JDS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Interpretive Summary
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fregonesi, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Vittie, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fregonesi, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Vittie, T.
J. Dairy Sci. 87:1203-1207
© American Dairy Science Association, 2004.

Effect of Rubber Flooring in Front of the Feed Bunk on the Time Budgets of Dairy Cattle

Jose A. Fregonesi, Cassandra B. Tucker, Daniel M. Weary, Frances C. Flower and Tyler Vittie

Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Agricultural Science, The University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T IZ4, Canada

Corresponding author: J. A. Fregonesi; e-mail: jafregonesi{at}yahoo.co.uk.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
The objective of this experiment was to study the effect of rubber flooring in front of the feed bunk on the immediate behavioral response of dairy cattle. Four groups of 12 dairy cattle were alternately housed in sections of a free-stall barn with either 1.85 m of rubber flooring or grooved concrete in the area in front of the feed bunk. Rubber flooring did not affect time spent eating. However, animals showed a slight, but detectable, increase in time standing without eating on the rubber surface (5.5%) compared with concrete (4.8%). For reasons that are unclear, this increase in time spent standing was not limited to the area in front of the feed bunk; animals spent 11.0% of the available time standing elsewhere in the pen (outside of the free stall but not in front of the feed bunk) when they had access to the rubber flooring, compared with 9.0% when housed with access to only concrete floors. In addition, animals spent slightly less time lying in the free stall when they had access to rubber in front of the feed bunk (52.5 vs. 54.3%). Time spent engaged in behaviors such as standing elsewhere in the pen and eating were variable over time. For example, time spent eating declined from 23.1 to 17.4% over the 6-wk trial. In conclusion, dairy cattle with access to rubber flooring in front of the feeder showed small differences in where and how much time they spent standing, although the biological implications of these small changes are unclear.

Key Words: dairy cattle • flooring surface • behavior


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Concrete is a popular flooring surface in dairy barns, likely due to its durability, availability, cost, and ease of cleaning (Barnes, 1989; Stefanowska et al., 2001). Unfortunately, concrete flooring may predispose dairy cattle to lameness (Wierenga, 1990; Bergsten and Frank, 1996). There are also concerns that concrete flooring may reduce the performance of certain behaviors such as displays of estrus, eating, and grooming.

Alternative flooring surfaces may provide 2 advantages for dairy cattle. First, some alternative flooring surfaces may reduce hoof-related injuries because concrete flooring is thought to be a risk factor for claw lesions. For example, dairy cattle housed with access to stalls fitted with rubber had fewer cases of hoof-related injuries (e.g., sole lesions) than those housed in free stalls without rubber mats (Leonard et al., 1994). In addition, incidence of severe claw lesions was correlated positively with the presence of hard flooring in the stalls (Bergsten, 1994). In contrast, other work has not reported a relationship between flooring material and this type of injury. Vokey et al. (2001) compared cattle housed with access to rubber or concrete alleyways over a 16-wk period. They reported no difference in the severity of sole lesions or incidence of clinical lameness, although differences in DIM and parity between treatments made these results difficult to interpret. Bergsten and Frank (1996) also reported no differences in the prevalence or severity of sole lesions of heifers housed in tie stalls with a concrete base versus a rubber mat.

Second, characteristics of the flooring surface may modify immediate behavioral responses of cattle (e.g., time spent standing on the surface). Dairy cattle are able to distinguish among walking surfaces that differ in traction (Phillips and Morris, 2002). Another study reported that dairy cattle take longer steps when walking on flooring with a coefficient of friction higher than 0.50 (Phillips and Morris, 2001), perhaps because they are less likely to slip on these surfaces (Gjestang and Løken, 1980).

To date, no work has described the effects of flooring surfaces, like rubber, in front of the feed bunk on the time budgets of cattle. The aim of the current experiment was to evaluate these effects for free stall-housed dairy cattle. Specifically, we compared the time budgets of cattle housed with access to either grooved-rubber or grooved-concrete flooring in the area where the animals stand while eating.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
The experiment was conducted at the University of British Columbia’s Dairy Education and Research Centre in Agassiz, British Columbia, during June and July 2001. Forty-eight dairy cattle, balanced for parity and average weekly milk production, were assigned randomly to 4 groups of 12 animals each. All animals were housed previously in the experimental barn, and the 4 groups were similar in terms of production, stage of lactation, parity, body weight, and body condition (Table 1Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Group (12 animals per group) means (± SD) for milk production, DIM, parity, BW, and BCS.
 
Each experimental pen (width = 7.50 m and length = 13.50 m) contained 12 free stalls configured in 3 rows. Two rows faced one another, were open at the front ("head-to-head"), and had a bed length of 2.40 m. The third row of free stalls faced a cement wall, and these stalls were 0.30 m longer to allow more space for getting up and lying down. Free stalls were separated by Dutch comfort-style partitions. Free stalls measured 1.20 m wide center to center, and the neck rail was 1.14 m above the stall surface. Stalls were deep bedded with 0.40 m of sand. The flooring throughout the pens was grooved concrete. The alley closest to the feed bunk measured 3.50 m. In 2 of the pens, the floor of half of the alley closest to the feed bunk (1.85 m) was inlaid with a 2.5 cm-thick rubber mat. The rubber surface was level with the concrete flooring. The rubber mats were made of solid, durable rubber used for conveyer belting and had grooving similar to the concrete flooring. Alleys were cleaned 6 times per 24 h with automatic scrapers.

Each pen had 7.50 m of feed bunk space available through a pendulous feed rail. Animals were fed a TMR of corn, grass silage, barley, canola meal, and soybean meal for ad libitum consumption. Fresh feed was provided twice daily, and feed was pushed up 4 times daily. Water was freely available from a self-filling trough. Animals were milked twice daily at 0500 and 1600 h in a double-12 parallel milking parlor.

Each group of animals was observed during 2 periods, each lasting 3 wk, for a total of 6 wk of observations. Five days of adaptation preceded both observation periods. At the beginning of the experiment, each group was assigned randomly to an initial pen that had either concrete (2 pens) or rubber (2 pens) in front of the feed bunk. After 3 wk of observation, groups were switched to pens with the alternative flooring.

Behavior was recorded using 12 Panasonic WV 330 cameras, positioned approximately 10 m above the experimental pens. These cameras were attached to a Panasonic video multiplexer (WV-FS216) and time-lapse recorder (AG-6540p). Red lights (100 W) were hung directly above (approximately 10 m) the pens to facilitate video recording at night. Animals were filmed continuously for 48 h during each of the 6 wk, for a total of 144 h of recording per treatment (rubber or concrete). However, observations were suspended while the animals were in the milking parlor. The total amount of time animals were observed varied slightly from day to day due to differences in milking times (time spent away from their home pen averaged 119 min per 24 h). Thus all results pertaining to time budgets are expressed as a percentage of the total observation time for that animal.

Animals were marked with unique symbols using hair dye for easy identification. An animal’s behavior was scored from video using instantaneous scan sampling once every 10 min. At each scan, we recorded whether the animal was in the free stall (either lying or standing with 2 or 4 legs in the stall), eating (head through the feed rail), drinking (head over the drinking trough), standing in front of the feed bunk (with at least 2 legs in the area within 1.85 m of the feed rail), and standing elsewhere in the pen (outside the 1.85 m of space in front of the feed bunk and outside of the free stalls). We also recorded when an individual animal interacted with another animal, specifically butting and allogrooming. Butting was characterized by an upswing of the head directed to either the head or flanks of another animal. Allogrooming was defined as licking another animal.

Statistical Analyses
Percentage of time each animal spent engaged in each behavior was averaged for 3wk, during which the animal had access to each flooring surface (rubber or concrete). These proportions were analyzed using a general linear model (GLM) that included terms for group (3 df) and animal (44 df) and tested the effects of period (i.e., first 3 wk vs. the second 3 wk of the experiment; 1 df), flooring surface (rubber vs. concrete; 1 df), and the interaction between group and treatment (2 df) against the residual error (44 df). In this analysis, evidence of group x treatment interaction was considered only as a caution in interpreting the main effect of flooring surface. No meaningful test of treatment within a single group was possible due to the necessary confound between time and treatment in this type of crossover design.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Of the time animals spent in the pen, more than 60% was in the free stall, with approximately 90% of the stall occupancy spent lying down. Animals spent 25% of their time at the feed bunk, both eating and standing without eating. About 10% of the time was spent standing elsewhere in the pen, 2% drinking, and <1% engaged in allogrooming and butting.

When animals had access to the rubber flooring in front of the feed bunk, they spent more (P < 0.01) time standing in that location and standing elsewhere in the pen compared with when they were in pens with only concrete flooring (Table 2Go). These greater standing times were balanced by slightly lower lying times when animals were provided with the rubber-flooring surface. However, the 4 groups of animals responded differently: lying times were lower in only 3 of the 4 groups, resulting in a significant interaction between the group and flooring surface (Table 3Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Mean percentages and least square standard errors of time animals (n = 48) spent engaged in various behaviors when provided with either rubber or concrete flooring in front of the feed bunk.
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Mean percentage time the 4 groups spent engaged in various behaviors when provided with either rubber (R) or concrete (C) flooring in front of the feed bunk.
 
Despite the positive effect of rubber on standing times, the amount of time animals spent eating was not affected by the flooring surface. Flooring surface had no effect on the time spent standing in the free stall, drinking, or engaging in social behavior.

Some notable changes in these behaviors were detected during the experiment, independent of the flooring surface (Figure 1Go). The mean percentage of time animals spent lying down varied from day to day, but no significant differences were detected between the first and second periods. The time spent eating declined (P < 0.01) during the 6-wk experimental period, whereas time spent standing elsewhere in the pen increased (P < 0.01). For time spent eating, standing at the feed bunk without eating, standing elsewhere in the pen, drinking, and engaging in social interactions, the effect of period was significant (P < 0.01).



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Mean (± SD) percentage of time animals (n = 48) engaged in the 3 most common behaviors: lying in the stall (empty square symbols), eating (filled circle symbols), and standing elsewhere (empty diamond symbols). Behaviors were scored on 2 consecutive days per week during the 6-wk experiment.

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
The animals spent the majority of their available time in the free stalls and the majority of this time lying down. When animals were outside of the free stall, most of their time was spent eating. These time budgets are similar to those reported in other studies of high-yielding dairy cattle housed in free stalls (e.g., Wierenga and Hopster, 1990).

We also found that the amount of time animals spent engaged in certain behaviors varied over the course of the experiment. For example, time spent eating declined from 23.1 to 17.4% over the 6-wk experiment. The reason for these changes is not clear but could be related to changing environmental conditions or increasing DIM. Nonetheless, these results indicate that caution should be exercised in generalizing results obtained from relatively short observational periods. In contrast to eating behavior, time spent lying down was relatively consistent during the 6 wk of behavioral observations. Our findings confirm those of Schrader (2002), who also demonstrated that lying times were reasonably stable during a 3-mo period.

In recent years, interest has grown in testing the effects of flooring surfaces for dairy cattle housed indoors (e.g., Stefanowska et al., 2001). Animals spent only slightly more time standing on the rubber surface in front of the feed bunk (0.7% more of the total time in the pen) and elsewhere in the pen (2.0% more of the total time in the pen) than when animals had access to only concrete surfaces.

Previous work comparing 2 types of concrete flooring (solid vs. slats) also reported differences in the amount of time spent standing near the feed bunk (Stefanowska et al., 2001). However, neither our experiment nor that of Stefanowska et al. (2001) detected any treatment difference in time spent eating. The lack of effect on time spent eating is consistent with other work demonstrating that dairy cattle tend to maintain eating time even when conditions at the feed bunk are less than optimal (Friend et al., 1976; Collis et al., 1980). We found that the animals spent about 20% of their day eating, and this time is also consistent with earlier findings (e.g., Friend and Polan, 1974; Blowey, 1994).

In addition to spending more time standing in front of the feed bunk, animals with access to the rubber flooring spent 2% more time standing elsewhere in the pen. This increase is difficult to explain, because the flooring surface elsewhere in the pen was grooved concrete, regardless of the flooring surface in front of the feed bunk. Including the time spent eating, animals spent approximately two-thirds of their standing time in front of the feed bunk. Perhaps when animals were housed on rubber in this area, they were then better able tolerate the concrete flooring elsewhere in the pen.

When animals had concrete flooring in front of the feed bunk, they spent 1.8% more of the total time in the pen lying in the free stalls; however, this response was not consistent across groups. Perhaps some animals are using the free stall as an area of refuge when the flooring in front of the feed bunk is uncomfortable. We found no differences in the other behaviors performed in the free stall (standing with either 2 or 4 legs in the stall). Animals spent more time standing with 4 legs in the free stall when housed on slatted floors, compared with grooved concrete (Stefanowska et al., 2001). Thus, both the current study and the previous one found that flooring in the pen may affect stall usage. Interestingly, work on free stall comfort has shown that improved designs result in more stall use and less time spent outside the free stall (e.g., Tucker et al., 2003). Thus, measures of stall use and standing outside of the stall are likely affected by the comfort of free stall (for lying down and standing) relative to the comfort of surfaces available for standing elsewhere in the pen.

In conclusion, standing and eating times of lactating dairy cattle are variable, but rubber flooring in front of the feeder may slightly alter time standing both at the feed bunk and elsewhere in the pen and on time in the free stall. These results indicate that dairy cattle may find rubber flooring slightly more comfortable than grooved concrete. Other methods, such as preference testing, may provide more insight into how dairy cattle perceive flooring surfaces. Future research should also address how alternative flooring surfaces affect gait and slippage and the role of flooring in the development of hoof-related injuries.


   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
 
We thank the faculty, staff, and students at the University of British Columbia’s Dairy Education and Research Centre and the University’s Animal Welfare Program, especially Nelson Dinn, David Fraser, and the late Jim Shelford for their assistance during all stages of the study. The project was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada through the Industrial Research Chair in Animal Welfare, and by contributions from the BC SPCA, members of the BC Veterinary Medical Association, the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Beef Cattle Industry Development Fund, the BC Dairy Foundation, and many others listed at www.agsci.ubc.ca/animalwelfare.

Received for publication September 3, 2003. Accepted for publication November 17, 2003.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 


Barnes, M. M. 1989. Update on dairy cow housing with particular reference to flooring. Br. Vet. J. 145:436–445.[Medline]

Bergsten, C. 1994. Haemorrhages of the sole horn of dairy cows as a retrospective indicator of laminitis: An epidemiological study. Acta Vet. Scand. 35:55–66.[Medline]

Bergsten, C., and B. Frank. 1996. Sole haemorrhages in tied primparious cows as an indicator of periparturient laminitis: Effects of diet, flooring, and season. Acta Vet. Scand. 37:383–394.[Medline]

Blowey, R. 1994. Dairy cow housing. Page 428 in Livestock Housing. C. M. Wathes and D. R. Charles, eds. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Collis, K. A., M. J. Vagg, P. T. Gleed, C. M. Copp, and B. F. Sansom. 1980. The effects of reducing manger space on dairy cow behaviour and production. Vet. Rec. 107:197–198.[Abstract]

Friend, T. H., and C. E. Polan. 1974. Social rank, feeding behaviour, and freestall utilization by dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 57:1214–1220.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Friend, T. H., C. E. Polan, and M. L. McGilliard. 1976. Free stall and feed bunk requirements relative to behaviour, production and individual feed intake in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 60:108–116.

Gjestang, K., and K. Løken. 1980. Friktionsforhold på båsgolv av betong og gummi (Slipperiness of concrete floors and rubber mats in tiestalls). Agricultural University of Norway, Department of Agricultural Structures, Stensiltrykk No.161.

Leonard, F. C., J. O’Connell, and K. O’Farrell. 1994. Effect of different housing conditions on behaviour and foot lesions in Friesian heifers. Vet. Rec. 134:490–494.[Abstract]

Phillips, C. J. C., and I. D. Morris. 2001. The locomotion of dairy cows on floor surfaces with different frictional properties. J. Dairy Sci. 84:623–628.[Abstract]

Phillips, C. J. C., and I. D. Morris. 2002. The ability of cattle to distinguish between and their preference for floors with different levels of friction and their avoidance of floors contaminated with excreta. Anim. Welfare 11:21–29.

Schrader, L. 2002. Consistency of individual behavioural characteristics of dairy cows in their home pen. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 77:255–266.

Stefanowska, J., D. Swierstra, C. R. Braam, and M. M. W. B. Hendriks. 2001. Cow behaviour on a new grooved floor in comparison with slatted floor, taking claw health and floor properties into account. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 71:87–103.[Medline]

Tucker, C. B., D. M. Weary, and D. Fraser. 2003. Effects of three types of free-stall surfaces on preferences and stall usage by dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 86:521–529.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Vokey, F. J., C. L. Guard, H. N. Erb, and D. M. Galton. 2001. Effects of alley and stall surfaces on indices of claw and leg health in dairy cattle in a free-stall barn. J. Dairy Sci. 84:2686–2699.[Abstract]

Wierenga, H. K. 1990. Social dominance in dairy cattle and influences of housing and management. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 27:201–229.

Wierenga, H. K., and H. Hopster. 1990. The significance of cubicles for the behaviour of dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 26:309–337.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
S. Platz, F. Ahrens, J. Bendel, H. H. D. Meyer, and M. H. Erhard
What Happens with Cow Behavior When Replacing Concrete Slatted Floor by Rubber Coating: A Case Study
J Dairy Sci, March 1, 2008; 91(3): 999 - 1004.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
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]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
P. V. Kremer, S. Nueske, A. M. Scholz, and M. Foerster
Comparison of Claw Health and Milk Yield in Dairy Cows on Elastic or Concrete Flooring
J Dairy Sci, October 1, 2007; 90(10): 4603 - 4611.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
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]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
J. Rushen and A. M. de Passille
Effects of roughness and compressibility of flooring on cow locomotion.
J Dairy Sci, August 1, 2006; 89(8): 2965 - 2972.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
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 page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
T. J. DeVries, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and K. A. Beauchemin
Frequency of Feed Delivery Affects the Behavior of Lactating Dairy Cows
J Dairy Sci, October 1, 2005; 88(10): 3553 - 3562.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
T. J. DeVries and M. A. G. von Keyserlingk
Time of Feed Delivery Affects the Feeding and Lying Patterns of Dairy Cows
J Dairy Sci, February 1, 2005; 88(2): 625 - 631.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
R. Muller and L. Schrader
Individual Consistency of Dairy Cows' Activity in Their Home Pen
J Dairy Sci, January 1, 2005; 88(1): 171 - 175.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Interpretive Summary
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fregonesi, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Vittie, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fregonesi, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Vittie, T.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS