Table 25.
Housing‐related hazards affecting integument alterations in cubicle systems
| Housing‐related hazards affecting integument alterations | Effect | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lying surface | Shallow (vs. deep‐bedded) | ↑ | Brenninkmeyer et al. (2013), Barrientos et al. (2013) |
| Shallow (vs. deep‐bedded) | ns | Cook et al. (2016) | |
| Concrete (vs. soft mats or deep‐bedded) | ↑ | de Vries et al. (2015) | |
|
Concrete/mats (vs. mattresses or deep‐bedded) Hard surface (vs. soft surface) |
↑ | Burow et al. (2013b) | |
| Harder surface (rear part) | ↑ | Brenninkmeyer et al. (2013) | |
| Mats (vs. deep‐bedded) | ↑ | Armbrecht et al. (2019), Gieseke et al. (2020), Cook et al. (2016) | |
| Mattresses (vs. deep‐bedded: sand, straw, compost or manure) | ↑ | Andreasen and Forkman (2012), Cook et al. (2016), van Gastelen et al. (2011), Husfeldt and Endres (2012), Potterton et al. (2011) | |
| Mattresses (vs. shallow concrete) | ↑ | Potterton et al. (2011) | |
| Saw dust bedding (vs. straw or sand) | ↑ | ||
| Mats (vs. mattresses) | ↑ | Ekman et al. (2018) | |
| Saw dust, straw or combination (vs. peat bedding) | ↑ | ||
| Saw dust (vs. straw whole or chopped) bedding depth < 2 cm (vs. > 5 cm) |
↑ ↑ |
Potterton et al. (2011) | |
| Compost (vs. sand) | ↓ | van Gastelen et al. (2011) | |
| Sawdust (vs. straw) | ↑ | Lardy et al. (2021) | |
| Wet litter on the belly area (vs. dry) | ↓ | ||
| No litter (vs. straw) | ↑ | ||
| Mat thicker than 1 cm (vs. < 1 cm) | ↑ | ||
| Last 4 cm of the mat are soft (vs. hard) | ↓ | ||
| Stone free soil (vs. concrete) | ↓ | ||
| Absence of litter (= presence of mats) | ↓ | ||
| Cubicle dimension | Shorter lying area | ↑ | Brenninkmeyer et al. (2013) |
| Neck rail to rear 1.88–1.98 m (vs. > 2.08 m) | ↑ | Potterton et al. (2011) | |
| Neck rail height 1.11–1.15 m (vs. 0.91–1.1 m) | ↑ | ||
| Length 2.33–2.71 m (vs. 1.84–2.18 m) | ↑ | ||
| Brisket positioner to rear ≤ 1.78 m (vs. > 1.78 m) | ↑ | ||
| Width lower than recommended | ↑ | Ekman et al. (2018) | |
| Wider cubicles | (↑) | Gieseke et al. (2020) | |
| Cubicle floor height | ↑ | Lardy et al. (2021) | |
| Height difference between cubicle floor and walking alley relative to the height of the cow Between 0.023 and 0.055 × cow's height (vs. < 0.023) |
↑ |
||
| Curb height relative to the height of the cow < 0.11 × cow's height (vs. [0.11, 0.15]) | ↑ | ||
| Cubicle design |
Absence of curb Less free space under partitions |
↑ ↑ |
Brenninkmeyer et al. (2013) |
|
More interrupted bob zones Broken side rails Less cubicles facing wall |
↑ ↑ ↑ |
Potterton et al. (2011) | |
|
Obstacle on the cubicle lateral plane Obstacle in the cubicle median plane |
↑ ↓ |
Lardy et al. (2021) | |
| More than one sharp edge on the curb | ↑ | ||
| Absence of brisket board (vs. presence of brisket board) | ↑ | ||
| Round brisket board (vs. rectangle brisket board) | ↓ | ||
↑ = significant increase in prevalence of integument alterations (p < 0.05), (↑) = marginal increase (p < 0.1) ↓ = significant decrease in prevalence (p < 0.05).