|
|
||||||||
Animal Welfare Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4
Corresponding author: C. B. Tucker; e-mail: cassandra.tucker{at}agresearch.co.nz.
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.
Key Words: cubicle housing welfare behavior
Abbreviation key: ECT = electronic cow trainers
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
F. Bernardi, J. Fregonesi, C. Winckler, D. M. Veira, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary The stall-design paradox: Neck rails increase lameness but improve udder and stall hygiene J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2009; 92(7): 3074 - 3080. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. A. Fregonesi, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, C. B. Tucker, D. M. Veira, and D. M. Weary Neck-rail position in the free stall affects standing behavior and udder and stall cleanliness J Dairy Sci, May 1, 2009; 92(5): 1979 - 1985. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. B. Cook, M. J. Marin, R. L. Mentink, T. B. Bennett, and M. J. Schaefer Comfort Zone-Design Free Stalls: Do They Influence the Stall Use Behavior of Lame Cows? J Dairy Sci, December 1, 2008; 91(12): 4673 - 4678. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Magnusson, A. H. Herlin, and M. Ventorp Short Communication: Effect of Alley Floor Cleanliness on Free-Stall and Udder Hygiene J Dairy Sci, October 1, 2008; 91(10): 3927 - 3930. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. A. Fregonesi, D. M. Veira, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary Effects of Bedding Quality on Lying Behavior of Dairy Cows J Dairy Sci, December 1, 2007; 90(12): 5468 - 5472. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. A. Fregonesi, C. B. Tucker, and D. M. Weary Overstocking Reduces Lying Time in Dairy Cows J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2007; 90(7): 3349 - 3354. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
O. Hernandez-Mendo, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, D. M. Veira, and D. M. Weary Effects of Pasture on Lameness in Dairy Cows J Dairy Sci, March 1, 2007; 90(3): 1209 - 1214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. B. Tucker, G. Zdanowicz, and D. M. Weary Brisket boards reduce freestall use. J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2006; 89(7): 2603 - 2607. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. B. Tucker, D. M. Weary, A. M. de Passille, B. Campbell, and J. Rushen Flooring in front of the feed bunk affects feeding behavior and use of freestalls by dairy cows. J Dairy Sci, June 1, 2006; 89(6): 2065 - 2071. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |