Flexible and fixed partitions in freestalls--effects on lying behavior and cow preference

Cubicle design and dairy cow rising and lying down behaviours in free-stalls with insufficient lunge space

Cubicle partitions divide the resting area of free-stalls into individual lying places for cows, thereby facilitating the maintenance of good hygiene and reducing competition by separating animals. The forward lunge space in lying cubicles is often insufficient for a natural head lunge movement during rising. Cubicles with open frame partitions and a flexible neck strap aim to alleviate this welfare issue. The open partition frame facilitates lateral space sharing (using space of neighbouring cubicles for the head lunge movement) and the flexible neck strap is presumably less painful upon collision. In an observational study, we investigated the lying behaviour of free-stall housed dairy cows in this 'permissive' cubicle type with open frame partitions and a flexible neck strap positioned relatively high above the lying surface compared to 'restrictive' cubicles with partitions with more bar work in the lateral lunge space and a lower-positioned rigid neck rail. The study was conducted on commercial Swiss dairy farms with exclusively wall-facing lying cubicles of either the permissive (four farms) or restrictive (six farms) type. The forward lunge space on these farms ranged from 55 to 70 cm, which we considered insufficient for adult cows to lunge their heads forward. On each farm, 18-20 lactating dairy cows were selected. In total, 188 animals were used in the statistical analysis. Over 1.5 days, rising and lying down movements were videotaped, and the prevalence of atypical behaviours during these movements was recorded. In addition, we determined the daily lying duration, the lying frequency, and the mean lying bout duration using accelerometers mounted on the left hind leg. The data was analysed in relation to the cubicle type (permissive or restrictive). In the permissive cubicle type, staggered head lunge movements during rising and displays of hesitance before lying down were less prevalent. The lying frequency was higher, and daily lying duration was longer in the permissive cubicle type, although these estimates should be interpreted with caution due to the short data collection period. The results of this study suggest that the permissive cubicle with open partitions and a high-positioned flexible neck strap may improve conditions for dairy cows to rise and lie down. A permissive cubicle design may therefore improve cow welfare in free-stalls with insufficient forward lunge space, where increasing lunge space is not feasible.

Comparison of Cattle Housing Systems Based on the Criterion of Damage to Barn Equipment and Construction Errors

Simple Summary

As a result of many years of use, dairy cattle barns are subject to gradual wear and degradation. Damage to technical equipment can be identified in many areas in the barn. These areas are used by dairy cattle, so it is important to recognize the problem of damage and the associated health risks for animals. The problem of damage to internal equipment (e.g., damage to the floor, partitions between lying stalls, feed ladders, drinking bowls) applies to both tie-stall and freestall barns, which are the most common in dairy farms. Such premises became an inspiration to compare barns with a tie-stall system, a freestall system and their individual areas (lying, feeding, milking and social) in terms of the amount of damage but also construction errors. Most damage per one barn was found in the feeding area of objects with a tie-stall housing system. More cow health problems (e.g., laminitis, hoof problems) were identified in the barns with the freestall housing system. Equipment failures and construction errors may disrupt efficient and animal-safe dairy production in the barn. The results of the research study may be an incentive for farmers to check the barns in terms of their technical wear.

Abstract

Dairy cattle housing systems are the subject of numerous studies, in which a strong emphasis is placed on the comparison of animal welfare, animal behavior, production indicators and labor inputs. Dairy cattle housing systems are linked to specific livestock buildings, which is a prerequisite for undertaking studies comparing barns and their technical equipment. The aim of the study was to compare barns with two types of housing systems, i.e., tie-stall and freestall, including the identification of technical wear in various areas used by animals. This objective was linked to the assessment of animal health problems in livestock facilities. The research covered 38 dairy farms, 19 of which kept cows in the tie-stall system and 19 in the freestall system. The barns in these farms were examined for technical damage and construction errors, assessed in four areas: lying, feeding, milking and social. The research results confirmed significant differences in the degree of damage to technical equipment in individual areas of barns and between barns with tie-stall and freestall housing systems. The conclusions indicate the need to link the degradation of barns and their technical equipment, as well as design errors with the evaluation of dairy cattle welfare in future studies.

Strategies to encourage freestall use in dairy heifers

•

Transitioning to freestalls can be challenging for heifers.

•

We evaluated the effects of social models and brushes on freestall use. No treatment effects were detected.

•

Lying behavior improved with days of exposure to freestalls.

•

Some abnormal behavior (lying in alley, lying backward in stall) persisted.

Dairy cattle can experience problems adjusting to freestalls when first introduced, resulting in a marked reduction in lying time and increased abnormal behaviors such as lying in the alley or lying backward in a stall. Our objective was to evaluate 2 strategies to ease the transition of heifers to freestalls: using an older, experienced heifer as a social model [experiment (Exp.) 1] or using brushes mounted in the stalls as an attractant (Exp. 2). In Exp. 1, 44 naïve heifers (129 ± 37 d of age, mean ± standard deviation) were assigned in pairs (n = 11 pairs/treatment) to either the control or social model (with an older heifer, 200 ± 24 d of age, as an experienced social companion) treatments. In Exp. 2, 52 naïve heifers (146 ± 9 d of age) were preassigned in pairs (n = 13 pairs/treatment) to either control or brush treatments. In both studies, heifers were initially housed in pens with a bedded pack (for 5 and 7 d in Exp. 1 and 2, respectively) before moving to pens in the same barn with sand-bedded freestalls. On d −2, 0, and 4 relative to the move to the freestalls, standing, perching (with the front hooves on the bedding and rear hooves in the alley), and lying (location: bedding vs. alley; direction in stall on d 0 and 4: forward or backward) were recorded at 5-min intervals. In addition, starting on d 0 relative to the move, latency to first lie down in a stall was recorded continuously. In both studies, time budgets did not differ between treatments. On the day heifers were moved, they spent less time lying relative to d −2 [Exp. 1: −1.8 h/d, standard error (SE): 0.4 h/d; Exp. 2: −3.0 h/d, SE: 0.3 h/d] and more time standing and perching. By d 4, lying and standing returned to d −2 baseline levels, although heifers continued to spend more time perching. When heifers moved to freestalls, no treatment differences were observed in the latency to lie down in a stall, but latencies differed between Exp. 1 (averaging approximately 3.8 h across treatments) and Exp. 2 (averaging 31.4 h across treatments). After moving to freestalls, the percentage of total lying time that heifers spent facing forward in a stall increased (Exp. 2: 53 vs. 77%, SE: 7%) or tended to (Exp. 1: 84 vs. 92%, SE: 3%) between d 0 and 4 of exposure, with no effect of treatment. Although lying behavior improved with days of exposure to freestalls, some heifers continued to lie down in the alley or backward in a stall, suggesting the need for additional work to ease the adjustment to freestall housing.

The Freestall Reimagined: Effects on Stall Hygiene and Space Usage in Dairy Cattle

Modern freestall barns for dairy cattle have been constructed with considerations for dairy cow cleanliness; partitions and other stall features such as neck rails are designed to reduce manure contamination of bedding and decrease farm labor. However, cows prefer to lie in more open spaces, including on bedded packs and pasture. We created an "alternative" housing area by modifying a traditional freestall pen and including flexible partitions to create larger lying areas. We assessed cattle lying behaviour, including lying postures, in this alternative pen (ALT) compared to an open pack (OP) and freestalls (FS) with different stocking densities. We also assessed levels of manure contamination across systems. Cleanliness was highest in FS, but ALT provided substantial improvement compared to OP. Cattle spent more time lying down in OP and ALT compared to FS. There were few differences in postures (such as lying with limbs outstretched) between OP and ALT, but cows in both of these systems more often lay in extended positions compared to when they were housed in FS. Housing in OP and ALT was associated with reduced perching for cows with high body weight; perching has been linked to an increased prevalence of both hoof lesions and lameness. Thus, alternative lying areas can offer a solution for producers seeking to provide cattle with the advantages of a more open lying area, while improving hygiene relative to an open pack.

Refinement of international recommendations for cubicles, based on the identification of associations between cubicle characteristics and dairy cow welfare measures

Maladjusted cubicles for dairy cattle may cause increased skin alterations, lameness, and dirtiness. The International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering has produced several recommendations for cubicle design, but a previous study showed that not all of them seem efficient. Here, we aim to refine and complete these recommendations. We collected data on 76 dairy farms (2,404 cows). We modeled the association between combinations of cubicle properties (e.g., type of bedding litter) and dimensions (e.g., cubicle width) relative to cow size, and prevalence of cow skin alterations, lameness, and dirtiness. We used weighted multivariable logistic regression models to predict the presence of skin alteration on the carpus; the neck, shoulder, and back; the flank, side, and udder; and the tarsus or hindquarters. We also evaluated the presence of lameness as well as the dirtiness of the lower hind legs including hocks; the hindquarters, upper hind legs, and flank; the cow rear including tail; and the udder. The risk factors highlighted led us to recommend (1) position cubicles in a way that leaves more than 1 m of clearance from any obstacle in front of the cubicle; (2) if there is an obstacle on the lateral plane (i.e., where the cubicle partition is) in front ahead of the cow, put the obstacle in front of the fore knees; (3) if there is an obstacle in front of the cow on the median plane (e.g., neck or front rail), the position the obstacle between 1.25 and 1.5 of the cow length from the curb and between 1.0 and 1.25 of its height; (4) use curb height between 0.11 and 0.15 of cow height with no sharp edges on the curb; (5) use round or at least has no sharp edges brisket board; (6) use a stone-free soil instead of concrete or use a mattress thicker than 1 cm, with microrelief, and a soft fixing area at the curb, (7) litter with straw (rather than nothing or sawdust) and keep it dry. This risk factor analysis should be followed by experiments in controlled environments to further validate these conclusions and used to update the International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering recommendations.

Free-Stall Use and Preferences in Dairy Cows: A Case Study on Neck Rails Covered by Foam

Simple Summary

Neck rails are used in many free-stall barns; they are intended to keep cows standing at the rear of the stall such that faeces and urine are more likely to fall in the alley rather than on the stall surface. However, cows can come into contact with the neck rail when entering the stall or when standing up. This study tested the effect of covering neck rails with a protective foam surface, by allocating stalls to control and foam conditions using a crossover design. There was no effect of the foam treatment on the time that stalls were occupied for lying. Considering the time of individual stall occupation and the distribution of the stalls in the pen, it was found that cows preferred one of the two lying stall rows. Analysis of variance showed a significant difference between the time of stall occupation for two different rows in the pen, including the time for lying as well as the time of standing with two and four hooves in the stall. Results from this study can be used to support the design process for free-stall barns.

Abstract

This study tested the effect of neck rails equipped with and without foam on stall usage and preference by dairy cows. The hypothesis of the experiment, that cows prefer lying stalls with foam in comparison to stalls without foam, was rejected. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in lying time and time spent standing with two and four hooves in the lying stalls between the two treatment groups. Considering the time of individual stall occupation and the distribution of stalls in the pen, cows showed a preference for one of two lying stall rows. Analysis of variance showed a significant difference (p < 0.001) between the time of stall occupation for the two different rows in the pen, including the time spent lying and the time spent standing with two and four hooves in the stall. Lying time per stall in the preferred row (near the feeding alley) in comparison with the alternative row was 580 ± 101 min·d⁻¹·stall⁻¹ versus 50 ± 28 min·d⁻¹·stall⁻¹, respectively. These results can support a design process for new barns with a free-stall housing system for dairy cattle.