Housing, management characteristics, and factors associated with lameness, hock lesion, and hygiene of lactating dairy cattle on Upper Midwest United States dairy farms using automatic milking systems

Abstract

The objectives of this cross-sectional study were to describe housing and management practices on farms using automatic milking systems (AMS) in 2 states of the upper Midwest and to evaluate the association of various housing and management factors with 3 measures of animal welfare: prevalence of lameness, severe hock lesions, and dirty cows. Fifty-four farms were visited once to collect facility measurements and observations, interview the dairy producer, and score cows for locomotion, hock lesions, and hygiene. Median number of AMS units/farm was 2 (interquartile range = 1; range = 1 to 8). Factors concerning labor were the most commonly cited reason by dairy producers for making the transition to the AMS; additional commonly cited factors were an improvement in lifestyle and human health. Number of cows fetched per AMS, or manually brought to the AMS if not milked voluntarily, was 4.7 ± 2.3 cows/AMS per day (8% of cows) for free traffic flow farms and 3.3 ± 1.8 cows/AMS per day (5% of cows) for guided traffic flow farms. Cow resting surface was significantly associated with prevalence of lameness and severe lameness. Farms with sand-bedded freestalls (17.2%) and bedded packs (17.4%) had significantly lower lameness prevalence (score ≥3 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 = normal locomotion) than farms with mattress freestalls (30.5%), waterbeds (25.0%), and mattresses with access to pasture (22.6%). Farms with mattresses and access to pasture had similar lameness prevalence to farms with waterbeds, but were lower than farms with mattresses only. A somewhat similar result was found for severe lameness prevalence (score ≥4 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 = normal locomotion); farms with sand-bedded freestalls (2.8%), bedded packs (0.0%), and mattress freestalls with access to pasture (1.5%) had significantly lower prevalence than farms with mattresses (7.1%) or waterbeds (10.8%). Severe hock lesion prevalence (score = 3 on a 1 to 3 scale, with 1 = normal, 3 = swelling) in herds with sand-bedded freestalls, waterbeds, and bedded packs were similar and significantly lower than the prevalence in mattress-based freestalls. Cows housed in sand-bedded freestalls had significantly lower prevalence of dirty cows (score = 3 or 3.5 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 = clean) than those housed on mattresses and waterbeds, and had significantly lower prevalence of severely dirty cows (score = 4, 4.5 or 5 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 = clean) than all other housing systems except waterbeds, which was similar. Manure removal system (manual, automatic, or slatted floor) was significantly associated with prevalence of severely dirty cows; farms with manual scraping had lower prevalence of severely dirty cows than farms where alley scraping was practiced automatically or slatted floors were used. Dairy producers using AMS appeared to be successful with a variety of facility designs and management practices. Cow resting surface in AMS herds was associated with some animal health and welfare measurements.

Short communication: Claw block application improves locomotion and weight-bearing characteristics in cattle with foot diseases

“…Early detection and treatment play a crucial role in the successful prevention and treatment of lameness (Leach et al, 2012), because the rate of recovery after treatment is lower in cows with chronic foot diseases (Thomas et al, 2016). The prevalence of lameness in cattle has been reported to be 31.6% in the United Kingdom (Griffiths et al, 2018), 31% in China (Chapinal et al, 2014, 17.2 to 30.5% in the United States (Salfer et al, 2018), 21% in Finland (Sarjokari et al, 2013), 15 to 21% in Canada (Jewell et al, 2019), 16% in Brazil (Moreira et al, 2018), 14.8% in Switzerland (Becker et al, 2014), and 8.1% in New Zealand (Fabian et al, 2014). Options for treatment and pain management in cattle affected by foot diseases include claw-trimming (Shearer and van Amstel, 2001), analgesia with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID; Whay et al, 2005;Wagner et al, 2017;Alsaaod et al, 2019), and applying a block to the sound partner claw of the affected limb (Toussaint Raven, 1989;Pyman, 1997).…”

A Comparison of Rice Husks and Peanut Shells as Bedding Materials on Dairy Cows’ Preferences, Behaviour, and Health

“…Usually, deep, dry, and clean bedding materials are preferred by cows and can improve the welfare of dairy cows [1,5]. The provision of comfortable bedding can improve the health, welfare, and productivity of dairy cows [6][7][8]. The most common types of bedding used in free-stall barns are sand, sawdust, wheat straw, and wood shavings [9].…”

Association of housing and management practices with milk yield, milk composition, and fatty acid profile, predicted using Fourier transform mid-infrared spectroscopy, in farms with automated milking systems

“…Researchers have previously highlighted the benefits of increased feed push-up frequency in AMS farms (Siewert et al, 2018) due to improved feed access, decreased sorting, and less time searching for feed and more time spent lying down (Deming et al, 2013;King et al, 2016), which all may have positive effects on milk yield. The use of deep bedding has been associated with lesser lameness prevalence in AMS farms (Salfer et al, 2018) and with greater lying duration (Gomez and Cook, 2010;King et al, 2016). As such, greater milk yield associated with deep bedding may result from greater cow comfort, increased lying time, and reduced lameness prevalence.…”