C., Martin, C. F. & Shih, P. C. Survey on the past decade of technology in animal enrichment: a scoping review. *Animals* **12** (14), 1792. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12141792 (2022).

5. Boissy, A. et al. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. *Physiol. Behav.* **92**(3), 375–397 (2007).

6. Fraser, D. Understanding animal welfare. *Acta Vet. Scand.* **50** https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-50-S1-S1 (2008).

7. Krohn, C. C. Behaviour of dairy cows kept in extensive (loose housing/pasture) or intensive (tie stall) environments. III. Grooming, exploration and abnormal behaviour. *Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.* **42**(2), 1–16 (1994).

8. Shepley, E., Lensink, J. & Vasseur, E. Cow in motion: a review of the impact of housing systems on movement opportunity of dairy cows and implications of locomotor activity. *Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.* **230**, 105026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2020.105026 (2020).

9. Newberry, R. C. Environmental enrichment: increasing the biological relevance of captive environments. *Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.* **44**, 229–243 (1995).
10. Loberg, J., Telezhenko, E., Bergsten, C. & Lidfors, L. Behaviour and claw health in tied dairy cows with varying access to exercise in an outdoor paddock. *Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.* **89**(1–2), 1–16 (2004).

11. Veissier, I., Andanson, S., Dubroeucq, H. & Pomiès, D. The motivation of cows to walk as thwarted by tethering. *J. Anim. Sci.* **86**(10), 2723–2729 (2008).

12. Shepley, E., Bergeron, R., Bécotte, F. & Vasseur, E. Dairy cow preference for outdoor access during winter under Eastern Canada climatic conditions. *Can. J. Anim. Sci.* **97**(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1139/CJAS-2016-0028 (2016).

13. Mattiello, S., Battini, M., De Rosa, G., Napolitano, F. & Dwyer, C. How can we assess positive welfare in ruminants? *Animals.* **9**(10), 758. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani100758 (2019).

14. Zeeb, K. Locomotion and space structure in six cattle units. In *Farm Animal Housing and Welfare* (eds Baxter, S. H. et al.) 129–136 (Springer Science & Business Media, (1983).

15. Gustafson, G. M. Effects of daily exercise on the health of tied dairy cows. *Prev. Vet. Med.* **17**(3–4), 209–223 (1993).

16. Palacio, S., Bergeron, R., Lachance, S. & Vasseur, E. The effects of providing portable shade at pasture on dairy cow behavior and physiology. *J. Dairy. Sci.* **98**(9), 6085–6093 (2015).

17. Aigueperse, N., Boyer, V. & Vasseur, E. How outing conditions relate to the motivation of movement-restricted cattle to access an outdoor exercise yard. *Behav. Processes.* **213**, 104957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2023.104957 (2023).

18. Telezhenko, E., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., Talebi, A. & Weary, D. M. Effect of pen size, group size, and stocking density on activity in freestall-housed dairy cows. *J. Dairy. Sci.* **95**(6), 3064–3069 (2012).

19. Henkin, Z. et al. The spatial distribution and activity of cattle in response to plot size. *J. Anim. Feed Sci.* **16**(Suppl. 2), 399–404 (2007).

20. Shepley, E., Bergeron, R. & Vasseur, E. Daytime summer access to pasture vs free-stall barn in dairy cows with year-long outdoor experience: a case study. *Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.* **192**, 10–14 (2017).

21. Flower, F. C. & Weary, D. M. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. *Animal* **3**(1), 87–95 (2009).

22. Shepley, E., Berthelot, M. & Vasseur, E. Validation of the ability of a 3D pedometer to accurately determine the number of steps taken by dairy cows when housed in Tie-Stalls. *Agriculture* **7**(7), 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture7070053 (2017).

23. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting Linear mixed-effects models using lme4. *J. Stat. Softw.* **67**(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2015).

24. Lenth, R., Singmann, H., Love, J., Buerkner, P. & Herve, M. *Emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means*. *R Package Version* **1** (2018).

25. Balduzzi, S., Rücker, G. & Schwarzer, G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. *Evid. Based Ment Health.* **22**(4), 153–160 (2019).

26. Viechtbauer, W. Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. *J. Educ. Behav. Stat.* **30**(3), 261–295 (2005).

27. Knapp, G. & Hartung, J. Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate. *Stat. Med.* **22**(17), 2693–2710 (2003).

## Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals who conducted the animal trials: McGill University M. Sc. graduates Jordan Tonooka, Catherine Lussier, Amir Nejati, Rachel Chiasson, and Université Laval research assistant Béatrice Dupont-Fortin. We extend our gratitude to the staff at the McGill Macdonald Campus Dairy Unit and Dairy Facility of the Centre de Recherche en Sciences Animales de Deschambault (CRSAD), as well as Véronique Boyer (McGill University) and Janie Lévesque (CRSAD), who assisted in animal trial planning and data collection. We would like to thank Rachel VanVliet (McGill University) for the editorial suggestion and corrections, and Véronique Boyer (McGill University) for the proofreading and corrections of the article; Tania Wolfe (McGill University), Roger Cue (McGill University) and Sébastien Buczinski (University of Montréal) for their help with the statistical reflection. We would like to acknowledge the contribution of environmental engineers Stéphane Godbout (Institut de recherche et de développement en agro-environnement IRDA), Sébastien Fournel (Université Laval) and Pierre Ruel (CRSAD) in funding acquisition, experimental project planning and implementation at CRSAD.

## Author contributions

M. Cellier: conceptualization, data curation - lead, format analysis - lead, methodology, writing original draft - lead, writing review & editing; E. Shepley: conceptualization, methodology, writing - review and editing; N. Aigueperse: conceptualization, methodology, writing - review and editing; M.V. Robichaud: conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, writing - review and editing; E. Vasseur: conceptualization, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, writing original draft - lead, writing - review and editing.

## Funding

Funding for conducting research was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Novalait, Dairy Farmers of Canada, and Valacta as a part of the Industrial Research Chair in the Sustainable Life of Dairy Cattle, as well as Agriculture and AgriFood Canada and Dairy Farmers of Canada through AgriScience Clusters program, Growing Forward III.

## Declarations

### Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

### Additional information

**Supplementary Information** The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-89891-4.

**Correspondence** and requests for materials should be addressed to E.V.
**Reprints and permissions information** is available at www.nature.com/reprints.

**Publisher's note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

© The Author(s) 2025