Appropriate indoor housing facilities for dairy cattle promote improved animal welfare. Skin alterations are an indicator of dysfunctional housing. The purpose was to determine the relationship between different housing design and skin lesions, hence providing farmers more insight into how to reduce the occurrence of lesions. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 2,335 animals in 232 Norwegian freestall-housed dairy cattle from September 2006 to June 2007. A model was established to investigate risk factors related to the presence of lesions including hair loss, swelling, and wounds on the legs of dairy cattle. Separate models were developed to investigate risk factors related to the presence of knee and hock lesions. Previously described risk factors were included in the models, together with a questionnaire addressing the attitude of the farmer toward the animals. Mean (+/- SD) prevalence for hock lesions was 60.5 +/- 21.2% with a median value of 64%. The prevalence for knee lesions was 35.3 +/- 25.7% with a median of 30%. Cows in herds with a soft freestall base had an odds ratio (OR) for knee and hock lesions of 0.22 (0.06 to 0.73) and 0.62 (0.48 to 0.80), respectively, compared with those in herds with a harder freestall base, such as concrete and compact rubber mats. There was an increased risk of hock lesions when the length in the lying area in a double-row freestall was >250 cm (OR = 2.96; 1.02 to 8.60) compared with 260 cm (OR = 2.11; 1.53 to 2.90) compared with < or =260 cm. The risk for knee lesions increased if a row against a wall was >270 cm (OR = 1.72; 1.09 to 2.72) compared with < or =270 cm. Hock lesions were associated with lame cows (OR = 5.76; 1.14 to 29.18) versus nonlame cows, and with cows in their second or higher parity (OR = 1.27; 1.06 to 1.52) versus cows in their first parity. Knee lesions were associated with farmers' negative attitudes toward animals in pain (OR = 3.28; 1.79 to 6.03) versus those with positive attitudes; cows in the beginning of their lactation (OR = 1.84; 1.24 to 2.74) versus those at the end of their lactation; and tall animals (OR = 1.27; 1.00 to 1.61) versus shorter animals. These results show that freestall design is important with respect to skin lesions as are the characteristics of individual animals and the farmer.

BackgroundAccording to the Norwegian animal welfare regulations, it has been forbidden to build new tie-stall barns since the end of 2004. Previous studies have shown that cow performance and health differ between housing systems. The interaction between housing system and herd size with respect to performance and disease incidence has not been evaluated.MethodsCow performance and health in 620 herds housed in free-stall barns were compared with in 192 herds housed in tie-stall barns based on a mail survey and data from the Norwegian Dairy Herd Recording and Cattle Health Systems. The housing systems herds were comparable with respect to herd size (15-55 cows). Associations between performance/disease incidence and housing system, herd size and year of building the cow barn were tested in general linear models, and values for fixed herd size of 20 and 50 cows were calculated. On the individual cow level mixed models were run to test the effect of among others housing system and herd size on test-day milk yield, and to evaluate lactation curves in different parities. All cows were of the Norwegian Red Breed.ResultsAverage milk production per cow-year was 134 kg lower in free-stall herd than in tie-stall herds, but in the range 27-45 cows there was no significant difference in yields between the herd categories. In herds with less than 27 cows there were increasingly lower yields in free-stalls, particularly in first parity, whereas the yields were increasingly higher in free-stalls with more than 45 cows.In free-stalls fertility was better, calving interval shorter, and the incidence rate of teat injuries, ketosis, indigestions, anoestrus and cystic ovaries was lower than in tie-stalls. All of these factors were more favourable in estimated 50-cow herds as compared to 20-cow herds. In the larger herd category, bulk milk somatic cell counts were higher, and the incidence rate of mastitis (all cases) and all diseases was lower.ConclusionThis study has shown that there is an interaction between housing system and herd size, and that performance and health is not universally better in small free-stalls than in tie-stalls.

Cow cleanliness is important for ensuring hygienic milk production and the well-being of dairy cows. The aim of this cross-sectional field study was to describe cow cleanliness in freestall-housed dairy herds and to examine risk factors related to thigh cleanliness. Cow cleanliness (n=2,335), management-related variables (e.g., ventilation and use of sawdust-bedded stalls), and housing-related variables (e.g., freestall design and number of cows per stall) were recorded in 232 Norwegian freestall-housed dairy herds. Cleanliness was scored on a 4-point scale ranging from clean (1) to very dirty (4). The cows were relatively clean on the udder and belly, dirtier on thigh and the rear part of the body, and dirtiest on the legs, with cleanliness scores (mean ± SD) of 1.64±0.62, 1.62±0.65, 2.02±0.75, 1.77±0.58, and 2.30±0.59, respectively. With dirty thighs as the response variable, several variables were tested in a logistic regression mixed model and with repeated measurements within herd and cow. A high number of cows per freestall [odds ratio (OR)=3.45], no use of sawdust as bedding (OR=3.24) versus use of sawdust, and a low-positioned (<0.85 m above stall floor) upper head rail "enclosing" the front of the stall (OR=1.42 to 2.13) versus a position >0.85 m were all risk factors for dirty thighs on the cows. Furthermore, liquid manure (score 2) versus more consistent manure (score 1; OR=1.66) and less tame cows (score 2) versus tame cows (score 1) were associated with an increased risk of dirty thighs (OR=1.24). The cleanest cows were associated with indoor temperatures in the range from 10 to 15°C. For each 10-percentage-unit increase in relative air humidity, the risk of dirty thighs increased (OR=1.32). Freestalls with a construction hindering normal lying, rising, and standing movements should be avoided. Furthermore, focus is needed on indoor climate and manure consistency to obtain cows with clean thighs.

No abstract

The objective was to test if there was an association between free-stall base softness and milk yield, incidence of clinical mastitis (CM), teat lesions, and removal of cows. In a questionnaire sent to 1,923 dairy farms presumed to be using free-stall housing, farmers were asked for information regarding housing and stall base; for example, the year of installation and the product name or brand of their mats or mattresses. This information was merged with data for milk yield, CM, teat lesions, and removal of cows extracted from the Norwegian Dairy Herd Recording System for the years after installation of mats or mattresses. After exclusion of invalid contributions, the data set consisted of 29,326 lactations for milk yield distributed over 363 free-stalled herds in Norway. The farms were stratified into 5 categories according to the softness of the stall surface measured as millimeter impact of a sphere with a diameter of 120 mm at 2-kN load: 1=concrete, softness of 0mm; 2=rubber, softness of 1 to 8mm; 3=soft mats, softness of 9 to 16 mm; 4=multilayer mats, softness of 17 to 24 mm; and 5=mattresses, softness over 24 mm. Lactation curves were estimated as modified Wood's lactation curves using test-day data and mixed models with repeated measurements, adjusting for days in milk, parity, and softness of free-stall flooring. Herds on concrete free-stall bases yielded 6,727+/-146 kg of milk from 5 to 305 days in milk. In comparison, herds showed a decrease of 0.3% on rubber, an increase of 2.4% on soft mats, an increase of 4.5% on multilayer mats, and an increase of 3.9% on mattresses. Compared with concrete, the hazard ratio (HR) of CM was less on rubber, multilayer mats, and mattresses [HR=0.89 (0.79-0.99), 0.85 (0.73-0.996), and 0.80 (0.73-0.88), respectively]. Compared with concrete, the HR of teat lesions was less on rubber, soft mats, multilayer mats, and mattresses [HR=0.41 (0.26-0.65), 0.33 (0.24-0.44), 0.12 (0.04-0.38), and 0.47 (0.33-0.67), respectively]. The HR of removal of cows was less on mattresses compared with concrete, rubber, soft mats, and multilayer mats, with HR=0.90 (0.84-0.97), 0.88 (0.80-0.97), 0.86 (0.80-0.93), and 0.85 (0.76-0.95), respectively. A soft free-stall base contributed significantly to increased milk yield and fewer incidences of CM, teat lesions, and removal of cows.

The objective was to investigate the effect of stall partition design on total lying time, lying position, and stall cleanliness, and to evaluate the preferences of cows regarding stalls with traditional fixed stall dividers or flexible stall dividers. Using a crossover design, 16 nonlactating dairy cows were housed singly for 9 d in pens with 2 freestalls, 1 with fixed cantilever dividers and 1 with flexible dividers. The cows were first given access to one stall type, and then to the other type of stall, and finally to both in a preference test. Type of stall divider did not influence lying behavior (13.5h for fixed versus 14.0 h for flexible, ± 0.4h), lying positions, or stall cleanliness; however, the cows showed a preference for lying in the flexible stalls (65.2 for flexible vs. 34.8 for fixed ± 8.2%). This indicated that cows are able to distinguish between type of stall divider and that it is important to them; however, it is not clear if the reason for this is the shape or the properties of the dividers. We concluded that cattle chose a flexible stall divider over a fixed one, but the long-term consequences of this preference are not clear, because no obvious changes in stall usage were observed when cows were only given access to one type of divider.

In this research communication we describe the performance of dairy cow−calf pairs in two cow-driven CCC-systems differing in cows' access to the calves through computer-controlled access gates (smart gates, SG). We investigated cows' machine milk yield in the automatic milking system (AMS), calf growth, and intake of supplemental milk and concentrate. Two groups each with four cow-calf pairs were housed in a system with a cow area, a calf creep and a meeting area. SG's controlled cow traffic between the meeting area and the cow area where cows could obtain feed, cubicles and the AMS. Calves had ad libitum access to supplemental milk and concentrate. During the suckling phase of 31 d, cow access to the meeting area was free 24 h/d (group 1) or restricted (group 2) based on milking permission. Following the suckling phase, cow access was gradually decreased over 9 d (separation phase). During the suckling phase, cows' machine milk yield (mean ± sd) in the AMS was 11.4 ± 6.38 kg/d. In the separation phase, the yield increased to 25.0 ± 10.37 kg/d. Calf average daily gain (ADG) was high during the suckling phase: 1.2 ± 0.74 kg. During the separation phase, ADG decreased to 0.4 ± 0.72 kg which may be related to a low intake of supplemental milk. Calves' concentrate intake increased with age, and all calves consumed >1 kg/d after separation. We conclude that cows nurse the calf in a cow-directed CCC system well resulting in high ADG, and AMS milk yields were, at least, partially maintained during the suckling phase. Although the AMS yields increased in response to separation, calf ADG was decreased. A low sample size limits interpretation beyond description but provides a basis for hypotheses regarding future research into CCC-systems.

Research is needed on how technology can facilitate cow−calf contact (CCC). This research communication describes the behaviour of dairy cow−calf pairs in two cow-driven CCC-systems differing in cows' access to the calves through computer-controlled access gates (smart gates, SG). Specifically, cow traffic through SG when visiting their calves, allogrooming, suckling and cross-suckling, cows' eating and resting behaviour and finally vocal response to separation were assessed. After 3 d in an individual calving pen, pairs (n = 8) were moved to the CCC compartment with a cow area, a calf creep and a meeting area. During the next 31 d calves could suckle the cows whenever they visited the meeting area (suckling phase). Cows had free (group 1, n = 4 pairs) or restricted access to the calves based on previous activity in the automatic milking system (group 2, n = 4 pairs). SG's controlled cow traffic between the meeting area and the cow area, in which the cows could access resources such as feed, cubicles, and the automatic milking system. Following the suckling phase cow access into the meeting area was gradually decreased over 9 d (separation phase). During the suckling phase, cows paid frequent and short visits to their calves. Pairs spent in total approximately one h/d suckling and allogrooming. However, the duration and frequencies of these events varied among pairs and groups, as did the vocal response to separation. Restricted access − cows performed more (unrewarded) attempts to visit the calves who cross-suckled more. Collectively, free access to the calves may have been more intuitive and welfare friendly. Although a low sample size limits interpretation beyond description and enabling hypothesis formulation for future research, the results indicate that the cow is motivated to visit her calf, albeit through a SG, thus facilitating particular behaviours for which cow-calf pairs are highly motivated.