Literature DB >> 29103721

Effects of alternative deep bedding options on dairy cow preference, lying behavior, cleanliness, and teat end contamination.

T Wolfe1, E Vasseur1, T J DeVries2, R Bergeron3.   

Abstract

Cows spend more time lying down when stalls are soft and dry, and bedding plays a key role in the comfort of the lying surface. The first objective of this study (experiment 1) was to compare cow preference for 2 types of alternative deep-bedding materials, switchgrass and switchgrass-lime, using wheat straw on a rubber mat as a control. Nine Holstein lactating cows were submitted in trios to a 3-choice preference test over 14 d (2 d of adaptation, 3 d of restriction to each stall, and 3 d of free access to all 3 stalls). Cows were housed individually in pens containing 3 stalls with different lying surfaces: (1) rubber mat with chopped wheat straw (WS); (2) deep-bedded switchgrass (SG); and (3) deep-bedded switchgrass, water, and lime mixture (SGL). The second objective (experiment 2) was to test, in freestall housing, the effects of these 3 types of bedding on lying behavior, cow cleanliness, and teat end bacterial contamination. Bedding treatments were compared in a 3 × 3 Latin square design using 24 cows split into groups of 8, with bedding materials being switched every 4 wk. Lying behavior was measured with data loggers in both studies. During experiment 1, cows chose to spend more time lying and had more frequent lying bouts on SG (9.4 h/d; 8.2 bouts/d) than on SGL (1.0 h/d; 0.9 bouts/d). They also spent more time standing and stood more frequently in stalls with SG (2.0 h/d; 10.1 bouts/d) than in those with SGL (0.6 h/d; 2.6 bouts/d), and stood longer in stalls with SG than with WS (0.6 h/d). In experiment 2, the total lying time, frequency of lying bouts, and mean lying bout duration were, on average, 9.7 ± 1.03 h/d, 8.2 ± 0.93 bouts/d, and 1.2 ± 0.06 h/bout, respectively, and did not differ between treatments. No treatment effects were found for cow cleanliness scores. Bedding dry matter was highest for SG (74.1%), lowest for SGL (63.5%), and intermediate for WS (68.6%) [standard error of the mean (SEM) = 1.57%]. This may explain the higher teat end count of coliforms for cows on SGL (0.92 log10 cfu/g) compared with WS (0.13 log10 cfu/g) (SEM = 0.144 log10 cfu/g). In conclusion, cows preferred the deep-bedded switchgrass surface over the other 2 surfaces, and deep-bedded switchgrass appears to be a suitable bedding alternative for dairy cows.
Copyright © 2018 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dairy cow; deep bedding; preference; switchgrass

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29103721     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-12358

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


  4 in total

1.  Effect of Peanut Shell and Rice Husk Bedding for Dairy Cows: An Analysis of Material Properties and Colostrum Microbiota.

Authors:  Pengtao Li; Tong Fu; Amin Cai; Kris Descovich; Hongxia Lian; Tengyun Gao; Clive J C Phillips
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 2.752

2.  Effects of Fermented Manure Bedding Thickness on Bulls' Growth, Behavior, and Welfare as Well as Barn Gases Concentration in the Barn.

Authors:  Kaifeng Niu; Xinxin Zhang; Chao Chen; Liguo Yang
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-04       Impact factor: 2.752

3.  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

4.  A Comparison of Rice Husks and Peanut Shells as Bedding Materials on Dairy Cows' Preferences, Behaviour, and Health.

Authors:  Pengtao Li; Amin Cai; Kris Descovich; Tong Fu; Hongxia Lian; Tengyun Gao; Clive J C Phillips
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 2.752

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.