Literature DB >> 20855001

Associations between cow hygiene, hock injuries, and free stall usage on US dairy farms.

J E Lombard1, C B Tucker, M A G von Keyserlingk, C A Kopral, D M Weary.   

Abstract

This cross-sectional study evaluated cow comfort measures in free stall dairies across the United States as part of the National Animal Health Monitoring System's Dairy 2007 study. The study was conducted in 17 states and evaluations were completed between March 5 and September 5, 2007. Assessors recorded hygiene and hock scores, number of cows housed in the pen, the number of cows standing with only the front feet in a stall, standing fully in a stall, and lying in a stall. Facility design measures included bedding type, bedding quantity, stall length and width, presence of a neck rail or brisket locator, and relevant distances from the rear and bed of the stall. Of the 491 operations that completed the cow comfort assessment, 297 had Holstein cows housed in free stalls and were included in this analysis. Negative binomial models were constructed to evaluate the following outcomes: the number of cows that were very dirty, had severe hock injuries, stood with front feet in the stall, stood with all feet in the stall, and were lying in the stall. Hygiene was better on farms that did not tail dock cows compared with those that did (5.7 vs. 8.8% were dirty) and on farms located in the study's west region compared with those located in the east region (5.2 vs. 9.7% were dirty). Severe hock injuries were less common on farms in the west than those in the east (0.5 vs. 4.1%). In addition, severe hock injuries were less common on farms that used dirt as a stall base or sand as bedding compared with farms that did not. A higher percentage of cows was standing with front feet in the stall at higher ambient temperatures (incidence rate ratio=1.016) and as time since feeding increased (incidence rate ratio=1.030). A lower percentage of cows were standing with front feet in the stall when the stalls were shorter and when there were fewer cows per stall. Standing fully in a stall was performed by a higher percentage of cows during the summer than during the spring (13.6 vs. 8.1%), when cows were provided free stalls with rubber mats or mattresses, and as the distance from the rear curb to neck rail increased. A higher percentage of cows were lying in a stall when sand bedding was used, when bedding was added more frequently, and during the spring months. Results of this national survey indicate that tail docking provides no benefit to cow hygiene and that stall base and bedding are key factors influencing hock injuries and stall usage on US free stall dairy farms.
Copyright © 2010 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20855001     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2010-3225

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dairy Sci        ISSN: 0022-0302            Impact factor:   4.034


  9 in total

1.  The microbiome of common bedding materials before and after use on commercial dairy farms.

Authors:  Tui Ray; Tara Nath Gaire; Christopher J Dean; Sam Rowe; Sandra M Godden; Noelle R Noyes
Journal:  Anim Microbiome       Date:  2022-03-07

2.  Effects of Housing and Management Factors on Selected Indicators of the Welfare Quality® Protocol in Loose-Housed Dairy Cows.

Authors:  Daniel Gieseke; Christian Lambertz; Matthias Gauly
Journal:  Vet Sci       Date:  2022-07-13

Review 3.  Association between Lameness and Indicators of Dairy Cow Welfare Based on Locomotion Scoring, Body and Hock Condition, Leg Hygiene and Lying Behavior.

Authors:  Mohammed B Sadiq; Siti Z Ramanoon; Wan Mastura Shaik Mossadeq; Rozaihan Mansor; Sharifah Salmah Syed-Hussain
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2017-11-05       Impact factor: 2.752

4.  A cross-sectional study of the welfare of calves raised in smallholder dairy farms in Meru, Kenya, 2017.

Authors:  Emily K Kathambi; John A Van Leeuwen; George K Gitau; Shawn L McKenna
Journal:  Vet World       Date:  2018-08-10

5.  Hock lesions in dairy cows in freestall herds: a cross-sectional study of prevalence and risk factors.

Authors:  Lisa Ekman; Ann-Kristin Nyman; Håkan Landin; Karin Persson Waller
Journal:  Acta Vet Scand       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 1.695

6.  Evaluation of the Physical Properties of Bedding Materials for Dairy Cattle Using Fuzzy Clustering Analysis.

Authors:  Patrícia Ferreira Ponciano Ferraz; Gabriel Araújo E Silva Ferraz; Lorenzo Leso; Marija Klopčič; Giuseppe Rossi; Matteo Barbari
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2020-02-22       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 7.  Recycling manure as cow bedding: Potential benefits and risks for UK dairy farms.

Authors:  Katharine A Leach; Simon C Archer; James E Breen; Martin J Green; Ian C Ohnstad; Sally Tuer; Andrew J Bradley
Journal:  Vet J       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 2.688

8.  Carpal, tarsal, and stifle skin lesion prevalence and potential risk factors in Swiss dairy cows kept in tie stalls: A cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Johanna Karin Bernhard; Beatriz Vidondo; Rahel Lisa Achermann; Rahel Rediger; Kerstin Elisabeth Müller; Adrian Steiner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Effects of cubicle characteristics on animal welfare indicators in dairy cattle.

Authors:  D Gieseke; C Lambertz; M Gauly
Journal:  Animal       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.