HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Interpretive Summary Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Fregonesi, J. A. Articles by Weary, D. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fregonesi, J. A. Articles by Weary, D. M.

Neck-rail position in the free stall affects standing behavior and udder and stall cleanliness

J. A. Fregonesi^*,1, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk^*, C. B. Tucker, D. M. Veira and D. M. Weary^*,2

^* Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z4, Canada
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis 95616
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, PO Box 1000, Agassiz, British Columbia, V0M 1A0, Canada

² Corresponding author: dan.weary{at}ubc.ca

This study tested the effect of neck-rail position on stall usage and udder and stall cleanliness. Thirty Holstein lactating cows were tested in groups of 6. Each group was tested with each of 5 neck-rail positions (130, 145, 160, 175, and 190 cm from the rear curb, at a constant height of 125 cm above the bedded surface) for 1 wk, with the order of testing allocated in a 5 x 5 Latin square. When the neck rail was positioned further from the rear curb, cows spent less time standing with their front 2 hooves in the stall (2.2 ± 0.26 h/d at 130 cm vs. 1.7 ± 0.27 h/d at 190 cm, mean ± SE) and more time standing with all 4 hooves in the stall (0.0 ± 0.02 h/d at 130 cm vs. 0.6 ± 0.07 h/d at 190 cm). These effects of neck-rail position tended to be more marked for smaller cows, perhaps because the standing behavior of larger cows was restricted even in the 190-cm treatment. Cows were more likely to defecate and urinate in the stalls when the neck rail was positioned further from the rear curb. Cows using these stalls tended to have dirtier udders and these stalls required more cleaning time (0.4 ± 0.16 min/d at the 130-cm position vs. 1.6 ± 0.35 min/d at the 190-cm position). In summary, positioning the neck rail further from the curb increased the time that cows spent standing fully in the stall. This change in standing behavior is likely beneficial for hoof health, but reduced udder and stall cleanliness.

Key Words: dairy cattle • cow comfort • standing behavior • stall maintenance

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. A. Fregonesi, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary Cow preference and usage of free stalls compared with an open pack area J Dairy Sci, November 1, 2009; 92(11): 5497 - 5502. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]