Biomedical subjects

C B Tucker

Publications and source records attributed to C B Tucker.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Flooring in front of the feed bunk affects feeding behavior and use of freestalls by dairy cows.

In 2 experiments we assessed how preferences, time budgets, and feeding behavior of dairy cows change in response to flooring surfaces in front of the feed bunk. In Experiment 1, 12 nonlactating dairy cattle were individually housed with access to 2 standing platforms filled with either concrete or sawdust. In Experiment 2, 24 nonlactating dairy cattle were given access to either concrete or Animat rubber flooring in front of the feed bunk. In Experiment 1, cows preferred the sawdust to the concrete flooring. In both experiments, cows provided with a softer floor in front of the feed bunk spent more time standing near the feed bunk without eating (Experiment 1: 67 vs. 40 min/d on sawdust vs. concrete, respectively, SEM = 5.6 min/d; Experiment 2: 176 vs. 115 min/d on Animat vs. concrete, respectively, SEM = 20.5 min/d) compared with when they were kept on concrete. The increased time spent at the feed bunk was due to a combination of more frequent eating and standing bouts, indicating that cows were more willing to move on nonconcrete flooring. Total time spent eating was significantly greater on the softer floor in Experiment 2, but not in Experiment 1 (Exp. 1: 289 vs. 275 min/d on sawdust and concrete, respectively, SEM = 7.3 min/d; Exp. 2: 330 vs. 289 min/d on Animat and concrete, respectively, SEM = 15.4), although feed intake was increased on the sawdust treatment in Experiment 1. Cows spent significantly more time lying in the feed alley when the flooring was rubber (219 vs. 53 min/d on Animat and concrete, SEM = 53.6 min/d), perhaps because the lying area in Experiment 2 was inadequate. In conclusion, cows prefer to stand on softer flooring in front of the feed bunk, and are more willing to move on and spend more time standing in front of the feed bunk when provided with softer flooring. These results indicate that cows find softer flooring surfaces more comfortable to stand on than concrete, and highlight the importance of evaluating the comfort of the entire facility.

Animal Welfare↗

PubMed2006

Brisket boards reduce freestall use.

We examined how the presence of a brisket board influenced cow preference, stall use, and position within the stall. When given a choice between stalls with or without a brisket board, 15 nonlactating cows spent 68% of their time lying in the stalls without a brisket board, indicating that they preferred this option. When 13 cows had access to either stalls with a brisket board or ones without, they spent, on average, 1.2 h/d more time lying down in stalls without a brisket board. Resting cows positioned themselves relatively forward in the stalls in 98 +/- 5% (mean +/- SE) of lying bouts when the brisket board was absent, compared with 67 +/- 5% of bouts when the board was present. Longer cows were more likely than shorter cows to move forward in the stalls without a brisket board. Cows also had longer lying bouts in stalls without the brisket board (absent: 1.7 +/- 0.08; present: 1.5 +/- 0.08 h/bout). Although it seems likely that the brisket board helps keep stalls clean by positioning cows closer to the curb, our results indicate that brisket boards also make stalls less comfortable for cows. Stall features designed to reduce stall maintenance may compromise cow comfort. We suggest that new approaches to cow housing are now required.

Animal Welfare↗

PubMed2005

Freestall maintenance: effects on lying behavior of dairy cattle.

In a series of 3 experiments, we documented how sand-bedding depth and distribution changed within freestalls after new bedding was added and the effect of these changes on lying behavior. In experiment 1, we measured changes in bedding depth over a 10-d period at 43 points in 24 freestalls. Change in depth of sand was the greatest the day after new sand was added and decreased over time. Over time, the stall surface became concave, and the deepest part of the stall was at the center. Based on the results of experiment 1, we measured changes in lying behavior when groups of cows had access to freestalls with sand bedding that was 0, 3.5, 5.2, or 6.2 cm at the deepest point, below the curb, while other dimensions remained fixed. We found that daily lying time was 1.15 h shorter in stalls with the lowest levels of bedding compared with stalls filled with bedding. Indeed, for every 1-cm decrease in bedding, cows spent 11 min less time lying down during each 24-h period. In a third experiment, we imposed 4 treatments that reflected the variation in sand depth within stalls: 0, 6.2, 9.9, and 13.7 cm below the curb. Again, lying times reduced with decreasing bedding, such that cows using the stalls with the least amount of bedding (13.7 cm below curb) spent 2.33 h less time per day lying down than when housed with access to freestalls filled with sand (0 cm below curb).

Animals↗

PubMed2005

Influence of neck-rail placement on free-stall preference, use, and cleanliness.

Three experiments examined how the presence of a neck rail at different heights and locations influenced dairy cattle behavior and stall cleanliness. Experiment 1 compared 4 levels of neck-rail height (102, 114, and 127 cm and no neck rail; presented at 160 or 180 cm from the curb) in a preference test. Cows (n = 10) showed no consistent preference based on neck-rail height, regardless of the horizontal position of the neck rail. When cows were restricted to each treatment in turn, however, time spent standing fully (with all 4 hooves) in the stall was least in the stall with the lowest neck rail (mean, 22 min/24 h) and was greatest in the stall with no neck rail (mean, 83 min/24 h). A second experiment examined the effect of a neck rail placed at 3 distances from the curb (140, 175, and 233 cm) when height was held constant (131 cm; n = 12). Time spent standing fully in the stall was least when the neck rail was close to the curb (140 cm; mean, 11 min/24 h) and was greatest when the neck rail was furthest from the curb (233 cm; mean, 86 min/24 h). When the neck rail was far from the curb, the cows were more likely to soil the stall by defecating while standing fully in the stall. Experiment 3 compared soiling of the stall by 14 cows with and without a neck rail at a height of 124.5 cm. When the neck rail was removed, cows were more than twice as likely to soil the stall by defecating while standing fully in the stall compared with when the neck rail was present (1.3 vs. 0.5 defecations/24 h). Thus, restrictive neck-rail placement prevents cows from standing in stall, but helps keep stalls clean. Access to more comfortable flooring surfaces outside the stall may help mitigate the negative effects of restrictive neck rails.

Animals↗

PubMed2004

Free-stall dimensions: effects on preference and stall usage.

In 2 experiments, free-stall dimensions were examined to determine how they affected stall preference, usage, cleanliness, and milk production in Holstein dairy cattle. In experiment 1, stall width (112 or 132 cm) and stall length (229 and 274 cm from curb to wall) were compared in a 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of stall treatments using 15 individually housed, non-lactating animals. Cows showed no clear preference for stall size as measured by lying time. When animals had no choice between stalls, average lying time was higher in the wide stalls than in the narrow stalls (10.8 vs. 9.6+/-0.3 h/24 h). Both length and width affected time spent standing with only the front hooves in the stall; total stall area is best explained by the variation associated with this behavior. In experiment 2, 27 lactating dairy cattle were alternately housed with access to stalls of 106, 116, or 126 cm in width using a cross-over design with exposure to each treatment lasting 3 wk. Animals spent an additional 42 min/24 h lying in stalls measuring 126 cm in width compared with stalls with only 106 cm between partitions. Free-stall width influenced the time spent standing with the front 2 hooves in the stall; animals averaged 58 min/24 h in the widest stalls and 85 min/24 h in the narrowest stalls. The amount of time spent standing with all 4 hooves in the stall tended to be longer in wider stalls, and these stalls were also most likely to become soiled with feces. Stall width did not affect the number of lying events or milk production. In conclusion, animals spent more time lying down, and less time was spent standing with only the front hooves in larger stalls, but larger stalls were also more likely to become soiled.

Animals↗

PubMed2004

Bacterial populations on teat ends of dairy cows housed in free stalls and bedded with either sand or sawdust.

The main objectives of the experiment were: 1) to compare bacterial populations of mastitis-causing organisms on the teats of lactating dairy cattle housed on sand and sawdust bedding and, 2) to examine the relationship between bacterial counts present in the 2 bedding types with those on teat ends. Sixteen lactating Holstein cows were housed on either sand or sawdust-bedded free stalls using a crossover design with 3 wk per bedding type. Bedding samples were collected on d 0 (prior to animals lying on the bedding), 1, 2, and 6. Teat ends were sampled prior to the morning milking on d 1, 2, and 6. All samples were analyzed to determine coliform, Klebsiella spp., and Streptococcus spp. populations. There were 2 times more coliforms and 6 times more Klebsiella bacteria on teat ends of cows housed on sawdust compared with those housed on sand. In contrast, there were 10 times more Streptococcus spp. bacteria on teat ends of cows when housed on sand compared with sawdust. In both sawdust and sand bedding, coliforms, Klebsiella and Streptococcus counts increased over each experimental week, although patterns varied with bedding and bacteria type. Bacterial counts on teat ends were correlated with bacterial counts in sawdust (r = 0.47, 0.69, and 0.60 for coliforms, Klebsiella spp., and streptococci, respectively) and in sand (r = 0.35 for coliforms and r = 0.40 for Klebsiella spp.). In conclusion, coliforms and Klebsiella spp. on teat ends were more numerous when cows were housed on sawdust bedding, but Streptococcus spp. were more numerous on teat ends of cows housed on sand.

Animals↗

PubMed2004

Bedding on geotextile mattresses: how much is needed to improve cow comfort?

The objective of our study was to evaluate how the amount of sawdust bedding on mattresses affects dairy cattle behavior and preferences. Eleven nonlactating, multiparous cows were housed individually in pens with access to 3 free stalls. Each stall was fitted with a geotextile mattress covered with either 0, 1, or 7.5 kg of kiln-dried sawdust. The experiment began with 7 d of acclimatization to all 3 stalls. Cows were then allowed access to only 1 of the 3 stalls at a time, each for 3 d (restriction phase). At the end of this restriction phase, cows were allowed free access to all 3 stalls for 3 d (free-choice phase). Time spent lying and the number of lying bouts increased significantly with the amount of bedding, from 12.3 +/- 0.53 h lying and 8.5 +/- 0.62 bouts per 24 h on bare mattresses to 13.8 +/- 0.53 h lying and 10.0 +/- 0.62 bouts per 24 h on mattresses with 7.5 kg of sawdust. In addition, the animals spent less time standing with only the front hooves in the stalls when more sawdust was present. When allowed free access to all 3 options, all 11 animals spent a majority of their time lying and standing in the 7.5-kg option. In conclusion, cows preferred mattresses bedded with 7.5 kg of sawdust, on which they spent more time lying down and less time standing with only the front hooves in stalls. These results indicate that more sawdust bedding improves cow comfort in stalls with geotextile mattresses.

Animals↗

PubMed2003

Effects of three types of free-stall surfaces on preferences and stall usage by dairy cows.

One important criterion in choosing appropriate housing systems for dairy cattle is that the freestall provides a comfortable surface for the cow. This paper describes two experiments testing the effects of commonly used lying surfaces on stall preference and stall usage by Holstein cows. In both experiments, 12 cows were housed individually in separate pens. Each pen contained three free stalls with a different surface: deep-bedded sawdust, deep-bedded sand, and a geotextile mattress covered with 2 to 3 cm of sawdust. The animals were restricted to each surface in turn, in a random order for either 2 (Experiment 1) or 3 d (Experiment 2). Both before and after this restriction phase, the animals were allowed access to all three surfaces, and preference was determined, based on lying times. Of the 12 cows used in Experiment 1, 10 preferred sawdust before and nine after the restriction phase. During the restriction phase, average lying times and number of lying events during the restriction phase were significantly lower for the sand-bedded stalls (P < or = 0.05), and standing times were higher on mattresses (P < or = 0.05), compared with sawdust. Although these cows had some experience with all three surfaces during the experiment, they had been housed in sawdust-bedded stalls during their previous lactation. Cows used in Experiment 2 had spent their previous lactation in sand bedded stalls. In this experiment, about half the cows preferred sand and half sawdust, after the restriction phase. During the restriction phase of experiment, lying times and number of lying events were lower, and standing times were higher when the animals were restricted to the mattresses compared to either sand or sawdust (P < or = 0.05). These results indicate that (1) free stall surface can affect both stall preferences and stall usage, and (2) mattresses are less preferred.

Animals↗

PubMed2001

Tail docking dairy cattle: effects on cow cleanliness and udder health.

To determine whether tail docking would influence cow cleanliness and udder health in a free-stall system, we monitored milking cows after half the animals in a herd were docked. A sample of 223 docked and 190 undocked cows (reducing to 169 and 105 over the study as cows were dried off) were monitored for 8 wk. Cow cleanliness was scored in two areas: along the spine, and the rump adjacent to the tail at 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8 wk after docking. Cleanliness was evaluated by counting squares that were soiled (0 to 14 on a 5- x 17.5-cm grid) and judging soiling severity on a scale from 0 (clean) to 3 (thickly caked). Udder cleanliness was scored with the same scale (0 to 3) and by counting the number of teats with debris on them. Udder health was assessed by measuring SCC of two milk samples and the number of animals diagnosed as mastitic by the on-farm veterinarian. No treatment differences were found in four measures of cow cleanliness, two measures of udder cleanliness, or udder health. However, cow cleanliness did differ over time, and analysis of a subsample of cows illustrated individual differences in cleanliness.

Animal Welfare↗