Assessing cubicle dimensions for finishing bulls based on animal behaviour and cleanliness

Abstract

Finishing bulls need increasingly large cubicles throughout their growth, and optimal cubicle dimensions may differ from those used for dairy cows. The space requirements of finishing bulls was investigated by observing standing-up anddown and standing-up movements in dairy cows when cubicle size varied from about 2·3 m to 2·5 m in length, and from about 1·1 m to 1·2 m in width. In cubicles measuring 229 cm long by 112 cm wide as opposed to larger cubicles measuring 274 cm long by 132 cm wide, dairy cows spent less time lying and more time standing with only the front hooves on the lying surface ( Tucker et al., 2004). On the other hand, if cubicles are too large, the lying surface may get dirty (Bickert, 1999; Tucker et al., 2004), which could adversely affect skin and udder health as well as milk quality in dairy cattle.There are different approaches to defining cubicle size for cattle. Firstly, there is the trial-and-error approach, in which cubicles are built to a size based on an intuitive understanding of how much space cattle need for lying, lying down and standing up. Secondly, several attempts have been made to

Free-stall cleanliness is affected by stall design

“…As an overall observation the stalls were quite clean, and as expected the rear sectors were the most contaminated, as also found by Gygax et al (2005). The mid-sectors were most at risk for FOOT contamination whereas the side sectors were most at risk of being FAECES contaminated.…”

“…The mid-sectors were most at risk for FOOT contamination whereas the side sectors were most at risk of being FAECES contaminated. To our knowledge, surprisingly few studies have focused on free-stall cleanliness, and despite the study of Gaworski et al (2003) who used a detailed grid of small squares to determine the degree of soiling, these studies have used simplified methods for characterizing stall cleanliness (Herlin et al, 1994;Tucker et al, 2005;Gygax et al, 2005).…”

“…Cleanliness was scored once for each sector according to the proportion of the area covered with faeces, a method adapted after Gygax et al (2005): 0. Clean -Stalls without faeces.…”

“…installing a neck rail in a free-stall, actually reducing the accessible length of the stall, improves the cleanliness of the free-stall, while wide stalls tends to be more soiled (Tucker et al, 2005). Further Gygax et al (2005) discovered that enlargement of free-stalls increased the degree of soiling of the rear end of the stall and increased the number of dung droppings in the same area, whereas increased stall occupancy was found to be associated with a more contaminated free-stall base (Gaworski et al, 2003). No information on the connection between free stall floor length and free stall cleanliness was found, however Gjestang (1980) showed that for cows in tie stalls, cow cleanliness was improved when the length of the stall floor was reduced.…”

“…a short stall or a restrictive neck rail position, influences on the possibility for the cow to contaminate the stall base as illustrated by e.g. Gygax et al (2005) and Tucker et al (2005). The main hypothesis of this study was therefore that a stall design with less space accessible for the cow will contribute to a cleaner stall.…”