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


     

J. Dairy Sci. 2007. 90:3349-3354. doi:10.3168/jds.2006-794
© 2007 American Dairy Science Association ®
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 Weary, D. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fregonesi, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Weary, D. M.

Overstocking Reduces Lying Time in Dairy Cows

J. A. Fregonesi*, C. B. Tucker{dagger},1 and D. M. Weary{ddagger}

* Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, Parana, CEP-86051-990, Brazil
{dagger} Rumen, Nutrition & Welfare, AgResearch Ltd., Hamilton, New Zealand
{ddagger} Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems Agricultural Science, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada

1 Corresponding author: cbtucker{at}ucdavis.edu


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Our objective was to understand the effect of overstocking on the lying and standing behavior of dairy cattle. We manipulated freestall availability by providing 12, 11, 10, 9, or 8 freestalls to 12 cows (n = 4 groups, 12 cows/group), thus creating stocking levels of 100, 109, 120, 133, and 150%, respectively. Treatments were applied for a week at a time in a switchback design. Each group returned to the 100% stocking level after exposure to the other treatments. In addition to lying and standing behavior, we measured each cow’s ability to displace others from the freestall to understand the interaction between social status and response to overstocking. When groups of cows had fewer stalls available, they spent less time lying down. There was no effect of overstocking on time spent standing with only the front legs in the stall. Instead, cows compensated for the reduced lying times by spending more time outside of the stall. When fewer stalls were available, animals were more likely to be displaced from stalls. The cow’s ability to displace others from the stalls, however, did not explain the magnitude of their reduction in lying time when provided with fewer freestalls. Due to increased competition for stalls, cows lay down sooner at 150% than at the 100% level. Stall use was more uniform across time and across stalls within the pen when fewer freestalls were available. In conclusion, when cows had access to fewer freestalls, there was increased competition for stalls, increased time standing outside the stalls, and reduced lying time.

Key Words: overstocking • overcrowding • cow comfort • welfare


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Housed dairy cows spend about 50 to 60% of their time lying down and are highly motivated to maintain lying times of 12 to 13 h/d (Jensen et al., 2005; Munksgaard et al., 2005). In addition, physiological function and health are impaired when cattle are deprived of the opportunity to lie down. Cattle with restricted access to lying have greater acute increases in cortisol concentrations, reduced responses to ACTH challenges, and reduced concentrations of circulating growth hormone compared with free-lying cows (Munksgaard and Løvendahl, 1993; Fisher et al., 2003). Hoof health and locomotion are also compromised when dairy cows spend less time lying down (Hassall et al., 1993; Phillips and Schofield, 1994; Galindo and Broom, 2000).

Recent research has focused on dairy barn design that facilitates lying behavior. Previous work has evaluated the effects of lying surface (e.g., Tucker and Weary, 2004) or the configuration of the freestalls (e.g., Tucker et al., 2004) on cow comfort. Farm management can also play a key role in how dairy cattle use a barn and the lying area. Overstocking freestall barns is a management option for improving returns on facility investments (Bewley et al., 2001). When there are more cattle than freestalls, behavior may be affected because all cows cannot lie down at the same time.

There is evidence that overstocking freestall barns reduces lying time (Friend et al., 1977; Wierenga and Hopster, 1990). Aggressive interactions are also more common when cows are overstocked because cows compete for limited resources (e.g., Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002). In previous experiments, however, both freestalls and feeding space were restricted simultaneously, making it difficult to draw conclusions about overstocking for either area alone. Restricting only feeding space reduces feeding time and increases aggressive interactions at the feeder (DeVries et al., 2004; Huzzey et al., 2006) but little is known about the effects of providing less than 1 freestall per cow. The objective of this experiment was to understand the effect of overstocking in freestall barns on the behavior of dairy cattle.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
The experiment was conducted at the University of British Columbia Dairy Education and Research Center in Agassiz, British Columbia, from May to July 2003. Forty-eight dairy cows were randomly assigned to 4 groups of 12 animals that were balanced for milk production (39.5 ± 10.5 kg/d), DIM (110 ± 42), parity (2.3 ± 1.7), and BCS (3.0 ± 0.3). Body condition was scored on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = emaciated and 5 = extremely fat; following Edmonson et al., 1989). All values reported above are mean ± SD.

Each experimental pen (width = 7.5 m, length = 13.5 m) contained 12 freestalls configured in 3 rows. The stalls were open at the front (head-to-head; 2 cows faced one another) and had a bed length of 2.4 m. The third row of freestalls faced a cement wall, and these stalls were 0.3 m longer to allow more space for the cow to lunge forward when getting up and lying down. Freestalls were separated by Dutch comfort-style partitions and measured 1.2 m wide center to center, and the neck rail was 1.14 m from the stall surface. Stalls were deep-bedded with 0.4 m of sand. The flooring throughout the pens was grooved concrete. The alley closest to the feed bunk measured 3.5 m in width. Alleys were cleaned 6 times/d with automatic scrapers.

Each pen had 7.5 m of feed bunk space available through a post-and-rail barrier. Animals were fed for ad libitum consumption with a TMR of corn, grass silage, barley, canola meal, and soybean meal. Fresh feed was provided twice daily (at 0600 and 1500 h) and feed was pushed up 4 times per day. Water was freely available from a self-filling trough. Cows were milked twice daily (0600 and 1600 h) in a double-12 parallel milking parlor and spent 1.4 ± 0.3 h/d (mean ± SD) away from the pen.

We manipulated the level of overstocking by providing 12, 11, 10, 9, or 8 freestalls to 4 groups of 12 animals, thus creating stocking levels of 100, 109, 120, 133, and 150%. Treatments were applied for 1 wk at a time in a switchback design. All groups experienced all treatments, with the order of treatment assigned randomly without replacement and balanced across groups. Each group returned to the 100% stocking level after exposure to the other treatments. To ensure that we blocked off well-used stalls, we measured stall use for 48 h the week before the experiment began. Based on these data, the 4 most popular stalls were blocked in order of popularity (proportion of time occupied per day) to create the treatments. Because stall popularity varied among pens, the location of the blocked stalls also differed among pens.

Behavior was recorded using 8 Panasonic WV 330 cameras, positioned approximately 10 m above the experimental pens for 48 h during each of the 8 wk. The cameras were attached to a Panasonic video multiplexer (WV-FS416) and time-lapse recorder (AG-6540p; Panasonic, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada). Red lights (100 W) were hung approximately 10 m above the pens to facilitate video recording at night.

Cows were marked with unique symbols using hair dye to identify individuals. Individual cow behavior was scored from video using instantaneous scan sampling once every 10 min. At each scan the cows’ position in the freestall (lying, standing with 2 legs in the stall), standing elsewhere in the pen, or if they were absent from the pen (milking) was scored. Displacement from the freestall of one individual by another was also recorded. A cow was considered displaced when she left the stall immediately following contact (butt or push) from another cow. The numbers of successful displacements was recorded for each cow during 5 h of continuous observation from 2300 to 0400 h on each of the observation days, resulting in 80 h of observations per cow. These data were used to calculate an index of social success that could vary from 0 to 1 and equaled the number of times the cow displaced by other cows divided by the total number of times she displaced other cows and was displaced herself.

Statistical Analysis
Standing and lying times, latency to lie down upon return from milking, and number of displacements from the stalls were averaged across days and cows to generate 1 observation per treatment per group (n = 20). A MIXED model within SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC), specifying group as a random effect, tested the continuous effect of treatment (1 df) against an error term with 15 df. The LS SE for this analysis were generated with the same MIXED model, but treatment was included as categorical variable (4 df). In another model the effects of social success index (1 df) and the interaction between this index and treatment (1 df) were tested against the cow term (42 df) but these effects were never significant and are not reported further.

In each 10-min scan of stall occupancy, stall location was recorded and a stall-based analysis was performed by averaging across the observations for each stall for each treatment level. The effects of treatment were identical for these data (the group means used to test the treatment differences were identical for 2 approaches) but the stall-based data enabled a test of the effect of stocking rate on the relative popularity of stalls within a pen. Using the stall-based information, we calculated the standard deviation associated with each group mean lying time in each treatment. These standard deviations were compared with a MIXED model specifying group as a random effect, and this model tested the continuous effect of treatment (1 df) against an error term with 15 df.


   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
When cows were overstocked they spent less time lying down and more time standing outside the freestalls (Table 1Go). Cows spent on average 12.9 h/d lying when 1 stall was available for each cow, but this time decreased to 11.2 h/d when cows were overstocked at 150%. The results were consistent with earlier studies showing a reduction in lying time when fewer freestalls were available (133 to 220%, 100 to 300%, 100 to 155% overstocked, respectively; Friend et al., 1979; Friend et al., 1977; Wierenga and Hopster, 1990). Other researchers have also found shorter lying times in dairy heifers overstocked by 200% (Leonard et al., 1996). The magnitude of decrease in lying time in this study (1.7 h/d from 100 to 150%) is similar to other experiments comparing the amount or depth of bedding (Tucker and Weary, 2004), stall width (Tucker et al., 2004), or presence of a brisket board (Tucker et al., 2006). Although the average lying time in the 150% treatment, 11.2 h/d, is higher than lying times seen in cattle at pasture (e.g., Tucker et al., 2007), this lying time is below the 12 to 13 h likely required by housed dairy cattle (Jensen et al., 2005; Munksgaard et al., 2005). Decreased lying time is associated with an increase plasma cortisol concentrations in dairy cows kept under competitive situations (Friend et al., 1979; Gonzalez et al., 2003) and reduced lying times act as an exacerbating factor in the development of claw lesions (Leonard et al., 1996).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Mean and SE for time spent lying down, standing with the front legs in the stall, and standing outside the stall, as well as latency to lie down after milking and number of competitive displacements from the freestalls1
 
Wierenga and Hopster (1990) argued that in overstocked conditions, lying is more important than standing in the stalls. They found that overstocking dairy cows resulted in a reduction in time spent lying down and time spent standing in the stalls. We found, however, no effect of overstocking on the time that cows spent standing with 2 legs in stall. Perhaps cows spent relatively little time in this position because of the way the stalls were configured (Tucker et al., 2005).

Overstocking influenced the latency to lie down. When cows had fewer freestalls available, the latency to lie down after return from milking was shorter (13 min less for the 150% compared with the 100% treatment). Some cows chose to lie down when they returned from the parlor instead of eating fresh feed. The literature on social competition distinguishes between indirect ("scramble") and direct ("interference") processes (Giraldeau and Caraco, 2000). In this sense cows are competing via scramble competition by occupying stalls as soon as they are available. One reason why cows are typically offered fresh feed immediately after milking is to encourage them to stand for 20 to 30 min after milking and allow time for teat-end closure (Blowey and Edmondson, 1995). This reduced latency to lie down after milking may, therefore, increase the risk of environmental mastitis. We also found that interference competition increased at higher stocking rates (Table 1Go). An increase in the number of aggressive interactions has been reported in other studies of overstocked dairy cows (Wierenga, 1983; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2002).

Cows differed in the success with which they could displace others from freestalls (social success index). Previous work has shown that dairy cows with lower success indices are at greater risk of become lame than those with a higher index (Galindo and Broom, 2000) and are more likely to lie down outside of freestalls (Gonzalez et al., 2003). When this index was used as a covariate in the analyses described above, however, we found no interaction with the level of overstocking for any of our behavioral measures. The animals’ response to the overstocking treatment, therefore, did not vary with their ability to displace others from the stalls. Friend et al. (1977) also found no relationship between social status and response to overstocking but Wierenga (1983) reported that lower-ranked cows were most affected by overstocking. Our study differed from the Wierenga (1983) study in a number of ways. We used a more specific definition of aggressive interaction, a shorter sampling period, and a different measure of social success. Indeed, it is possible that by limiting our measure of displacements to interactions that involve physical contact, our measure of success did not fully describe the social situation within the group. This is an area that warrants further study, given that different experimental designs and measurements yield different results.

Cattle are gregarious animals and lying down, eating, drinking, and other behaviors are often synchronized (Miller and Wood-Gush, 1991; Müller and Schrader, 2005). Time spent lying down varies over the course of the day, with a peak in the morning before milking and in the middle of the day between the 2 milkings. There were distinct troughs when cows were removed for milking (Figure 1Go). Freestall housing reduces behavioral synchrony compared with loose housing or pasture-based systems (Miller and Wood-Gush, 1991; Fregonesi and Leaver, 2001). In the current study, it was not possible for all cows to lie down at the same time when fewer freestalls were available (as illustrated by the flatter diurnal pattern in Figure 1Go). More uniform use of existing stalls, as seen in the overstocked treatments, is often cited as a reason to provide fewer stalls than cows. It is important to note, however, that although overstocking creates more uniform use of stalls, overall lying time is reduced when there is less than 1 freestall per cow.


Figure 1
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Diurnal variation in lying time over a 24-h period. Two stocking levels are shown: 100% (solid line) and 150% (dashed line). Overstocking (150%) was achieved by manipulating the number of freestalls per cow. Averages were calculated for all 48 cows at each 10-min time point.

 
Overstocking was created in this experiment by removing stalls that were occupied most often (or most preferred) during the baseline observations. In addition to examining how cattle behavior changed in response to treatments, we also looked at how stall use changed when preferred stalls were blocked. The stall-based analysis revealed an identical pattern for lying times. More stalls were occupied by lying cows when overstocking increased. At 150%, stalls were occupied for 16.5 h/d. The stall-based analysis also allowed us to test hypotheses about changes in relative use of a given stall. At the 100% stocking level, the least popular stalls were occupied for about 6 h/d but the most popular stalls were occupied more than 15 h/d (Figure 2Go). When fewer freestalls were available, the average lying times increased in each stall, but the magnitude of this effect varied among stalls. Variability in the time that stalls were unoccupied, as measured by the standard deviation of time the stalls were empty, decreased when fewer freestalls were available (2.5, 2.6, 2.6, 2.1, and 2.0 ± 0.31 standard deviations as overstocking increased from 100 to 150%; P = 0.037). Thus, as the level of overstocking increased, stalls were more likely to be occupied, and variability in stall use declined. This indicates that stalls that were less preferred when animals had plenty of choice were more likely to be used as competition for stalls increased. Interestingly, the most popular stalls were not consistently occupied more than the other stalls in the group. Our designation of popularity was based on 2 d of observations before the start of the experiment and it is clear in Figure 2Go that some of these stalls were not the most occupied in all phases of the experiment. Little previous work has been focused at the stall level, although others have demonstrated that a proportion of cows show preferences for specific stalls (Schmisseur et al., 1966). Gaworski et al. (2003) reported differences in how dairy cows used the stalls relative to their location to the feed alley and relative to the ends of the pen. The stalls closest to the feed and central to the pen were used more than stalls on the end of the pen and away from the feed. Improved understanding of stall popularity may prove to be a fruitful direction for improving return on the large investments made in housing facilities.


Figure 2
View larger version (7K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2. Average lying time (h/24 h) in each stall in the 100% ({circ}) and 150% stocking levels ({blacksquare}). Overstocking (150%) was achieved by manipulating the number of freestalls per cow. Each panel (A to D) shows data from 1 of 4 groups in the experiment. Stalls blocked to create the overstocked treatments can be identified by the 0 h/d lying time associated with the 150% treatment.

 

   CONCLUSIONS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
When there were fewer freestalls than cows, lying times were reduced and cows spent more time standing outside the stall. Cows kept in overstocked conditions were more likely to compete indirectly for stalls by lying down more quickly after milking. There was also increased direct competition, in the form of stall displacements, when the number of stalls was reduced. Stalls were occupied for a greater proportion of the day when cows were overstocked, and stall occupancy was less variable among stalls and across periods of the day. Overstocking creates more uniform use of stalls at the cost of reduced lying time for individual cows.


   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
 
We thank the faculty, staff, and students including Tyler Vittie, Veronique Bouchard, and Mitja Sedlbauer at University of British Columbia’s Dairy Education and Research Centre and the University’s Animal Welfare Program. 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.landfood.ubc.ca/animalwelfare/. The first author would also like to thank Universidade Estadual de Londrina-UEL and Coordenação de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-CAPES.

Received for publication November 28, 2006. Accepted for publication March 13, 2007.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 


Bewley, J., R. W. Palmer, and D. B. Jackson-Smith. 2001. A comparison of free-stall barns used by modernized Wisconsin dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 84:528–541.[Abstract]

Blowey, R., and P. Edmondson. 1995. Mastitis control in dairy herds. An illustrated and practical guide. Farming Press, Ipswich, UK.

DeVries, T. J., M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2004. Effect of feeding space on the inter-cow distance, aggression, and feeding behavior of free-stall housed lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 87:1432–1438.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Edmonson, A. J., I. J. Lean, L. D. Weaver, T. Farver, and G. Webster. 1989. A body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 72:68–78.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Fisher, A. D., M. Stewart, G. A. Verkerk, C. J. Morrow, and L. R. Matthews. 2003. The effects of surface type on lying behaviour and stress responses of dairy cows during periodic weather-induced removal from pasture. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 81:1–11.[CrossRef]

Fregonesi, J. A., and J. D. Leaver. 2001. Behaviour, performance and health indicators of welfare for dairy cows housed in strawyard or cubicle systems. Livest. Prod. Sci. 68:205–216.[CrossRef]

Fregonesi, J. A., and J. D. Leaver. 2002. Influence of space allowance and milk yield level on behaviour, performance and health of dairy cows housed in strawyard and cubicle systems. Livest. Prod. Sci. 78:245–257.[CrossRef]

Friend, T. H., F. C. Gwazdauskas, and C. E. Polan. 1979. Change in adrenal response from free stall competition. J. Dairy Sci. 62:768–771.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Friend, T. H., C. E. Polan, and M. L. McGilliard. 1977. Free stall and feed bunk requirements relative to behavior, production and individual feed intake in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 60:108–116.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Galindo, F., and D. M. Broom. 2000. The relationships between social behaviour of dairy cows and the occurrence of lameness in three herds. Res. Vet. Sci. 69:75–79.[CrossRef][Medline]

Gaworski, M., C. B. Tucker, D. M. Weary, and M. L. Swift. 2003. Effects of stall design on dairy cattle behaviour. Pages 139–146 in 5th Int. Dairy Housing Conf. K. Janni, ed. ASAE, Fort Worth, TX.

Giraldeau, L. A., and T. Caraco. 2000. Social Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Gonzalez, M., A. K. Yabuta, and F. Galindo. 2003. Behaviour and adrenal activity of first parturition and multiparous cows under a competitive situation. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 83:259–266.[CrossRef]

Hassall, S. A., W. R. Ward, and R. D. Murray. 1993. Effects of lameness on the behaviour of cows during the summer. Vet. Rec. 132:578–580.[Abstract]

Huzzey, J. M., T. J. DeVries, P. Valois, and M. A. G. von Keyserlingk. 2006. Stocking density and feed barrier design affect the feeding and social behavior of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 89:126–133.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Jensen, M. B., L. J. Pedersen, and L. Munksgaard. 2005. The effect of reward duration on demand functions for rest in dairy heifers and lying requirements as measured by demand functions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 90:207–217.[CrossRef]

Leonard, F. C., J. M. Oconnell, and K. J. Ofarrell. 1996. Effect of overcrowding on claw health in first-calved Friesian heifers. Br. Vet. J. 152:459–472.[Medline]

Miller, K., and D. G. M. Wood-Gush. 1991. Some effects of housing on the social behaviour of dairy cows. Anim. Prod. 53:271–278.

Müller, R., and L. Schrader. 2005. Individual consistency of dairy cows’ activity in their home pen. J. Dairy Sci. 88:171–175.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Munksgaard, L., and P. Løvendahl. 1993. Effects of social and physical stressors on growth hormone levels in dairy cows. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 73:847–853.

Munksgaard, L., M. B. Jensen, L. J. Pedersen, S. W. Hansen, and L. Matthews. 2005. Quantifying behavioural priorities—Effects of time constraints on behaviour of dairy cows, Bos taurus. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 92:3–14.[CrossRef]

Phillips, C. J. C., and S. A. Schofield. 1994. The effect of cubicle and straw yard housing of the behaviour, production and hoof health of dairy cows. Anim. Welf. 3:37–44.

Schmisseur, W. E., J. L. Albright, W. M. Dillon, E. W. Kehrberog, and W. H. M. Morris. 1966. Animal behavior responses to loose and free stall housing. J. Dairy Sci. 49:102–104.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Tucker, C. B., D. E. Dalley, J.-L. K. Burke, and D. A. Clark. 2007. Milking once daily influences behavior and udder firmness at peak and mid-lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1692–1703.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Tucker, C. B., and D. M. Weary. 2004. Bedding on geotextile mattresses: How much is needed to improve cow comfort? J. Dairy Sci. 87:2889–2895.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Tucker, C. B., D. M. Weary, and D. Fraser. 2004. Free-stall dimensions: Effects on preference and stall usage. J. Dairy Sci. 87:1208–1216.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Tucker, C. B., D. M. Weary, and D. Fraser. 2005. Influence of neck-rail placement on free-stall preference, use, and cleanliness. J. Dairy Sci. 88:2730–2737.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Tucker, C. B., G. Zdanowicz, and D. M. Weary. 2006. Brisket boards reduce freestall use. J. Dairy Sci. 89:2603–2607.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Wierenga, H. K. 1983. The influence of the space for walking and lying in a cubicle system on the behaviour of dairy cattle. Pages 171–180 in Farm Animal Housing and Welfare. S. H. Baxter, J. A. C. McLornack, and M. R. Baxter, ed. Martinus Nijhoff, the Hague, the Netherlands.

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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
P. D. Krawczel, C. T. Hill, H. M. Dann, and R. J. Grant
Short Communication: Effect of Stocking Density on Indices of Cow Comfort
J Dairy Sci, May 1, 2008; 91(5): 1903 - 1907.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, D. Olenick, and D. M. Weary
Acute Behavioral Effects of Regrouping Dairy Cows
J Dairy Sci, March 1, 2008; 91(3): 1011 - 1016.
[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]

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 Weary, D. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fregonesi, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Weary, D. M.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS