Cubicle housing systems for cattle: Comfort of dairy cows depends on cubicle adjustment1

Abstract

Housing is important for the welfare of cows. Although recommendations have been proposed, abnormal movements and injury problems are still observed in cubicle houses. We conducted a survey on 70 French dairy farms that used cubicles. We examined the design of the cubicles, and the behavior, injuries, and cleanliness of the cows. Most of the cubicles did not comply with the recommendations, often being too narrow and/or too short. Difficulties in lying behavior and injuries were more common when the neck rail was high. No improvement was noted when cubicles of a recent design were used ("U.S." cubicles), apparently because these cubicles were most often cantilevered on a double head rail rather than fixed on freestanding posts. An experiment was conducted, making similar measurements, on 84 cows to compare two configurations for U.S. cubicles (cantilevered on a double head rail as observed in the survey with a high and rear neck rail vs. fixed on freestanding posts as recommended) and another recent cubicle type (Euroconfort, cantilevered on head rails, but with a large space between the rails and fixed as recommended), with and without a brisket board. In U.S. cubicles on rails, cows spent more time lying and less time fully standing inside the cubicles than in the other cubicles (percentage of time: lying, 53.9 vs. 51.5; fully standing, 7.3 vs. 8.5); in Euroconfort cubicles, they hit bars more often when getting up than in U.S. Cubicles (percentage of observations: 42.4 vs. 26.4. Without a brisket board, cows lay down more often in a fore position in U.S. cubicles than in Euroconfort ones. Somatic cell counts increased with time in U.S. cubicles on rails and decreased in the other cubicles. It is suggested that the position of the neck rail in U.S. cubicles cantilevered on rails did not leave enough space for the cow to stand inside the cubicle, thereby encouraging the cow to lie down. This could in turn favor udder contamination and/or inflammation. It is concluded that the positioning of the neck rail is of prime importance, that U.S. cubicles should be used with a brisket board and with correct positioning of the neck rail (even when a head rail is used), and that leaving a large space between head rails does not offer an adequate remedial solution for keeping a free head space in front of the cubicle.

Investigating integument alterations in cubicle housed dairy cows: which types and locations can be combined?

“…Despite the wide range of different conditions covered by the three sub-data sets, ranges within each sub-data set were in general close or equal to the range of the complete data set and comparable to other studies. Kielland et al (2009), for example, found a range of 0% to 100% for a combination of H, S and W at the carpal joints, with a mean herd prevalence of 35% for the left as well as for the right carpus, and Veissier et al (2004) a range of 0% to 100% for severe injuries, defined as open wounds or oedema, with a mean of 41%. Despite comparable prevalence ranges, mean prevalences reported are lower than median values in our study (S 83%, H 48%, W 16%), which might partly be due to the fact, that prevalences were given for each leg, separately (Kielland et al, 2009) or for severe injuries (Vessier et al, 2004).…”

“…Mülleder and Waiblinger, 2004;Veissier et al, 2004;Kielland et al, 2009). They reflect an impairment of the cows' welfare as wounds and swellings may be painful, and alterations including hairless areas reflect repeated conflicts of the cow with its environment.…”

Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 1: a review of existing methods

“…PCA have been successfully used on subsets of variables related to the same welfare issue. For instance, Veissier and Capdeville (2004) considered three main criteria describing the comfort of cows cubicles: difficulties in lying down and getting up movements, injuries, cleanliness. For each criterion, several measures were defined, a PCA was run on the data obtained from a survey on 70 farms, and the first component of PCA was considered as a summary variable to compare several cubicle designs.…”

“…principal components) are calculated to summarise the variability between observations. This approach provides the ability to describe and compare observed situations (as in Veissier et al, 2004).…”

Model to evaluate welfare in dairy cow farms

“…In the building aspect indicators barn characteris- tics have been considered, and the indicator with the greater weighted score concerns the adequacy of the resting area, considering that the cows require approximately 10 h/d lying or resting time (Grant and Albright, 2001). The judgment of the adequacy of resting area has been obtained comparing the actual cubicle dimensions, considering the estimated live weight of lactating cows, with the standards proposed by McFarland (2003) and the indications of Veissier et al (2004). However, further indicators of the space availability aspect are the total area available per each animal and the area available for resting (number of cubicles per animal or area available per animal).…”