Housing tiestall dairy cows in deep-bedded pens during an 8-week dry period: Effects on lying time, lying postures, and rising and lying-down behaviors

Abstract

Dairy cow lying behavior is useful in determining the cow's level of welfare, as well as in determining how her environment may affect her comfort and ease of movement. In tiestall systems, cows usually remain in a stall for the duration of their lactation. The dry period offers a unique opportunity to provide alternative housing to the cow with minimal effects on farm housing and management. Our objective was to determine whether housing tiestall cows in deep-bedded pens over an 8-wk dry period altered lying time, lying and rising ability, or lying postures. At dry-off, 20 cows, paired by parity and calving date, were randomly assigned to a deep-bedded loose pen (LP) or a tiestall (TS). Leg-mounted pedometers measured lying time. Rising and lying ability were measured using 6 events of rising and lying from 24-h video recordings taken once a week per cow. Sequenced images (1/min) from the 24-h recordings were used to document lying postures and locations for each cow. Data were analyzed for the early (first week of dry-off), mid, and late (week before calving) terms of the dry period. Lying time did not differ between LP and TS but was numerically higher for LP than TS cows (14.4 vs. 13.0 h/d, respectively). Contact with stall or pen confines when lying down was 5 times higher in TS than LP. The increased contact, coupled with a higher occurrence of hindquarter shifting in the late term, led to higher overall abnormal lying behaviors in TS. Contact with the stall upon rising increased in the late term for TS cows. Cows housed in loose pens also exhibited greater variation in hind-leg postures, keeping legs tucked 20% less often in favor of alternative postures. Stall hardware (e.g., tie rail, dividers) may have affected the ease of transition between lying and standing, leading to higher levels of contact with the stall. Loose-pen cows are able to assume more postures than TS cows when provided more space, possibly allowing them to orient themselves in ways that provide greater comfort. Lying surface in the deep-bedded loose pen may ease the cow's lying-down and rising movements and lead to the higher lying time found with LP cows. Overall, aspects of the stall largely contributed to differences in lying behaviors, warranting further study into whether freestall systems would yield similar outcomes. Improving our concept of ease of movement related to lying and quality of rest in dairy cows, through evaluating lying behaviors in different housing systems, allows for better recommendations on viable alternative housing options.

Influence of the Housing System and the Season on Some Parameters Indicative of the Welfare of Dairy Cows in Eastern Algeria

“…In our study, the frequency of lame cows was not influenced by the season (P >0.05) (Table 2). These results are concordant with those of Shepley et al (2019b) which assessed the impact of locomotor activity (number of steps) on the lameness score of dairy cows. However, these authors did not indicate any significant differences in the number of lame animals between winter and summer periods in the two types of tie (P = 0.61) and free stall (P = 0.31).…”

“…Unlike traditional confined housing systems, free systems ensure better udder health (De Pinho Manzi et al, 2012;M'Sadak et al, 2015), lower risk of ketosis and better fertility (Relić and Vuković, 2013;Bugueiro et al, 2020), expressing superior potential and performance for improved animal welfare (Vučemilo et al, 2012). In addition, dairy cows housed in free housing benefit from outdoor exercise, positively impacting their health and well-being Popescu et al, 2013;(Dohme-Meier et al, 2014;Shepley et al, 2019b). However, some studies point out that this type of free housing causes a higher risk of lameness (Cook, 2003;Sogstad et al, 2005).…”

Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle housed in tiestalls compared to less-restrictive housing types: A systematic review

“…Lying behavior was most frequently reported in studies comparing tiestalls to loose housing. All included studies found at least some negative effects of tiestalls on lying patterns, including increased time standing idle and longer standing bouts (Haley et al, 2000), greater frequency of lying interruptions (Jensen, 1999), reduced synchronization of lying behavior (Krohn et al, 1992), more interruptions of the lying down movement (Krohn and Munksgaard, 1993), abnormal lying patterns (Shepley et al, 2019) more collisions lying down (Plesch et al, 2010;Popescu et al, 2014;Shepley et al, 2019), and a greater percentage of cows lying at least partially outside the lying area (Mattiello et al, 2009;Plesch et al, 2010;Ostojić-Andrić et al, 2011). In one study, however, (Müller et al, 1989), the reported benefits of loose housing could not be differentiated from the presence or absence of bedding.…”

“…Of the 13 studies in the current review measuring some aspect of lying behavior across different housing types, none found advantages to tethering, and 9 found at least some impairments when cattle were tied compared with loose-housed. These impairments included increases in collisions while lying down, lying outside the lying area, duration to reach recumbency, time spent kneeling, unfulfilled intentions to lie down, abnormal lying postures, and lying interruptions (Krohn et al, 1992;Krohn and Munksgaard, 1993;Plesch et al, 2010;Ostojić-Andrić et al, 2011;Popescu et al, 2014;Shepley et al, 2019).…”

Symposium review: Considerations for the future of dairy cattle housing: An animal welfare perspective

“…More recent research echoes these findings, detailing abnormal lying patterns in tiestall systems (e.g., Plesch et al, 2010;Enriquez-Hidalgo et al, 2018;Shepley et al, 2019). Thus, from the cow's perspective (as well as from the public's; Robbins et al, 2019), the expression of certain natural behaviors is hindered.…”