www.elsevier.comrlocaterapplanim
Behaviour and leg injuries in dairy cows kept in
cubicle systems with straw bedding or soft
lying mats
Beat Wechsler
), Jasmin Schaub, Katharina Friedli, Rudolf Hauser
Swiss Federal Veterinary Office, Centre for Proper Housing of Ruminants and Pigs, Swiss Federal Research Station for Agricultural Economics and Engineering, CH-8356 Tanikon, Switzerland¨
Accepted 29 March 2000
Abstract
In order to reduce straw input, soft lying mats are used increasingly instead of straw bedding in cubicle systems for dairy cows. This study aimed at comparing different types of soft lying mats with straw bedding regarding cow behaviour and leg injuries. Data were collected on five farms with straw bedding and on 13 farms using four types of soft lying mats consisting of different materials. On each farm, lying behaviour of 10 cows was recorded automatically during 3 days by means of a pneumatically operated resting sensor fitted in a belt. In addition, standing up and lying down behaviour of cows was quantified by direct observations, and all cows on a given farm were checked once for leg injuries.
There were no significant differences between cows kept in cubicle systems with soft lying mats and straw bedding regarding the total time spent lying per day and the number of lying bouts per day. Standing up and lying down behaviour also did not differ between cows with access to soft lying mats and straw bedding. Leg injuries were most frequent in the carpal and tarsal joints. Cows kept in cubicle systems with soft lying mats had a significantly higher incidence of both
Ž .
hairless patches more than 2 cm in diameter P-0.001 and scabs or wounds less than 2 cm in
Ž .
diameter P-0.001 located in the tarsal joints than cows in cubicle systems with straw bedding. With the carpal joints, on the other hand, the incidence of leg injuries did not differ significantly between these two housing conditions. In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that soft lying mats are equivalent to straw bedding in terms of cow behaviour but less favourable with
)Corresponding author. Tel.:q41-52-368-33-71; fax:q41-52-365-11-90.
Ž .
E-mail address: [email protected] B. Wechsler .
0168-1591r00r$ - see front matterq2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Ž .
respect to leg injuries located in the tarsal joints. q2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: Cattle housing; Cubicle system; Soft mats; Cow comfort; Lying behaviour; Leg injuries
1. Introduction
In Switzerland, direct payments are given to farmers keeping dairy cows in housing systems that are especially adapted to the animals’ behavioural needs. The government
Ž .
has launched two programmes Meier, 1999 for housing systems corresponding to defined standards which exceed the minimal requirements for the housing of farm animals as laid down in the Swiss animal welfare legislation. The first programme
Ž .
promotes regular access to pasture and outside yards in wintertime for both cows kept in loose housing systems and cows kept in tie stalls. The second programme focuses on indoor housing systems that are divided into at least two areas with different floor qualities and provide the animals with a comfortable lying area. The participation in the second programme requires that the cows have access to a lying area with a high-quality
Ž .
straw bedding i.e. a compact mattress composed of straw and cow dung or with another surface equivalent to such straw bedding for them. In this context, farmers and manufacturers raised the question whether soft lying mats in cubicle systems can be considered equivalent to straw bedding.
It is well known that dairy cows given a choice between different types of lying area Ž
surfaces prefer soft materials Lasson and Boxberger, 1976; Natzke et al., 1982; . Gebremedhin et al., 1985; Jensen et al., 1988; O’Connell et al., 1992; Herlin, 1997 . If
Ž
cows are forced to lie on hard surfaces, they spend less time lying per day Andreae and .
Papendieck, 1971; Natzke et al., 1982; Oertli et al., 1995 and show a reduction in the
Ž .
number of lying bouts per day Oertli et al., 1995 . A less comfortable lying area surface also results in an increase in the preparation time required by the cows to lie down ŽHerlin, 1997 and in a longer duration of lying down movements Oertli et al., 1995 .. Ž . Finally, the quality of the lying area surface was found to be related to the incidence of
Ž
leg injuries in dairy cows kept in cubicle systems Molz, 1989; Zerzawy, 1989; Oertli .
et al., 1995 .
The aim of the present study was to investigate whether, in cubicle systems for dairy cows, soft lying mats can be considered equivalent to straw bedding regarding animal
Ž .
welfare. To assess this, we collected data on 1 lying down and standing up behaviour, Ž .2 total duration of lying behaviour per 24 h, 3 the number and duration of lying boutsŽ .
Ž .
and 4 the incidence of leg injuries in dairy cows kept on commercial farms.
2. Methods
2.1. Animals and housing conditions
.
bedding and 13 farms using four types of soft lying mats consisting of different
Ž .
materials Table 1 . The proportion of farms with straw bedding and soft lying mats, respectively, chosen for our study does not reflect the proportion of Swiss farms with straw bedding and soft lying mats. Straw bedding is widespread in cubicle systems whereas lying mats were rarely used at the time of data collection. When designing the study, we decided that a given type of soft lying mat would only be included if the manufacturer could indicate at least three farms using his product and that we would collect data on five farms using straw bedding. Brown Swiss was the prevalent breed Ž77% of the cows , other breeds were Holstein-Friesian 9% , Red Holstein 8% and. Ž . Ž .
Ž . Ž .
Swiss Simmental 6% . Herd size Table 1 did not differ significantly between farms Ž
with straw bedding and farms with soft lying mats Mann–Whitney U-tests: N1s5, .
N2s13, Us18.5, Ps0.16
To be included in the study, the lying area in the cubicles of a given farm had to be at least 120 cm wide and 185 cm long, and the cubicles had to provide ample additional
Ž .
space minimum 45 cm in front of the lying area allowing unhindered lying down and standing up behaviour of the cows. The number of cubicles in the stable had to be at least equal to the number of cows present in the housing system. In addition, the lying
Ž
area surface in all cubicles of a given farm had to be of the same defined type see Table .
1 and had to be provided to the cows at least 3 months before the beginning of the data-collection period. There was no systematic difference in the cubicle dimensions between farms with straw bedding and farms with soft lying mats. On most farms, small
Ž .
amounts of litter chopped straw or sawdust were provided on top of the soft lying mats. To exclude that access to pasture had an influence on lying behaviour and leg
Table 1
Description of the lying area surfaces tested, number of farms involved in the study and average number
Žrange of cows per herd.
Lying area surface Description No. of farms Average herd size
Ž .
Straw bedding Compact mattress 5 33 24–42
composed of straw and cow dung
Ž .
CowComfort Foamed polyurethane 3 19 16–24
Žthickness 20–30 mm.
Ž .
Kraiburg Conventional rubber 4 20 14–28
Ž .
Mouflex Tubes diameter: 16 cm 3 26 20–33
made of nylon and filled with granulated rubber
Ž . Ž .
Pasture Tubes diameter: 5 cm 3 44 34–53
Ž .
injuries, data were collected in the winter from December to March . Cows suffering from a disease and cows kept for less than 3 months in the cubicle system were not considered.
2.2. Lying down and standing up behaÕiour
On each farm, focal animal observations of the behaviour of at least 20 cows lying
Ž . Ž .
down range 20–30 movements and 20 cows standing up range 20–30 movements in a cubicle were made. Cows were chosen as focal animals in the sequence they showed such movements during the data collection periods. As a consequence, a given animal could be recorded more than once. Cows which were to give birth within a few days or had given birth a few days ago were excluded from data collection. Both the frequency
Ž
of behavioural elements indicating difficulties in lying down intention movements before lying down, standing up again after the start of a lying down movement, slipping
. Ž
while lying down or standing up crawling before standing up, breaks in the standing up .
movement, slipping while standing up and the duration of these two types of behaviour were recorded. Lying down started when the cow descended to one of the forelegs and ended when the whole body touched the ground. Standing up started when the cow made a first movement to raise the forelegs and ended when she stood on all four legs.
2.3. Lying behaÕiour
On each farm, the lying behaviour of 10 cows chosen at random was recorded automatically during 3 days by means of a pneumatically operated resting sensor fitted
Ž .
in a belt Hauser et al., 1999 . Cows not in lactation and cows in heat were excluded from data collection. The belt was fixed around the front part of the cow’s body, just
Ž .
behind the forelegs. During a period of 72 h, the position of the cow standing or lying was recorded automatically every 16 s by means of a switch reacting to changes in the
Ž .
air pressure in a tube PVC fitted in the belt. Recordings of all 3 days of data collection were stored in a data logger fixed to the belt. To habituate the cows to the belt, it was put on 4–6 h before the programmed start of data collection. On all farms, recordings started in the evening with the beginning of the milking period. Data were transferred to a PC and analysed by means of MS Excel. For each cow, the average number of lying bouts per 24 h, the mean duration of lying bouts and the average total duration of lying behaviour per 24 h was calculated.
2.4. Leg injuries
Ž On each farm, the skin of the foreleg joints and the hind leg joints of all cows except those suffering from a disease and those kept for less than 3 months in the cubicle
.
the analysis, the sum of injuries found in all cows checked on a given farm was calculated separately for each joint. As the number of cows differed between farms, data
Ž .
were standardised incidence per 100 cows for the statistical analysis.
2.5. Statistical analysis
The farms were treated as independent observational units. As a consequence, average values per farm were calculated regarding lying behaviour and leg injuries.
Ž .
Nonparametric statistics were used. It was tested a whether farms using cubicle systems with straw bedding differed significantly from farms using cubicle systems with
Ž . Ž .
soft lying mats Mann–Whitney U-tests; Siegel and Castellan, 1988 and b whether there was a significant inhomogeneity in the data collected on farms using different
Ž .
types of soft lying mats Kruskal–Wallis tests; Siegel and Castellan, 1988 . The alpha
Ž .
level was therefore adjusted to 0.025 Bonferroni correction .
3. Results
The duration of both lying down and standing up movements did not differ significantly between cows kept in cubicle systems with straw bedding and cows kept in
Ž
cubicle systems with soft lying mats lying down: N1s5, N2s13, Us25, Ps0.46; .
standing up: Us29, Ps0.77; Table 2 . There was also no significant inhomogeneity in the duration of these movements measured on farms using different types of soft lying
Ž .
mats lying down: Hs3.8, Ps0.28; standing up: Hs1.4, Ps0.72 . Behavioural elements indicating difficulties in lying down or standing up behaviour were rare on all lying area surfaces.
Ž .
Neither the total duration of lying behaviour per 24 h Us23, Ps0.35 nor the
Ž .
average duration of lying bouts Us28, Ps0.66 differed significantly between cows kept in cubicle systems with straw bedding and cows kept in cubicle systems with soft
Table 2
Ž .
Total number of lying down and standing up movements recorded, average duration in seconds of such
Ž .
movements and rate incidence per movement of behavioural elements indicating difficulties in these two movements in cows kept in cubicle systems with different lying area surfaces. Minimum and maximum values are given in parentheses
Lying area surface Lying down Standing up
No. of Duration Rate of No. of Duration Rate of
movements difficulties movements difficulties
Ž . Ž .
Straw bedding 111 4.6 2–13 0.11 107 7.7 2–35 0.25
Ž . Ž .
CowComfort 68 5.1 3–13 0.22 62 6.6 2–23 0.02
Ž . Ž .
Kraiburg 103 4.8 2–10 0.35 83 6.8 2–29 0.16
Ž . Ž .
Mouflex 82 4.9 3–9 0.29 65 7.9 2–45 0.23
Ž . Ž .
Table 3
Ž . Ž .
Average duration of lying behaviour per 24 h in minutes , mean duration of lying bouts in minutes and average number of lying bouts per 24 h in cows kept in cubicle systems with different lying area surfaces. Minimum and maximum values are given in parentheses
Lying area surface Total duration of lying Lying bout length No. of lying bouts
Ž . Ž . Ž .
Straw bedding 696 617–796 63 55–70 13 11–15
Ž . Ž . Ž .
CowComfort 676 584–757 53 43–68 15 12–17
Ž . Ž . Ž .
Kraiburg 684 657–732 67 63–73 13 12–13
Ž . Ž . Ž .
Mouflex 645 610–694 64 57–70 12 10–14
Ž . Ž . Ž .
Pasture 654 596–687 67 64–71 12 10–14
Ž .
lying mats Table 3 . There was also no statistically significant inhomogeneity in these Ž
durations measured on farms using different types of soft lying mats total duration of . lying behaviour: Hs0.5, Ps0.91; duration of lying bouts: Hs2.9, Ps0.41 . The average number of lying bouts per 24 h was almost equal on all farms.
In 60% of all cows checked on farms with straw bedding no leg injuries were found at all. With cows kept in cubicle systems with soft lying mats, this percentage was
Ž .
considerably lower Mouflex: 22%; CowComfort: 9%; Pasture: 2%; Kraiburg: 0% . Leg injuries were most frequent in the carpal and tarsal joints with averages of 1.34 and 3.15 injuries per cow, respectively. For the front ankle, the hind ankle and the knee, these
Ž .
figures were much lower 0.17, 0.0 and 0.16 injuries per cow, respectively .
Cows kept in cubicle systems with soft lying mats had a significantly higher
Ž .
incidence of both hairless patches more than 2 cm in diameter Us0, P-0.001 and
Ž .
scabs or wounds less than 2 cm in diameter Us0, P-0.001 located in the tarsal
Ž .
joints than cows kept in cubicle systems with straw bedding Table 4 . As regards the carpal joints, on the other hand, the incidence of leg injuries did not differ significantly
Ž
between the two housing conditions hairless patches more than 2 cm in diameter: . Us21.5, Ps0.28; scabs or wounds less than 2 cm in diameter: Us17.5, Ps0.14 .
Table 4
Ž .
Average number of leg injuries per 100 cows in the carpal and tarsal joints of cows kept in cubicle systems with different lying area surfaces. Minimum and maximum values are given in parentheses
Location Lying area surface Hairless patches Scabs and wounds
-2 cm )2 cm -2 cm
Ž . Ž . Ž .
Tarsal joints Straw bedding 19 5–64 0 0–0 5 0–14
Ž . Ž . Ž .
CowComfort 143 122–167 115 58–183 177 67–250
Ž . Ž . Ž .
Kraiburg 234 170–335 124 41–190 190 153–236
Ž . Ž . Ž .
Mouflex 121 94–141 26 11–45 61 39–91
Ž . Ž . Ž .
Pasture 169 108–236 60 44–91 101 24–147
Ž . Ž . Ž .
Carpal joints Straw bedding 37 11–66 8 0–28 1 0–3
Ž . Ž . Ž .
CowComfort 78 43–117 6 0–17 6 0–9
Ž . Ž . Ž .
Kraiburg 117 87–145 23 14–47 7 0–29
Ž . Ž . Ž .
Mouflex 39 31–56 10 0–17 9 0–17
Ž . Ž . Ž .
Hairless patches less than 2 cm in diameter were not analysed statistically, as scabs and Ž
wounds less than 2 cm in diameter which varied significantly in frequency between .
lying area surfaces coincided with small hairless patches. Scabs and wounds more than 2 cm in diameter were very rare and only observed in tarsal joints. There were no significant inhomogeneities in cows kept in cubicle systems with different types of soft
Ž
lying mats regarding hairless patches more than 2 cm in diameter tarsal joints: Hs6.0, .
Ps0.11; carpal joints: Hs3.6, Ps0.31 and scabs or wounds less than 2 cm in
Ž .
diameter tarsal joints: Hs6.8, Ps0.08; carpal joints: Hs3.2, Ps0.36 .
4. Discussion
The results of our study indicate that soft lying mats and straw bedding are of similar quality in terms of cow behaviour. There were no significant differences in the duration of lying down and standing up movements, in the duration of lying behaviour per 24 h and in the duration of lying bouts between cows kept in cubicle systems with soft lying mats and cows kept in cubicle systems with straw bedding. On average, the cows spent about 11 h per day lying, which corresponds to the duration measured by Bockisch Ž1985 in cows kept in cubicle systems with straw bedding range 546–725 min per. Ž
. Ž .
day . With regard to lying down behaviour, Herlin 1997 reported that the duration of such movements was shorter in cows kept in cubicle systems with soft lying mats compared to cows kept in cubicle systems with conventional rubber mats or concrete floor. As different definitions were used in that study and in ours to measure the duration of lying down movements, data can not be compared quantitatively.
Ž .
In accordance with our results, Molz 1989 reported a low incidence of injuries in the tarsal joints of cows kept in cubicle systems with straw bedding. To our knowledge, no data have been published yet concerning the incidence of leg injuries in cows having access to cubicles with soft lying mats. On the basis of our study, we cannot decide whether the higher incidence of hairless patches more than 2 cm in diameter and scabs or wounds less than 2 cm in diameter in the tarsal joints of cows kept in cubicle systems with soft lying mats compared to cows kept in cubicle systems with straw bedding was caused by differences in the softness or in the surface structure of the lying area surfaces tested. Both factors may influence the forces exerted to the skin of the joints during lying as well as during lying down and standing up movements, thus promoting hair loss and subsequent alterations to the skin.
There was no statistically significant inhomogeneity in the four types of soft lying mats tested in the present study, neither concerning cow behaviour nor the incidence of
Ž
leg injuries. It should, however, be considered that the sample size three or four farms .
per mat type was rather small. In a follow-up study using the same data-collection
Ž .
methods as in the present study conventional rubber mats Ns4 farms proved to be of
Ž .
significantly lower quality than soft lying mats Ns13 farms of the present study . Cows in cubicle systems with conventional rubber mats showed fewer lying bouts per day and more scabs or wounds less than 2 cm in diameter both in the carpal joints and in
Ž .
In our study, we have quantified several variables covering different aspects related to the welfare of cows kept in cubicle systems with different lying area surfaces. Leg injuries may result in pain and suffering, especially if they are severe. Changes in the duration of total time spent lying per 24 h, in the duration of lying bouts and in the duration of lying down and standing up movements may also be a consequence of pain experienced by cows while lying or performing such movements. Changes in lying down and standing up behaviour can, however, also be caused by physical impairment
Ž .
of these movements e.g. inadequately designed cubicle, slippery lying area surface . Finally, a long duration of lying down movements may, on a motivational level, indicate difficulties of the cows to accept the quality of the lying area surface.
In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that soft lying mats are equivalent to straw bedding in terms of cow behaviour but less favourable with respect to leg injuries located in the tarsal joints. Concerning direct payments given to Swiss farmers keeping dairy cows in housing systems with a comfortable lying area, soft lying mats were accepted as equivalent to straw bedding in cubicle systems. The higher incidence of leg
Ž injuries was judged to be of minor importance, as the types of injuries observed hairless
.
patches, small sized scabs and wounds probably do not make the animals suffer. Since the long-term quality of soft lying mats is not yet known, this acceptance is provisional for a period of 5 years. It is planned to evaluate them again in comparison with straw bedding by the end of this period.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Gallus Johl for his assistance in gathering data. The study was
¨
supported by the Swiss Federal Agricultural Office.References
Andreae, U., Papendieck, T., 1971. Verhalten von Milchkuhen bei der Wahl ihrer Liegeboxen im Laufstall.¨
Der Tierzuchter 15, 432–435.¨
Ž .
Bockisch, F.J., 1985 . Beitrag zum Verhalten von Kuhen im Liegeboxenlaufstall und Bedeutung fur einige¨ ¨
Funktionsbereiche. PhD thesis, Universitat Munchen-Weihenstephan.¨ ¨
Buchwalder, T., Wechsler, B., Hauser, R., Schaub, J., Friedli, K., 2000. Liegeplatzqualitat fur Kuhe im¨ ¨ ¨
Boxenlaufstall im Test. Agrarforschung 7, 292–296.
Gebremedhin, K.G., Cramer, C.O., Larsen, H.J., 1985. Preference of dairy cattle for stall options in free stall housing. Trans. ASAE 28, 1637–1640.
Hauser, R., Schaub, J., Friedli, K., 1999. Sensor for recording the duration and frequency of cows’ resting
Ž .
behaviour. In: Institut fur Landtechnik der TU Munchen-Weihenstephan Ed. , Construction, Engineering¨ ¨
and Environment in Livestock Farming. Landtechnik Weihenstephan, Freising, pp. 261–266.
Herlin, A.H., 1997. Comparison of lying area surfaces for dairy cows by preference, hygiene and lying down behaviour. Swed. J. Agric. Res. 27, 189–196.
Jensen, P., Recen, B., Ekesbo, I., 1988. Preference of loose housed dairy cows for two different cubicle floor´
coverings. Swed. J. Agric. Res. 18, 141–146.
Lasson, E., Boxberger, J., 1976. Untersuchungen uber die Anforderungen von Rindern an die Warme- und¨ ¨
Harteeigenschaften von Stand- und Liegeflachen. In: Schriftenreihe der Landtechnik Weihenstephan vol. 2¨ ¨
Meier, W., 1999. Direct payments to promote housing systems that are especially adapted to the behavioural
Ž .
needs of farm animals. In: van Arendonk, J.A.M. Ed. , Book of Abstracts of the 50th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Zurich, 1999. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, 115 pp.¨
Molz, C., 1989. Beziehungen zwischen haltungstechnischen Faktoren und Schaden beim Milchvieh in¨
Boxenlaufstallen. PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat Munchen.¨ ¨ ¨
Natzke, R.P., Bray, D.R., Everett, R.W., 1982. Cow preference for free stall surface material. J. Dairy Sci. 65, 146–153.
O’Connell, J.M., Giller, P.S., Meaney, W.J., 1992. Factors affecting cubicle utilisation by dairy cattle using stall frame and bedding manipulation experiments. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 35, 11–21.
Oertli, B., Troxler, J., Friedli, K., 1995. Der Einfluss einer Kunststoffmatte als Bodenbelag in den Liegeboxen auf das Liegeverhalten von Milchkuhen. In: Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemassen Tierhaltung 1994,¨ ¨
KTBL-Schrift 370. KTBL, Darmstadt, pp. 118–126.
Siegel, S., Castellan, N.J., 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, NY. Zerzawy, B., 1989. Haltungsbedingte, adspektorisch und palpatorisch erfassbare Krankheiten und
Abgangsur-sachen von Milchkuhen in Abhangigkeit von den Stallverhaltnissen im Liegeboxenlaufstall. PhD thesis,¨ ¨ ¨
