Abstract
Cubicle characteristics such as cubicle dimensions or management factors such as cow-to-cubicle ratio could affect health and behaviour of dairy cows. The objective of this study was to estimate effects of cubicle characteristics on animal welfare indicators in dairy cattle. A total of 64 loose housing farms in Germany were assessed once during the winter housing period by one experienced assessor. Nearly 15% of the dairy cows had access to pasture during summer months for <6 h/day, whereas 85% were zero-grazing farms. Selected animal welfare indicators (duration of the lying down process, collisions of cows with cubicles, cows lying outside cubicles, cow cleanliness, integument alterations, lameness and subclinical mastitis incidence) of the Welfare Quality® protocol and cubicle characteristics such as cow-to-cubicle ratio and cubicle dimensions were recorded. Data were statistically analysed using a multiple linear regression approach. Pasture access and cubicle type were considered as potential influencing factors. Wider cubicles positively affected the proportion of dairy cows with dirty flanks (−18.5% per 10 cm increase) but increased the number of cows with severe integument alterations (+8.9% per 10 cm increase). Larger lying areas reduced the percentage of cows with dirty udders (−2.9% per 10 cm2 increase). Longer distances from neck rail to curb were associated with higher prevalence of cows with dirty flanks (+3.1% per 10 cm increase) and subclinical mastitis incidence (+1.2% per 10 cm increase). With increasing neck rail height, the duration of the lying down process (−0.1 s per 10% increase), the percentages of cows with dirty legs (−8.4% per 10 cm increase), dirty udders (−7.0% per 10 cm increase) and severe lameness (−3.0% per 10 cm increase) decreased. Compared with rubber mat-equipped cubicles, deep-bedded cubicles showed a reduction in the lying down duration (−0.8 s), percentages of cows with dirty legs (−34.2%), dirty udders (−30.5%) and lesions and swellings (−13.1%). Compared with farms that did not provide any summer grazing, pasture access was associated with an increase of cows with severe lameness (+5.6%). Contrastingly, the number of cows with subclinical mastitis incidence was lower when cows had access to pasture in summer (−5.4%). Findings of the present study indicate several associations between cubicle characteristics and animal welfare in dairy cattle. Bedding type was found as the most influencing factor in terms of health and behaviour. Results of this study are valuable for farmers to identify the optimal cubicle design and improve the animal welfare level.
Keywords: dairy cows, housing system, cubicle design, Welfare Quality® protocol, well-being
Implications
The observed associations between cubicle characteristics (e.g. cow-to-cubicle ratio, cubicle dimensions) and related animal welfare indicators (e.g. lying down duration, cow cleanliness and lameness) can help farmers to optimize the lying areas of their dairy cows. Based on the most relevant animal welfare problems in the herds, cubicle characteristics can be modified by the farmers and resting comfort of the cows effectively improved. For example, deep-bedded cubicles were favourable regarding lying down duration, cow cleanliness and integument alterations compared to rubber mat-equipped cubicles and can be recommended to obtain higher animal welfare levels in dairy cattle farms.
Introduction
Currently, the majority of dairy cows in Germany are kept in loose housing systems (73%) with or without access to pasture. The majority of these farms have cubicle barns (87%), in which the animals can rest in individual cubicles (Destatis, 2018). Restrictive cubicle separations have positive effects on the cleanliness of lying surfaces and dairy cows, respectively. Cows are not able to stand with all four feet in cubicles when neck rails are positioned low and consequently do not defecate on the lying surface (Abade et al., 2015). For example, lower distances (130 cm) between neck rails and rear curb reduced the dirtiness of cows compared to higher distances (190 cm) (Bernardi et al., 2009). However, restrictive cubicle separations might also have detrimental effects on behaviour and health of dairy cattle. Inadequate cubicle dimensions might disturb standing up and lying down movements in the cubicles. These lead to painful collisions with cubicle partitions and integument alterations on prominent parts of the body such as spinal column or hip bones (Potterton et al., 2011; Brenninkmeyer et al., 2013). Cubicles with inadequate cubicle dimensions are uncomfortable for the cows and might lead to increasing standing durations (Chapinal et al., 2013). Due to prolonged contact with manure in the walking alleys, animals are at higher risk of claw diseases and lameness (Cook and Nordlund, 2009). Aspects of housing and management such as cubicle type or pasture access could also have strong effects on animal welfare in dairy cattle. Deep-bedded cubicles have positive effects on locomotion (Husfeldt and Endres, 2012) and integument alterations (Brenninkmeyer et al., 2013). Pasture access during the summer period is beneficial regarding integument alterations (Haskell et al., 2006) and lameness (Wagner et al., 2018; Armbrecht et al., 2019). Most studies examined the effects of different cubicle characteristics on single animal welfare indicators (e.g. lameness, hock lesions or cleanliness). However, effects of cubicle design or management decisions might differ between welfare indicators and should consequently be evaluated using a multidimensional approach. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the various relationships between cubicle characteristics and related animal welfare indicators. The results could help farmers to optimize cubicle design and consequently improve animal welfare in their herds.
Material and methods
Study design
A total of 64 conventional dairy farms located in northern Germany were visited once during the winter housing season from 2014 to 2016 by one experienced animal scientist. The animal welfare level was assessed using the Welfare Quality® protocol (WQP) for dairy cattle (Welfare Quality, 2012). This is a standardized indicator system for on-farm animal welfare assessment, which focuses mainly on animal-based measures from the fields of feeding, housing, health and behaviour. The assessor was trained intensively by a member of the Welfare Quality® Network. The official training course consisted of theoretical exercises with photo and video material and practical applications on several dairy cattle farms. Data collection of this study was conducted by one assessor, so that a consistent application of the WQP can be assumed.
Farm selection
Farm recruitment was organized with the support of different agricultural stakeholders (e.g. chamber of agriculture, milk-recording associations and research facilities). The dairy farms were selected on a voluntary basis according to the prevalent housing conditions, because comparability between the farms should be guaranteed. Therefore, all lactating dairy cows were kept in cubicle barns. The cubicles were either deep bedded (72%) or equipped with rubber mats (28%). Farms with both types of cubicles were not considered. Nearly 15% of the dairy cows had access to pasture during summer months (<6 h/day), whereas 85% were zero-grazing farms. The dominant breed was Holstein-Friesian. Further information on farm characteristics and performance data is presented in Table 1.
Table 1.
Characteristics (farm data, performance data and cubicle design) and results of selected indicators of the Welfare Quality® protocol of dairy cattle of 64 dairy farms classified by pasture access (zero-grazing v. pasture access <6 h) and type of cubicle (rubber mats v. deep bedded), respectively
| Farm parameters/welfare indicators | Pasture access | Type of cubicle | Total (n = 64) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pasture access (n = 9) | Zero-grazing (n = 55) | Deep bedded (n = 46) | Rubber mats (n = 18) | ||
| Farm dataa | |||||
| Herd size cows (n) | 127 (61 to 465) | 415 (47 to 1609) | 376 (48 to 1609) | 370 (47 to 1555) | 374 (47 to 1609) |
| Pasture access (h) | 4 (2 to 5) | 0 (0 to 0) | 0 (0 to 5) | 1 (0 to 5) | 1 (0 to 5) |
| Pasture access (days) | 180 (150 to 210) | 0 (0 to 0) | 12 (0 to 180) | 42 (0 to 210) | 20 (0 to 210) |
| Deep-bedded cubicles (%) | 55.6 (n = 5) | 74.6 (n = 41) | 100.0 (n = 46) | 0.0 (n = 0) | 71.9 (n = 46) |
| Rubber mat cubicles (%) | 44.4 (n = 4) | 25.4 (n = 14) | 0.0 (n = 0) | 100.0 (n = 18) | 28.1 (n = 18) |
| Performance datab | |||||
| Milk yield (kg) | 8913 (658) | 10 014 (946) | 10 088 (863) | 9274 (1061) | 9859 (985) |
| Fat content (%) | 4.0 (0.2) | 4.0 (0.2) | 4.0 (0.2) | 4.1 (0.2) | 4.0 (0.2) |
| Protein content (%) | 3.4 (0.1) | 3.4 (0.1) | 3.4 (0.1) | 3.4 (0.1) | 3.4 (0.1) |
| Cubicle designb | |||||
| Cow-to-cubicle ratio (%) | 110.3 (18.2) | 97.9 (13.1) | 100.4 (13.4) | 97.6 (17.1) | 99.6 (14.4) |
| Cubicle length (cm) | 183.6 (8.2) | 190.9 (14.2) | 190.6 (15.2) | 188.1 (8.9) | 189.9 (13.7) |
| Cubicle width (cm) | 111.9 (3.7) | 111.8 (3.4) | 111.9 (3.6) | 111.6 (3.1) | 111.8 (3.4) |
| Length × width (m2) | 2.1 (0.1) | 2.1 (0.2) | 2.1 (0.2) | 2.1 (0.1) | 2.1 (0.2) |
| Neck rail to curb (cm) | 200.2 (15.2) | 200.4 (11.0) | 199.2 (9.4) | 203.4 (15.7) | 200.4 (11.6) |
| Neck rail height (cm) | 113.3 (7.1) | 118.0 (8.8) | 118.1 (8.5) | 115.4 (9.0) | 117.3 (8.7) |
| Divider height (cm) | 58.2 (7.7) | 57.1 (11.9) | 57.2 (12.2) | 57.2 (8.8) | 57.2 (11.3) |
| Welfare indicatorsb | |||||
| Duration of the lying down process (s) | 5.9 (0.6) | 5.9 (0.8) | 5.7 (0.6) | 6.6 (0.7) | 5.9 (0.7) |
| Collisions with cubicles (%) | 11.1 (9.8) | 19.0 (16.4) | 17.0 (14.5) | 20.0 (19.1) | 17.9 (15.8) |
| Cows lying outside cubicles (%) | 3.2 (4.6) | 3.5 (5.7) | 3.6 (5.9) | 2.9 (4.5) | 3.4 (5.5) |
| Cows with dirty legs (%) | 66.5 (28.4) | 53.2 (28.1) | 44.8 (23.9) | 81.3 (21.1) | 55.1 (28.3) |
| Cows with dirty flanks (%) | 65.4 (29.0) | 68.9 (20.5) | 67.2 (19.5) | 71.7 (26.8) | 68.4 (21.7) |
| Cows with dirty udders (%) | 55.1 (27.3) | 43.2 (24.2) | 35.4 (18.3) | 69.2 (22.6) | 44.9 (24.8) |
| Cows with lesions/swellings (%) | 29.0 (19.5) | 27.1 (13.9) | 23.8 (13.5) | 36.5 (13.8) | 27.3 (14.6) |
| Cows with severe lameness (%) | 18.3 (11.4) | 15.3 (10.1) | 14.6 (10.1) | 18.6 (10.2) | 15.7 (10.2) |
| Cows with mastitis incidence (%) | 15.5 (7.5) | 21.0 (7.5) | 20.0 (8.4) | 20.7 (5.5) | 20.2 (7.7) |
Median (minimal − maximal).
Mean (SD).
Welfare indicators
The animal welfare level of the dairy farms was generally assessed following the instructions of the WQP. Minor modifications and assessment methods are described in Supplementary Table S1. At the beginning of the farm visit, indicators of lying comfort (duration of the lying down process, collisions of cows with cubicles and cows lying outside cubicles) were recorded using continuous behaviour sampling. The clinical scoring of individual dairy cows was carried out in the same sample of animals (cow cleanliness, integument alterations and lameness). Depending on the herd size, a sample of 32 to 102 cows were assessed at each farm visit (Welfare Quality, 2012). Finally, milk-recording data (milk somatic cell count (SCC)) of the last 3 months before farm visit were gathered during a farmer interview.
Cubicle characteristics
In addition to the indicators of the WQP, potentially associated cubicle characteristics such as cow-to-cubicle ratio and cubicle dimensions were recorded. The data collection was executed based on the methods described in von Keyserlingk et al. (2012). Cow-to-cubicle ratios of the different lactating groups were averaged and multiplied by 100 (>100% = overstocking; <100% = understocking). Cubicle dimensions including bed length from curb to brisket locator (cubicle length), distance between two adjacent cubicle partitions (cubicle width), distance between neck rail and lying surface (neck rail height), distance between neck rail and curb (neck rail to curb), distance between divider and lying surface (divider height) and lying surface dimensions (cubicle length × cubicle width) were recorded exemplary on at least two representative cubicles. Deep-bedding cubicles contained long straw, horse manure or sawdust, whereas rubber mat-equipped cubicles were interspersed with chopped straw and chalk. Further information on cubicle design parameters is presented in Table 1.
Statistical analysis
The hypothesized effects of different cubicle characteristics on related animal welfare indicators were analysed using a multiple linear regression approach. Observed values of the selected animal welfare indicators were used as outcome variables. Cubicle characteristics such as cow-to-cubicle ratio, cubicle length, cubicle width, length × width, neck rail height, neck rail to curb and divider height were considered as explanatory variables. Pasture access (<6 h/day) and type of cubicle (deep-bedded v. rubber mat) were also included as explanatory variables in all multiple linear regression models, because they were potential confounding effects. The selection process consisted of three consecutive steps. First, collinearity analysis between each of the candidate explanatory variables was performed. Second, potential risk factors were screened for associations between outcome and explanatory variables using a univariate linear regression analysis. Variables with a P-value below 0.20 were carried over for subsequent statistical analysis. Third, multivariate linear regression analysis was executed to select explanatory variables to be included in the final model (Proc REG, SAS 9.4). The following multivariate linear regression model was used:
 |
with Yi = observed value of animal welfare indicators, β0 = interception term, β1 … βm = regression coefficients for the m explanatory variables and εi = model error term. The multivariate regression models were fitted using backward selection procedure. Variables with P > 0.20 were removed from the model. Explanatory variables with P-values between 0.05 and 0.20 remained in the model, if they contributed to the adjusted R2 value. Assumptions of normal distribution and homoscedasticity of the residuals were examined visually.
Results
Observed values of the animal welfare indicators are shown in Table 1. On average, dairy cows needed 5.9 s for lying down and 17.9% collisions with cubicle partitions were recorded. The mean percentage of cows lying outside cubicles was 3.4%. The number of dirty animals differed between the examined body regions. Mean percentages of cows with dirty legs (55.1%) and flanks (68.4%) were higher compared to the proportion of cows with dirty udders (44.9%). Severe integument alterations such as lesions or swellings were recorded in 27.3% of the assessed cows, whereas 15.7% of the cows were classified as severely lame. On average, 20.2% of the cows showed signs of subclinical mastitis (>400 000 cells/ml).
Effect of cubicle characteristics on lying comfort
The results of the statistical analysis are presented in Table 2. The final multivariate regression model for the indicator ‘duration of the lying down process’ explained 30.7% of the variance (P < 0.001). Shorter lying down movements were observed in farms with higher cow-to-cubicle ratios (−0.1 s per 10% increase) and higher neck rails (−0.1 s per 10 cm increase). Furthermore, cubicles equipped with rubber mats (+0.8 s v. deep-bedded cubicles) were associated with longer durations of lying down movements. The final model for the indicator ‘collisions with cubicles’ explained 2.6% of the variance (P = 0.114). Lower percentages of collisions with cubicles were associated with higher cow-to-cubicle ratios (−2.2% per 10% increase). The final model for the indicator ‘cows lying outside cubicles’ explained 2.1% of the variance (P = 0.135). Lower percentages of cows lying outside cubicles were found in farms with higher distances between divider and lying surface (−1.0% per 10 cm increase).
Table 2.
Results of the multiple linear regression analysis regarding the effect of different housing parameters on selected indicators of lying comfort, cow cleanliness and animal health in dairy cattle
| Welfare indicators/housing parameters | Estimate | SE | P-value | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duration of the lying down process | ||||
| Intercept | 7.23 | 1.34 | <0.001 | 0.307 |
| Cow-to-cubicle ratio | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.126 | |
| Neck rail height | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.156 | |
| Rubber mat cubicle (v. deep bedded) | 0.83 | 0.17 | <0.001 | |
| Collisions with cubicles | ||||
| Intercept | 39.12 | 13.57 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Cow-to-cubicle ratio | −0.22 | 0.13 | 0.114 | |
| Cows lying outside cubicles | ||||
| Intercept | 9.05 | 3.68 | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Divider height | −0.10 | 0.06 | 0.135 | |
| Cows with dirty legs | ||||
| Intercept | 109.97 | 40.21 | 0.008 | 0.386 |
| Neck rail height | −0.84 | 0.33 | 0.012 | |
| Rubber mat cubicle (v. deep bedded) | 34.17 | 6.23 | <0.001 | |
| Cows with dirty flanks | ||||
| Intercept | 242.10 | 107.22 | 0.028 | 0.108 |
| Cow-to-cubicle ratio | −0.29 | 0.19 | 0.127 | |
| Cubicle width | −1.85 | 0.77 | 0.019 | |
| Neck rail to curb | 0.31 | 0.29 | 0.181 | |
| Cows with dirty udders | ||||
| Intercept | 149.80 | 46.09 | 0.002 | 0.448 |
| Length × width | −0.29 | 0.14 | 0.036 | |
| Neck rail height | −0.70 | 0.27 | 0.013 | |
| Rubber mat cubicle (v. deep bedded) | 30.52 | 5.19 | <0.001 | |
| Cows with lesions/swellings | ||||
| Intercept | −89.39 | 55.23 | 0.111 | 0.174 |
| Cubicle width | 0.89 | 0.49 | 0.073 | |
| Rubber mat cubicle (v. deep bedded) | 13.05 | 3.70 | 0.001 | |
| Cows with severe lameness | ||||
| Intercept | 48.50 | 26.67 | 0.074 | 0.144 |
| Cow-to-cubicle ratio | −0.24 | 0.09 | 0.007 | |
| Cubicle length | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.136 | |
| Neck rail height | −0.30 | 0.14 | 0.040 | |
| Access to pasture (v. zero-grazing) | 5.59 | 3.70 | 0.135 | |
| Cows with subclinical mastitis incidence | ||||
| Intercept | −2.84 | 16.39 | 0.863 | 0.063 |
| Neck rail to curb | 0.12 | 0.08 | 0.153 | |
| Access to pasture (v. zero-grazing) | −5.37 | 2.67 | 0.049 | |
SE = standard error; P < 0.20; R2 = coefficient of determination.
Effect of cubicle characteristics on cleanliness
The final multivariate regression model for the indicator ‘cows with dirty legs’ explained 38.6% of the variance (P < 0.001). Lower prevalence of cows with dirty legs was detected in farms with higher neck rails (−8.4% per 10 cm increase). Contrastingly, higher prevalence of cows with dirty legs was associated with rubber mat-equipped cubicles (+34.2% v. deep-bedded cubicles). The final model for the indicator ‘cows with dirty flanks’ explained 10.8% of the variance (P = 0.021). Lower prevalence of cows with dirty flanks was found in farms with higher cow-to-cubicle ratios (−2.9% per 10% increase) and wider cubicles (−18.5% per 10 cm increase). Contrastingly, higher prevalence of cows with dirty flanks was associated with higher distances from neck rail to curb (+3.1% per 10 cm increase). The final model for the indicator ‘cows with dirty udders’ explained 44.8% of the variance (P < 0.001). Higher prevalence of cows with dirty udders was observed in farms providing cubicles equipped with rubber mats (+30.5% v. deep-bedded cubicles). Contrastingly, lower prevalence of cows with dirty udders was associated with larger lying areas (−2.9% per 10 cm2 increase) and higher neck rails (−7.0% per 10 cm increase).
Effect of cubicle characteristics on animal health
The final multivariate regression model for the indicator ‘integument alterations’ explained 17.4% of the variance (P = 0.001). Higher prevalence of cows with severe integument alterations was found in farms providing cubicles equipped with rubber mats (+13.1% v. deep-bedded cubicles). Furthermore, higher numbers of cows with lesions and swellings were associated with wider cubicles (+8.9% per 10 cm increase). The final model for the indicator ‘severe lameness’ explained 14.4% of the variance (P = 0.010). Higher prevalence of severely lame cows was found in farms with longer cubicles (+1.3% per 10 cm increase) and providing access to pasture (+5.6% v. zero-grazing). Contrastingly, a lower prevalence rate of severely lame cows was associated with higher cow-to-cubicle ratios (−2.4% per 10% increase) and higher neck rails (−3.0% per 10 cm increase). The final model for the indicator ‘subclinical mastitis incidence’ explained 6.3% of the variance (P = 0.053). More cows with subclinical mastitis were found in farms with higher distances between neck rail and curb (+1.2% per 10 cm increase), whereas fewer cows were observed in farms providing access to pasture (−5.4% v. zero-grazing).
Discussion
The average time needed to lie down (5.9 s) was in accordance with values found in France with 5.9 s (de Boyer des Roches et al., 2014) and Germany with 5.7 s (Wagner et al., 2018). Slightly lower lying down durations were measured with 5.2 s in the United Kingdom (Heath et al., 2014). The number of cows colliding with cubicle partitions (17.9%) was similar to the median of 14.3% in France (de Boyer des Roches et al., 2014) and the mean of 20.6% in Germany during barn season (Armbrecht et al., 2019). Higher values were found with 26.5% in the United Kingdom (Heath et al., 2014) and 32.3% in the Netherlands (de Vries et al., 2013), which might be explained by methodological challenges. Collisions with cubicle partitions were assessed during a relatively small number of lying down movements, so that high variability between farms could be expected. The percentage of cows lying outside cubicles (3.4%) was similar to 2.3% observed by Heath et al. (2014). Slightly higher values were found in Belgium with 5.1% (de Graaf et al., 2017). Farms had a large number of cows with dirty flanks (68.4%) and dirty udders (44.9%), which was in accordance with previous studies. However, percentages of cows with dirty legs (55.1%) were considerably lower compared with 80% to 90% in the literature (Heath et al., 2014; de Graaf et al., 2017; Wagner et al., 2018). Conceivably, farms of the present study had cleaner walking alleys, which might be explained by higher cleaning frequencies (deVries et al., 2012; de Graaf et al., 2017). The observed percentages of cows with severe integument alterations (27.3%) comply with the mean prevalence of 21.4% in Belgium (de Graaf et al., 2017). Contrastingly, higher percentages of lesions and swellings were investigated in France with 39.2% (Coignard et al., 2013) and in the Netherlands with 35.3% (de Vries et al., 2013). The prevalence of severely lame cows (15.7%) was higher compared to other examinations. Coignard et al. (2013) found only 2.9% (0.0% to 34.6%) severely lame cows, whereas de Vries et al. (2013) detected 5.0% (0.0% to 65.9%). Presumably, lameness prevalence was influenced by the study design. Straw barns were excluded from this study, which are known as beneficial for preventing claw disorders or lameness (Haskell et al., 2006). Percentages of cows with high milk SCCs (20.2%) were in accordance with other studies. Coignard et al. (2013) observed on average 20.6% of the dairy cows with a SCC above 400 000 cells (2.0% to 46.6%). The subclinical mastitis incidence rates were somewhat lower with 15.5% in the United Kingdom (Heath et al., 2014). This might be explained by a higher amount of pasture access, which is beneficial for udder health (Arnott et al., 2017).
Effect of cubicle characteristics on lying comfort
Dairy farms with deep-bedded cubicles were characterized by shorter lying down durations compared to dairy farms equipped with rubber mats. Conceivably, high amounts of bedding material provide soft lying areas and make the lying down process more comfortable (Husfeldt and Endres, 2012). Similar results were found in the Netherlands (van Gastelen et al., 2011). The authors recorded the duration from entering the cubicle with all four feet to the final lying down position. Cows needed more time for preparation and lying down on foam mattresses (140.2 s) compared with deep-bedded cubicles filled with sand (50.1 s) or horse manure (32.9 s), respectively (van Gastelen et al., 2011). Contrastingly, no relationship between bedding type and lying down duration was observed in Switzerland (Wechsler et al., 2000). When barns are over-stocked and less cubicles than cows are provided, competitions for the cubicles might occur (Fregonesi et al., 2007). Conceivably, dairy cows lie down faster in order to avoid displacements by other herd members. However, in the present study average cow-to-cubicle ratio was nearly balanced (99.6%), so that no effect on the lying down duration could have been expected. The observed association might depend on an unidentified confounding effect. Farms with deep-bedded cubicles had higher cow-to-cubicle ratios (100.4%) compared to farms equipped with rubber mats (97.6%). Stall features such as neck rails can restrict the normal rising and lying down movements (von Keyserlingk et al., 2012). Higher distances between neck rail and lying surface enable the cows to stand with all feet in the cubicles and potentially lie down faster due to less constraints (Tucker et al., 2005). Furthermore, Bernardi et al. (2009) observed an increased number of lying bouts in cubicles with less restrictive neck rails, which was explained by undisturbed lying down and standing up movements. This training effect might have affected the lying down process, too. The indicator ‘cows lying outside cubicles’ describes not only cows lying completely outside the designated lying area but also cows lying with their hindquarter on the edge of cubicles (Welfare Quality, 2012). Therefore, cubicle dimensions such as cubicle length or cubicle width were expected to affect the results of this indicator. Cubicles with longer lying areas might prevent the legs of the cows from coming into contact with the protruding edge of the curb (Haskell et al., 2006; Brenninkmeyer et al., 2013). Wider cubicles might also be beneficial for the lying comfort, because the cows could lie down diagonally within the cubicles. Contact with cubicle restrictions such as the curb could therefore be avoided (Veissier et al., 2004). However, only higher distances between cubicle divider and lying surface were associated with lower percentages of cows lying outside the lying area in the current study. Perhaps cows have problems in shifting their position in the cubicles, if the distance between divider and lying surface is too short (Brenninkmeyer et al., 2013). More free space under the divider enables the cows to use adjacent cubicles with their rump or feet, which might result in lower percentages of cows lying outside cubicles (Veissier et al., 2004).
Effect of cubicle characteristics on cleanliness
Deep-bedded cubicles were associated with lower percentages of soiled legs and udders compared to cubicles equipped with rubber mats. This may be explained with higher amounts of bedding material, which absorbs moisture from urine or faeces (Ruud et al., 2011). Similarly, Plesch and Knierim (2012) observed 8.1% less cows with soiled teats in deep-bedded cubicles compared with rubber mats. Contrastingly, comparable cubicle hygiene scores were found for deep-bedded cubicles (2.49 ± 0.03) and rubber mats (2.53 ± 0.05) by Husfeldt and Endres (2012). Lying surfaces of deep-bedded cubicles are often restricted by curbs, in order to maintain the bedding material within the cubicles (Plesch and Knierim, 2012). Tails of the cows might be deposited less often in the soiled walking alleys, because the curbs confine the lying area. Consequently, cows are less often splashing manure with their tails from the alley floor on their bodies (deVries et al., 2012). Cubicle width significantly affected the cleanliness of the cows’ flanks. Wider cubicles were associated with lower percentages of cows with dirty upper legs. Similarly, Ruud et al. (2011) observed lower faecal contaminations in the stall surface of wider cubicles (>1.13 m) compared to narrower cubicles (<1.13 m) in Norwegian dairy cattle farms. Conceivably, dairy cows were forced to lie down with parts of their body in adjacent cubicles if the distance between two cubicles is too short (Veissier et al., 2004). Cubicle surfaces and neighboured cows were therefore at a higher risk of being contaminated with soiled legs or tails (Ruud et al., 2011). Contrastingly, wider stalls were described as a risk factor for cubicle cleanliness due to more frequent use by the cows (Tucker et al., 2005).
The percentage of cows with dirty udders was influenced by the provided lying area (length × width). Positive effects of larger lying areas on the cleanliness of dairy cows were unexpected, because these were usually associated with more frequent defecating when standing or lying diagonally in the cubicles (Lombard et al., 2010; Ruud et al., 2011). More comfortable cubicles might also lead to longer lying durations, which are associated with poor hygiene of flanks and udder. Shifting of the lying position may increase the risk of soiling, because faeces might be spread over the body (deVries et al., 2012). The observed positive effect of the accessible lying area on udder cleanliness remained unclear. Conceivably, other housing or management factors such as height of bedding material or cleaning frequency are more important (Fulwider et al., 2007; Ruud et al., 2011). Longer distances between neck rail and the edge of the curb were associated with more frequent soiling on the flanks. Previous studies have proven that restrictive neck rail positions closer to the curb contribute to less contamination of the cubicles, because dairy cows were forced to step back while defecating (Tucker et al., 2005; Fregonesi et al., 2009; Lombard et al., 2010). For example, lower distances (130 cm) between neck rails and vertical plane above the rear curb reduced the contamination score of dairy cows compared to higher distances (190 cm) in a Canadian study (Bernardi et al., 2009). Similarly, more faecal contamination was found in alternative stalls without neck rails (4.2 ± 0.3 dirty squares/stall) compared to more restrictive cubicles (0.2 ± 0.3 dirty squares/stall) in Canadian dairy cattle farms (Abade et al., 2015). Not only the diagonal position of the neck rail but also the distance between neck rail and lying surface might influence cow cleanliness (Fregonesi et al., 2009). Longer distances between neck rail and lying surface reduced the number of cows with dirty legs and dirty udders in the present study. Conceivably, dairy cows avoided rising in cubicles with lower neck rail heights and defecated more often while lying in the cubicle (Bernardi et al., 2009; Plesch and Knierim, 2012). Restricted neck rail positions might also lead to increased standing times in the walking alleys, which is a further risk factor for soiling (Nielsen et al., 2011; deVries et al., 2012). Contrastingly, Ruud et al. (2011) did not observe an association between neck rail height and cubicle cleanliness.
Effect of cubicle characteristics on animal health
Wider cubicles were associated with a higher prevalence of severe integument alterations in the current study. Cubicle partitions such as dividers should control the position of the cows in the cubicles. Inappropriate positioning of the cows might increase the risk of hitting the obstructions while lying down or standing up and therefore cause injuries (Veissier et al., 2004; Haskell et al., 2006; von Keyserlingk et al., 2012). Wider stalls are also more comfortable for dairy cows, so that they usually spend more time lying down (Bernardi et al., 2009; Abade et al., 2015). Dairy cows are exposed to the lying surface for a longer period and potentially at a higher risk of developing hock lesions (Potterton et al., 2011). However, Brenninkmeyer et al. (2013) did not find any relationship between cubicle width and hock injuries. In contrast to other studies, no further cubicle dimensions had an influence on the number of lesions and swellings. Lack of associations might have been caused by different assessment methods. Integument alterations of all body regions were assessed in this study (e.g. neck region, carpal joint and tarsal joint), whereas only hock lesions were considered in most of the other studies. The positive effect of deep-bedded cubicles could be explained with soft bedding material, which prevents abrasion on the joints (Haskell et al., 2006; Brenninkmeyer et al., 2013). Cows from farms with deep-bedded cubicles had 10- to 20-fold fewer hock lesions compared to cows of farms with cubicles equipped with mattresses in Switzerland (Wechsler et al., 2000). Similar results were found by other authors (Lombard et al., 2010; Potterton et al., 2011; Husfeldt and Endres, 2012).
Overstocking is usually associated with reduced lying time, because fewer cubicles than cows are available (Fregonesi et al., 2007). Due to prolonged standing times in the soiled alleys, higher percentages of lame cows might be assumed (Winckler et al., 2015). However, reduction in daily lying time (<12 h) becomes evident at cow-to-cubicle ratios exceeding 150% (Cook and Nordlund, 2009). Mean cow-to-cubicle ratio in the current study (99.6 ± 14.4%) is far away from this value and therefore, no negative effects on claw health could be expected. The observed positive effect of higher cow-to-cubicle ratios on lameness may have been caused by other housing and management factors. Lower cow-to-cubicle ratios were mostly found in older barns within the present study. Conceivably, dairy cattle farmers provided more cubicles than cows to compensate unfavourable housing conditions (e.g. space per cow).
Higher neck rails were related to lower numbers of severely lame cows. Less restrictive neck rail positions enable the cows to stand with all four feet in the cubicles (Lombard et al., 2010). For example, Abade et al. (2015) reported that dairy cows spent more time standing with their entire body in alternative cubicles without neck rails (0.60 ± 0.06 h/day) compared to conventional cubicles with neck rails (0.05 ± 0.06 h/day). Similar results were found by Tucker et al. (2005). Longer standing times with all four feet within the cubicles were beneficial for claw health, because claws were less exposed to manure in the alleys and could dry off more frequently (Fregonesi et al., 2009; Nielsen et al., 2011). No association of neck rail height and lameness was observed in North American dairy cattle farms (Chapinal et al., 2013).
The observed association between pasture access and severely lame cows was unexpected, because pasture access is usually known as beneficial for claw health and locomotion (Arnott et al., 2017; Armbrecht et al., 2019). For example, Haskell et al. (2006) found 15% lame cows in farms with pasture access, whereas 39% lame cows were found in zero-grazing farms. Similarly, recent studies by Armbrecht et al. (2019) and Wagner et al. (2018) described lower percentages of lame cows with increasing pasture access (>6 h/day). Dairy cows of the present study had only minor access to pasture (<6 h/day), which might have reduced the beneficial effect of pasture. Furthermore, the proportion of farms providing access to pasture (n = 9) was relatively small compared to zero-grazing farms (n = 55). Results should therefore be interpreted cautiously due to missing statistical evidence.
Higher percentages of dairy cows with a SCC above 400 000 cells/ml were associated with longer distances between neck rail and the edge of the curb. This might be caused by poorer dairy cow hygiene in less restrictive cubicles (deVries et al., 2012). Udder infections provoked by environmental pathogens might be more likely in cubicles with less restricted neck rails, because the udder is at a higher risk to be contaminated with faeces and urine (Ruud et al., 2011). For example, lower distances (130 cm) between neck rails and rear curb reduced the dirtiness of dairy cows compared to higher distances (190 cm) (Bernardi et al., 2009). Similarly, Tucker et al. (2005) and Fregonesi et al. (2009) observed higher soiling in cubicles with less restrictive neck rail positions.
Pasture access seemed to have a beneficial effect on udder health, presumably due to increased lying time or lower exposure with environmental pathogens (Arnott et al., 2017). Washburne et al. (2002) reported that zero-grazing cows (42.8%) showed higher percentages of at least one clinical mastitis than cows with access to pasture (24.2%). However, average somatic cell scores were not significantly different between the systems (3.1 ± 0.9 v. 3.1 ± 0.9). Similarly, Wagner et al. (2018) and Armbrecht et al. (2019) found no positive effect of different levels of pasturing on the number of cows with high SCCs. Again, the low proportion of farms providing access to pasture might have influenced the results. Further research is needed to investigate potential effects of pasture access on udder health.
Conclusions
Findings of the present study indicate several associations between cubicle characteristics and animal welfare indicators in loose-housed dairy cattle farms. Bedding type had the strongest effect on health and behaviour. Deep-bedded cubicles positively affected most of the examined indicators (e.g. lying down duration, cow cleanliness and integument alterations) and can be recommended to obtain higher animal welfare levels in dairy cattle farms. Farmers who are not able to implement this beneficial housing system due to structural or economic reasons could use the results of the multivariate regression approach to find optimal cubicle designs for their individual farm situation. According to the most relevant animal welfare problems in the herds, cubicle characteristics could be modified and housing conditions of the dairy cows effectively improved.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the project ‘Sustainable Land Management in North German Lowland’ and financially supported by the H. Wilhelm Schaumann Foundation. The work was conducted as part of a doctoral thesis (Gieseke, 2018). The authors thank the different stakeholders for their support and the farmers for their time and effort. We are grateful to Linda Armbrecht for comments during writing of this paper.
D. Gieseke 0000-0002-8199-219X
Declaration of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Ethics statement
The authors confirm that ethical policies of the journal have been adhered to. No ethical approval was required as non-invasive procedures were conducted in this study.
Software and data repository resources
None of the data were deposited in an official repository.
Supplementary material
For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731120000609.
click here to view supplementary material
References
- Abade CC, Fregonesi JA, von Keyserlingk MAG and Weary DM 2015. Dairy cow preference and usage of an alternative freestall design. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 960–965. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Armbrecht L, Lambertz C, Albers D and Gauly M 2019. Assessment of welfare indicators in dairy farms offering pasture at differing levels. Animal 28, 1–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Arnott G, Ferris CP and O´Connell NE 2017. Review: Welfare of dairy cows in continuously housed and pasture-based production systems. Animal 11, 261–273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bernardi F, Fregonesi J, Winckler C, Veira DM, von Keyserlingk MAG and Weary DM 2009. The stall-design paradox: neck rails increase lameness but improve udder and stall hygiene. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 3074–3080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brenninkmeyer C, Dippel S, Brinkmann J, March S, Winckler C and Knierim U 2013. Hock lesion epidemiology in cubicle housed dairy cows across two breeds, farming systems and countries. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 109, 236–245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chapinal N, Barrientos AK, von Keyserlingk MAG, Galo E and Weary DM 2013. Herd-level risk factors for lameness in freestall farms in the northeastern United States and California. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 318–328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coignard M, Guatteo R, Veissier I, de Boyer des Roches A, Mounier L, Lehébel A and Bareille N 2013. Description and factors of variation of the overall healthscore in French dairy cattle herds using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 112, 296–308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cook NB and Nordlund KV 2009. The influence of the environment on dairy cow behavior, claw health and herd lameness dynamics. The Veterinary Journal 179, 360–369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- De Boyer des Roches A, Veissier I, Coignard M, Bareille N, Guatteo R, Capdeville J, Gilot-Fromont E and Mounier L 2014. The major welfare problems of dairy cows in French commercial farms: an epidemiological approach. Animal Welfare 23, 467–478. [Google Scholar]
- De Graaf S, Ampe B and Tuyttens FAM 2017. Assessing dairy cow welfare at the beginning and end of the indoor period using the Welfare Quality® protocol. Animal Welfare 26, 213–221. [Google Scholar]
- De Vries M, Bokkers EAM, van Schaik G, Botreau R, Engel B, Dijkstra T and de Boer IJM 2013. Evaluating results of the Welfare Quality multi-criteria evaluation model for classification of dairy cattle welfare at the herd level. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 6264–6273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Destatis 2018. Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Fischerei. Wirtschaftsdünger, Stallhaltung, Weidehaltung, Landwirtschaftszählung/Agrarstrukturerhebung 2010. Retrieved on 12 October 2018 from https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Landwirtschaft-Forstwirtschaft-Fischerei/Produktionsmethoden/Publikationen/Downloads-Produktionsmethoden/stallhaltung-weidehaltung-2032806109004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.
- DeVries TJ, Arnoudse MG, Barkema HW, Leslie KE and von Keyserlingk MAG 2012. Associations of dairy cow behavior, barn hygiene, cow hygiene, and risk of elevated somatic cell count. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 5730–5739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fregonesi JA, Tucker CB and Weary DM 2007. Overstocking reduces lying time in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3349–3354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fregonesi JA, von Keyserlingk MAG, Tucker CB, Veira DM and Weary DM 2009. Neck-rail position in the free stall affects standing behavior and udder and stall cleanliness. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1979–1985. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fulwider WK, Grandin T, Garrick DJ, Engle TE, Lamm WD, Dalsted NL and Rollin BE 2007. Influence of free-stall base on tarsal joint lesions and hygiene in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3559–3599. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gieseke D 2018. Einfluss von Haltung und Management auf das Tierwohl in der Milchvieh haltung. PhD thesis, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
- Haskell MJ, Rennie LJ, Bowell VA, Bell MJ and Lawrence AB 2006. Housing system, milk production, and zero-grazing effects on lameness and leg injury in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 4259–4266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Heath CAE, Lin Y, Mullan S, Browne WJ and Main DCJ 2014. Implementing Welfare Quality® in UK assurance schemes: evaluating the challenges. Animal Welfare 23, 95–107. [Google Scholar]
- Husfeldt AW and Endres MI 2012. Association between stall surface and some animal welfare measurements in freestall dairy herds using recycled manure solids for bedding. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 5626–5634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lombard JE, Tucker CB, von Keyserlingk MAG, Kopral CA and Weary DM 2010. Associations between cow hygiene, hock injuries, and free stall usage on US dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 4668–4676. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nielsen BH, Thomsen PT and Sorensen JT 2011. Identifying risk factors for poor hind limb cleanliness in Danish loose-housed dairy cows. Animal 5, 1613–1619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Plesch G and Knierim U 2012. Effects of housing and management conditions on teat cleanliness of dairy cows in cubicle systems taking into account body dimensions of the cows. Animal 6, 1360–1368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Potterton SL, Green MJ, Harris J, Millar KM, Whay HR and Huxley JN 2011. Risk factors associated with hair loss, ulceration, and swelling at the hock in freestall-housed UK dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 2952–2963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ruud LE, Kielland C, Osteras O and Boe KE 2011. Free-stall cleanliness is affected by stall design. Livestock Science 135, 265–273. [Google Scholar]
- Tucker CB, Weary DM and Fraser D 2005. Influence of neck-rail placement on free-stall preference, use, and cleanliness. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 2730–2737. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Van Gastelen S, Westerlaan B, Houwers DJ and van Eerdenburg FJCM 2011. A study on cow comfort and risk for lameness and mastitis in relation to different types of bedding materials. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 4878–4888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Veissier I, Capdeville J and Delval E 2004. Cubicle housing systems for cattle: comfort of dairy cows depends on cubicle adjustment. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3321–3337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Von Keyserlingk MAG, Barrientos A, Ito K, Galo E and Weary DM 2012. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 7399–7408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wagner K, Brinkmann J, March S, Hinterstoißer P, Warnecke S, Schüler M and Paulsen HM 2018. Impact of daily grazing time on dairy cow welfare–results of the Welfare Quality® protocol. Animals 8, 1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Washburne SP, White SL, Green JT and Benson GA 2002. Reproduction, mastitis, and body condition of seasonally calved Holstein and Jersey cows in confinement or pasture systems. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 105–111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wechsler B, Schaub J, Friedli K and Hauser R 2000. Behaviour and leg injuries in dairy cows kept in cubicle systems with straw bedding or soft lying mats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69, 189–197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Welfare Quality 2012. Welfare Quality® Assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands: Retrieved on 17 September 2019 from http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/en-us/reports/assessment-protocols/. [Google Scholar]
- Winckler C, Tucker CB and Weary DM 2015. Effects of under- and overstocking freestalls on dairy cattle behavior. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 170, 14–19. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731120000609.
click here to view supplementary material