Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:10:04.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of housing and management conditions on teat cleanliness of dairy cows in cubicle systems taking into account body dimensions of the cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2012

G. Plesch  and
U. Knierim
G. Plesch*
Affiliation:
Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry Section, University of Kassel, Nordbahnhofstrasse 1a, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
U. Knierim
Affiliation:
Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry Section, University of Kassel, Nordbahnhofstrasse 1a, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
Get access

Abstract

Dirty udders and teats result in a higher workload in terms of cleaning before milking and may constitute a risk for udder health. The aim of this prevalence study on 23 farms with very low within-farm variation in cubicle measures and other cubicle characteristics was to identify potentially influencing housing and management factors concerning teat and teat tip soiling. Information about udder soiling, housing and management was collected through direct recording and farmers’ interviews. Height at withers, shoulder width and diagonal body length were measured in 79% to 100% of the cows in each herd. On the basis of the 25% largest animals, compliance with recommendations for cubicle measures was calculated, which was generally rather low. Stepwise regression was used to find predictors for the percentage of dirty teats and of dirty teat tips. The final model on dirty teats explained 58.5% of the variance and contained four factors (F = 6.34, P = 0.0023). Less soiled teats were found on farms that conducted teat dipping after milking (t = −3.21, P = 0.0048), had increased daily cubicle maintenance time (t = −2.58, P = 0.0187), deep-bedded cubicles (t = −2.42, P = 0.0265) and decreasing compliance concerning cubicle length (t = 2.33, P = 0.0317). The final model on teat tip soiling explained 46.0% of the variance and contained three factors (F = 5.39, P = 0.0075). Less soiled teat tips were associated with increasing height of bedding material (t = −2.89, P = 0.0094) and decreasing compliance concerning resting length (t = 2.12, P = 0.0470). Difficult to explain was the association found between increased passage soiling and decreased teat tip dirtiness (t = −1.86, P = 0.0790). Thus, even under relatively restrictive cubicle conditions, a certain increase in teat and teat tip soiling was found with increasing cubicle length. However, at the same time, measures relating to good management may positively affect teat and teat tip cleanliness. In addition, deep-bedded cubicles yielded advantages in this regard. Both regression models for teat and teat tip cleanliness contained similar but not identical predictive variables. This indicates that dirtiness of each particular area may originate from slightly different though related causes. The low correlations found between udder, teat and teat tip cleanliness should be considered in future studies.

Keywords

udder hygiene scoringbody measurementscubicle
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 8 , August 2012 , pp. 1360 - 1368
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, JH 2004. WINPEPI (PEPI-for-Windows) computer programs for epidemiologists. Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations 1, 6, www.epi-perspectives.com/content/1/1/6, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barkema, HW, van der Ploeg, JD, Schukken, YH, Lam, TJGM, Benedictus, G, Brands, A 1999. Management style and its association with bulk milk somatic cell count and incidence rate of clinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 1655–1663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartussek, H, Lenz, V, Würzel, H, Zucca, D 2008. Rinderstallbau, 4th edition. Leopold Stocker Verlag, Graz, Austria.Google Scholar
Bernardi, F 2008. Influence of neck rail position on behaviour, locomotion and cleanliness in dairy cattle. PhD, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna.Google Scholar
Bernardi, F, Fregonesi, JA, Winckler, C, Veira, DM, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Weary, DM 2009. The stall-design paradox: neck rails increase lameness but improve udder and stall hygiene. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 3074–3080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowell, VA, Rennie, LJ, Tierney, G, Lawrence, AB, Haskell, MJ 2003. Relationships between building design, management system and dairy cow welfare. Animal Welfare 12, 547–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaplin, SJ, Tierney, G, Stockwell, C, Logue, DN, Kelly, M 2000. An evaluation of mattresses and mats in two dairy units. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansson, A, Bertilsson, J, Svensson, B 1999. Bacillus cereus spores in raw milk: factors affecting the contamination of milk during the grazing period. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CIGR (International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering) Section II Working Group no. 14 Cattle Housing 1994. The design of dairy cow housing. ADAS Bridgets Dairy Research Centre, Farm Buildings Research Team, pp. 3–19.Google Scholar
Cook, NB, Reinemann, D 2007. A tool box for assessing cow, udder and teat hygiene. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the NMC, San Antonio, Texas, USA.Google Scholar
Dippel, S, Dolezal, M, Brenninkmeyer, C, Brinkmann, J, March, S, Knierim, U, Winckler, C 2009. Risk factors for lameness in cubicle housed Austrian Simmental dairy cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 90, 102–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faye, B, Barnouin, J 1985. Objectivation de la propreté des vaches laitières et des stabulations. L'indice de propreté. Bulletin Technical. CRZV Theix INRA 59, 61–67.Google Scholar
Fregonesi, JA, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Tucker, CB, Veira, DM, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fulwider, WK, Grandin, T, Garrick, DJ, Engle, TE, Lamm, WD, Dalsted, NL, Rollin, BE 2007. Influence of free-stall base on tarsal joint lesions and hygiene in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3559–3566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lombard, JE, Tucker, CB, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Kopral, CA, Weary, DM 2010. Association between cow hygiene, hock injuries, and free stall usage on US dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 4668–4676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mader, TL, Johnson, LJ, Gaughan, JB 2010. A comprehensive index for assessing environmental stress in animals. Journal of Animal Science 88, 2153–2165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magnusson, M, Herlin, AH, Ventorp, M 2008. Short communication: effect of alley floor cleanliness on free-stall and udder hygiene. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3927–3930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martiskainen, P, Koistinen, T, Mononen, J 2007. Cubicle dimensions affect resting-related behaviour, injuries and dirtiness of loose-housed dairy cows. In Proceedings of the XIII (13th) International Congress in Animal Hygiene, Tartu, Estonia, 175pp.Google Scholar
Norring, M, Manninen, E, de Passillé, AM, Rushen, J, Munksgaard, L, Saloniemi, H 2008. Effects of sand and straw bedding on the lying behavior, cleanliness, and hoof and hock injuries of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 570–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C 2002. Cattle behaviour and welfare, 2nd edition. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reneau, JK, Seykora, AJ, Heins, BJ, Endres, MI, Farnsworth, RJ, Bey, F 2005. Association between hygiene scores and somatic cell scores in dairy cattle. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 227, 1297–1301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruud, LE, Boe, KE, Osteras, O 2010. Risk factors for dirty dairy cows in Norwegian freestall systems. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 5216–5224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schreiner, DA, Ruegg, PL 2003. Relationship between udder and leg hygiene scores and subclinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3460–3465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tucker, CB, Weary, DM, Fraser, D 2004. Free-stall dimensions: effects on preference and stall usage. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1208–1216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tucker, CB, Weary, DM, Fraser, D 2005. Influence of neck-rail placement on free-stall preference, use, and cleanliness. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 2730–2737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tucker, CB, Zdanowicz, G, Weary, DM 2006. Brisket boards reduce freestall use. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2603–2607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veissier, I, Capdeville, J, Delval, E 2004. Cubicle housing systems for cattle: comfort of dairy cows depends on cubicle adjustment. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3321–3337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weary, DM, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Edmond, AP 2008. What is affecting housing design and other management practices – economics or animal welfare? Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference, Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA, 23pp.Google Scholar
Whistance, LK, Arney, DR, Sinclair, LA, Phillips, CJC 2007. Defaecation behaviour of dairy cows housed in straw yards or cubicle systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 105, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zdanowicz, M, Shelford, JA, Tucker, CB, Weary, DM, von Keyserlingk, MAG 2004. Bacterial populations on teat ends of dairy cows housed in free stalls and bedded with either sand or sawdust. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1694–1701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed