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 Google Scholar Articles by Bernardi, F. Articles by Weary, D. M. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bernardi, F. Articles by Weary, D. M.

The stall-design paradox: Neck rails increase lameness but improve udder and stall hygiene

F. Bernardi^*,, J. Fregonesi^*,, C. Winckler, D. M. Veira, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk^* and D. M. Weary^*,1

^* Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences Vienna, Gregor-Mendel-Straße 33, Vienna, Austria
Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Parana, CEP-86051-990, Brazil
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, PO Box 1000, Agassiz, British Columbia, V0M 1A0, Canada

¹ Corresponding author: dan.weary{at}ubc.ca

Housing conditions for dairy cows are thought to affect lameness, but almost no experimental work has addressed this link. The aim was to assess the effect of one feature of free-stall design, the position of the neck rail, testing the prediction that cows will be more likely to become lame if using pens with the neck rail positioned such that it prevents standing fully inside the stall. Cows (n = 32) were housed in 8 pens. Treatments were tested using a crossover design; treatments were allocated alternately to pens at the beginning of the experiment and switched halfway through the 10-wk experiment. Cows spent 27 ± 3 min/d standing with all 4 feet in stalls with less restrictive neck rails. In contrast, cows averaged just 1 ± 3 min/d when the neck rail was positioned restrictively. Cows spent less time standing with only the front 2 feet in the stall with less restrictive neck rails (33 vs. 49 ± 6 min/d). Gait scores improved when cows were kept in the less restrictive stalls and worsened when cows were kept in pens with the restrictive neck rail (median score 2.5 vs. 3.5 after 5 wk on treatment). Of 13 new cases of lameness, 11 occurred in pens with the restrictive neck-rail position. Similarly, of the 16 new cases of sole lesions, 15 occurred during the period when cows were housed in pens with a restrictive neck rail. Stalls with the neck rail positioned less restrictively had higher contamination scores than stalls with the restrictive neck rails (3.7 vs. 0.4 ± 0.2), and cows using those stalls had dirtier udders and longer teat-cleaning times (8.3 vs. 7.0 ± 0.2 min for 12 cows). This study provides the first experimental evidence that aspects of stall design can reduce the risk of lameness and hoof disease. The results illustrated that changes in design that resulted in improvements in cow comfort and hoof health came at the expense of cow and stall cleanliness.

Key Words: cow comfort • lameness • udder cleanliness • stall design

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]

				M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passille, and D. M. Weary Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle--Key concepts and the role of science J Dairy Sci, September 1, 2009; 92(9): 4101 - 4111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]