Impacts of Compost Bedded Pack Barns on the Welfare and Comfort of Dairy Cows
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Animals, Housing and Feeding
2.2. Treatments
2.3. Data Collection and Study Design
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Inter and Intra-Observer Reliability
3.2. On-Farm Assessment Measures
3.2.1. Body Condition
3.2.2. Cow Dirtiness
3.2.3. Integument Alterations
3.2.4. Hoof Health and Lameness
3.3. Behavioral Assessment Measures
3.3.1. Lying down and Standing up
3.3.2. Posture and Position in the Barn
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fraser, D. Animal welfare assurance programs in food production: A framework for assessing the options. Anim. Welf. 2006, 15, 93–104. [Google Scholar]
- Webster, J. The assessment and implementation of animal welfare: Theory into practice. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2005, 24, 723–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oltenacu, P.A.; Broom, D.M. The impact of genetic selection for increased milk yield on the welfare of dairy cows. Anim. Welf. 2010, 19, 39–49. [Google Scholar]
- Haley, D.B.; de Passillé, A.M.; Rushen, J. Assessing cow comfort: Effects of two floor types and two tie stall designs on the behaviour of lactating dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001, 71, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munksgaard, L.; Jensen, M.B..; Pedersen, L.J.; Hansen, S.W.; Matthews, L. Quantifying behavioural priorities—Effects of time constraints on behaviour of dairy cows, Bos taurus. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005, 92, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munksgaard, L.; Ingvartsen, K.L.; Pedersen, L.J.; Nielsen, V.K. Deprivation of lying down affects behaviour and pituitary—Adrenal axis responses in young bulls. Acta Agric. Scand. A Anim. Sci. 1999, 49, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, E.; Weary, D.M. The effects of farm environment and management on laminitis. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Pacific Northwest Animal Nutrition Conference, Spokane, WA, USA, 3–5 October 2000; pp. 179–189. [Google Scholar]
- Vokey, F.J.; Guard, C.L.; Erb, H.N.; Galton, D.M. Effects of alley and stall surfaces on indices of claw and leg health in dairy cattle housed in a free-stall barn. J. Dairy Sci. 2001, 84, 2686–2699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burgstaller, J.; Raith, J.; Kuchling, S.; Mandl, V.; Hund, A.; Kofler, J. Claw health and prevalence of lameness in caws from compost bedded and cubicle freestall dairy barns in Austria. Vet. J. 2016, 216, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barberg, A.E.; Endres, M.I.; Janni, K.A. Dairy compost barns in Minnesota: A descriptive study. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2007, 23, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Endres, M.I.; Barberg, A.E. Behavior of dairy cows in an alternative bedded-pack housing system. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 4192–4200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berry, E.A. Mastitis incidence in straw yards and cubicles. Vet. Rec. 1998, 142, 517–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fregonesi, J.A.; Leaver, J.D. Behaviour, performance and health indicators of welfare for dairy cows housed in strawyard or cubicles systems. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2001, 68, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barberg, A.E.; Endres, M.I.; Salfer, J.A.; Reneau, J.K. Performance and welfare of dairy cows in an alternative housing system in Minnesota. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 1575–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Husfeldt, A.W.; Endres, M.I. Association between stall surface and some animal welfare measurements in freestall dairy herds using recycled manure solids for bedding. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 5626–5634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Welfare Quality®. Assessment Protocol for Cattle; Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009; Available online: http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/en-us/news/assessment-protocols/ (accessed on 3 December 2019).
- Archer, S.C.; Newsome, R.; Dibble, H.; Sturrock, C.J.; Chagunda, M.G.G.; Mason, C.S.; Huxley, J.N. Claw length recommendations for dairy cow foot trimming. Vet. Rec. 2015, 177, 222–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Plesch, G.; Broerkens, N.; Laister, S.; Wincker, C.; Knierim, U. Reliability and feasibility of selected measures concerning resting behaviour for the on-farm welfare assessment in dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 126, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krohn, C.C.; Munksgaard, L. Behaviour of dairy cows kept in extensive (loose housing/pasture) or intensive (tie stall) environments. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1993, 37, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landis, R.J.; Koch, G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adams, A.E.; Lombard, J.E.; Fossler, C.P.; Román-Muñiz, I.N.; Kopral, C.A. Associations between housing and management practices and the prevalence of lameness, hock lesions, and thin cows on US dairy operations. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 2119–2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lobeck, K.M.; Endres, M.I.; Shane, E.M.; Godden, S.M.; Fetrow, J. Animal welfare in cross-ventilated compost bedded pack, and naturally ventilated dairy barns in the upper Midwest. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 5469–5479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klaas, I.C.; Bjerg, B.; Friedmann, S.; Bar, D. Cultivated barns for dairy cows: An option to promote cattle welfare and environmental protection in Denmark? Dansk Veterinærtidsskrift 2010, 93, 20–29. [Google Scholar]
- Black, R.A.; Taraba, J.L.; Day, G.B.; Damasceno, F.A.; Bewley, J.M. Compost bedded pack dairy barn management, performance, and producer satisfaction. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 8060–8074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Astiz, S.; Sebastian, F.; Fargas, O.; Fernández, M.; Calvet, E. Enhanced udder health and milk yield of dairy cattle on compost bedding systems during the dry period: A comparative study. Livest. Sci. 2014, 159, 161–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brenninkmeyer, C.; Dippel, S.; Brinkmann, J.; March, S.; Winckler, C.; Knierim, U. Investigating integument alterations in cubicle housed dairy cows: Which types and locations can be combined? Animal 2016, 10, 342–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weary, D.M.; Taszkun, I. Hock lesions and free-stall design. J. Dairy Sci. 2000, 83, 697–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Gastelen, S.; Westerlaan, B.; Houwers, D.J.; van Eerdenburg, F.J.C.M. A study on cow comfort and risk for lameness and mastitis in relation to different types of bedding materials. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 4878–4888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de Boyer des Roches, A.; Veissier, I.; Coignard, M.; Bareille, N.; Guatteo, R.; Capdeville, J.; Gilot-Fromont, E.; Mounier, L. The major welfare problems of dairy cows in French commercial farms: An epidemiological approach. Anim. Welf. 2014, 23, 467–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmes, B.; Cook, N.; Funk, T.; Graves, R.; Kammel, D.; Reinemann, D.J.; Zulovich, J.M. Dairy Freestall Housing and Equipment, 8th ed.; MidWest Plan Service, Iowa State University: Ames, IA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Brenninkmeyer, C.; Winckler, C. Relationships between animal welfare hazards and animal-based welfare indicators. EFSA Support. Publ. 2012, 9, 253E. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wechsler, B.; Schaub, J.; Friedli, K.; Hauser, R. Behaviour and leg injuries in dairy cows kept in cubicle systems with straw bedding or soft lying mats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 69, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eckelkamp, E.A.; Taraba, J.L.; Akers, K.A.; Harmon, R.J.; Bewley, J.M. Understanding compost bedded pack barns: Interactions among environmental factors, bedding characteristics, and udder health. Livest. Sci. 2016, 190, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bran, J.A.; Costa, J.H.C.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Hötzel, M.J. Factors associated with lameness prevalence in lactating cows housed in fresstall and compost-bedded pack dairy farms in southern Brazil. Prev. Vet. Med. 2019, 172, 104773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chaplin, S.; Munksgaard, L. Evaluation of a simple method for assessment of rising behaviour in tethered dairy cows. Anim. Sci. 2001, 72, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, N. Cow Behaviour to Judge Free-Stall and Tie-Stall Barns; Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: Guelph, ON, Canada, 2016. Available online: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/dairy/facts/info_cowbehave.htm (accessed on 3 December 2019).
- Leonard, F.C.; O’Connell, J.M.; O’Farrell, K.J. Effect of overcrowding on claw health in first-calved Friesian heifers. Br. Vet. J. 1996, 152, 459–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Measure | Description 1 |
---|---|
Body condition | Four regions assessed: cavity around the tail head, loin, vertebrae and tail head/hipbones/spine/ribs. Score: Regular body condition (score 0), very lean (score 1) and very fat (score 2). The last two scores were recorded when at least 3 of 4 regions were very lean or very fat, respectively. |
Dirtiness | Four regions assessed: lower hind leg, hindquarter, udder and teats. Scores: 0 = clean, 2 = dirty. When assessing lower hind leg, hind quarter and udder, dirty was defined as separate or continuous areas of dirt amounting to the size of the palm of the hand. Minor splashing on the teats was also considered dirty (score of 2). |
Integument alterations | Hairless patches and lesions/swellings at least 2 cm diameter assessed in 5 regions: neck/shoulder/back, hindquarter, tarsus, flank/side/udder and carpus. Scores: 0 = no alteration, 1 = moderate alteration, 2 = severe alteration Hoof coronary band also included when assessing integument alterations. Scores: 0 = no alteration, 2 = coronary band swollen and reddish. |
Hoof overgrowth | Hooves assessed assuming a normal length of 7-8 cm Score: 0 = 2 claw horns of one leg similarly normal in length, 2 = at least one claw horn of one leg too long. |
Lameness | Three gait factors assessed: timing of steps, temporal rhythm and weight-bearing on feet. Scores: 0 = not lame, 1 = lame, 2 = severely lame. |
Item 1 | Treatment 2 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBP1 | CBP2 | BP1 | BP2 | FS1 | FS2 | |
No. of cows, mean | 104.8 | 72.8 | 88.0 | 91.0 | 96.0 | 95.0 |
No. of cows, SE | 2.93 | 1.49 | 2.45 | 2.87 | 0.00 | 0.50 |
Stocking density, mean | 10.7 | 9.2 | 7.6 | 7.6 | 9.4 | 9.1 |
Stocking density, SE | 0.32 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 0.50 |
Total area, m2 | 906 | 864 | 1121 | 695 | 670 | 695 |
Total resting area, m2 | 254 | 265 | 177 | 177 | 265 | 265 |
Video-recorded area, m2 | 181 | NA | 147 | NA | 280 | NA |
Video-recorded resting area, m2 | 116 | NA | 58 | NA | 190 | NA |
Item | Description |
---|---|
Time needed to lie down, s | The event starts when one carpal joint of the animal is clearly bent (before touching the ground). The whole lying down sequence ends when the hindquarter has descended and the animal has moved the scapula or leg of the supported underside forward (adapted from Plesch et al. [18]). |
Time needed to stand up, s | The event starts when the animal starts lifting the hindquarter from the ground. The rising sequence ends when both front legs touch the ground and the animal stands with the entire body weight on all 4 legs [18]. |
Cows undergoing an attempt/s before starting the motion, % | The lying down/standing up motion is preceded by one or more attempts at lying down or rising. The cow performs at least one attempt to: (1) lie down; when the carpal joint is clearly bent (before touching the ground) but, rather than continuing with the motion, the leg returns to its normal standing position; (2) stand up; when the hindquarter clearly moves forward and body weight leans on both knees but, rather than continuing with the motion, the animal moves backwards and remains in the lying position. |
Incorrect or unfinished sequence, % | The lying down and rising sequence (described above) is incorrectly performed or unfinished. |
Kneeling, % | Animal with knees bent supporting mainly body weight and the hind legs extended for at least 5 s (adapted from Krohn and Munksgaard, [19]). |
Item | Description |
---|---|
Lying in the resting area | |
Lying head resting | Animal lying in the resting area with the head in a relaxed position in contact with the floor, housing equipment or its own body (but not turned backwards) (adapted from Plesch et al. [18]). |
Lying head upright | Animal lying on the sternum in resting area with the head raised off the ground [4]. |
Lying head back | Animal lying on the sternum in resting area with the head turned backwards resting on the body [19]. |
Lying on side | Animal lying in resting area on its side with entire body weight on one side and legs not underneath the body [18]. |
Standing or walking in the resting area | Animal standing or walking in the resting area either with all 4 legs or perching (forelegs in resting area and hind legs in alley). |
Item | Severity and Body Region | Treatment 1 | SEM 2 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBP | BP | FS | |||
No. of cows assessed | 256 | 250 | 251 | NA | |
Body condition | Very lean, % | 4.6 | 4.2 | 2.3 | 1.68 |
Very fat, % | 19.0 | 12.7 | 8.4 | 5.27 | |
Dirtiness | Lower hind leg, % | 99.5 | 99.8 | 99.2 | 1.26 |
Hindquarter, % | 40.5 b | 53.2 a | 30.9 c | 3.37 | |
Udder, % | 41.3 a | 44.2 a | 30.0 b | 2.86 | |
Teats, % | 53.5 | 61.0 | 34.6 | 10.80 | |
Integument alterations | Moderate (neck/shoulder/back), % | 7.7 | 7.5 | 9.0 | 2.26 |
Severe (neck/shoulder/back), % | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.96 | |
Moderate (hindquarters), % | 22.5 a,b | 18.2 b | 25.3 a | 3.21 | |
Severe (hindquarters), % | 5.0 a,b | 2.6 b | 13.1 a | 4.15 | |
Moderate (tarsus), % | 2.0 c | 8.4 b | 62.0 a | 7.47 | |
Severe (tarsus), % | 5.8 | 1.8 | 3.7 | 4.40 | |
Moderate (flank/side/udder), % | 7.3 | 6.7 | 8.5 | 4.38 | |
Severe (flank/side/udder), % | 2.6 | 3.4 | 2.4 | 2.52 | |
Moderate (carpus), % | 0.3 | 2.0 | 2.9 | 3.04 | |
Severe (carpus), % | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.78 | |
Moderate (all body regions), % | 34.4 b | 37.1 b | 72.3 a | 5.84 | |
Severe (all body regions), % | 16.4 b | 16.0 b | 54.3 a | 15.01 | |
Hoof health and lameness | Inflamed coronary band, % | 15.1 a | 8.0 a,b | 0.6 b | 6.53 |
Hooves overgrown, % | 19.1 | 16.0 | 15.2 | 3.91 | |
Moderately lame, % | 13.2 | 8.4 | 15.4 | 5.12 | |
Severely lame, % | 4.2 a | 3.4 a | 0.7 b | 2.51 |
Item | Treatment 1 | SEM 2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBP | BP | FS | |||
Lying down | |||||
No. of events observed | 347 | 318 | 429 | NA | |
Time needed to lie down, s | 4.9 a | 4.5 b | 4.9 a | 0.37 | |
Attempts before starting the motion, % | 4.7 a,b | 1.5 b | 6.4 a | 3.32 | |
Incorrect or unfinished motion, % | 2.3 | 0.6 | 1.9 | 0.53 | |
Kneeling, % | 6.4 a | 2.2 b | 2.6 b | 1.32 | |
Standing up | |||||
No. of events observed | 251 | 356 | 357 | NA | |
Time needed to stand up, s | 3.5 b | 3.1 c | 3.9 a | 0.30 | |
Attempts before starting the motion, % | 3.3 b | 1.7 b | 14.9 a | 2.85 | |
Incorrect or unfinished motion, % | 1.5 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 0.53 | |
Kneeling, % | 0.8 | 0.6 | 1.9 | 0.73 |
Item, % Time Over 6h | Treatment 1 | SEM 2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBP | BP | FS | |||
Lying in the resting area | 96.5 a | 84.5 a | 56.4 b | 9.17 | |
Head resting | 1.3 | 1.1 | 2.1 | 2.03 | |
Head up | 91.6 a | 91.8 a | 85.9 b | 5.46 | |
Head back | 6.1 | 7.0 | 10.7 | 4.45 | |
Lying on side | 2.9 | 0.2 | 3.8 | 3.75 | |
Standing in the resting area | 3.5 b | 15.5 b | 43.6 a | 9.17 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fernández, A.; Mainau, E.; Manteca, X.; Siurana, A.; Castillejos, L. Impacts of Compost Bedded Pack Barns on the Welfare and Comfort of Dairy Cows. Animals 2020, 10, 431. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030431
Fernández A, Mainau E, Manteca X, Siurana A, Castillejos L. Impacts of Compost Bedded Pack Barns on the Welfare and Comfort of Dairy Cows. Animals. 2020; 10(3):431. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030431
Chicago/Turabian StyleFernández, Anna, Eva Mainau, Xavier Manteca, Adriana Siurana, and Lorena Castillejos. 2020. "Impacts of Compost Bedded Pack Barns on the Welfare and Comfort of Dairy Cows" Animals 10, no. 3: 431. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030431
APA StyleFernández, A., Mainau, E., Manteca, X., Siurana, A., & Castillejos, L. (2020). Impacts of Compost Bedded Pack Barns on the Welfare and Comfort of Dairy Cows. Animals, 10(3), 431. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030431