Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:15:19.056Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New recommendations for self-locking barriers to reduce skin injuries in dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2020

R. Lardy Open the ORCID record for R. Lardy [Opens in a new window] ,
A. de Boyer des Roches Open the ORCID record for A. de Boyer des Roches [Opens in a new window] ,
J. Capdeville ,
R. Bastien ,
L. Mounier  and
I. Veissier Open the ORCID record for I. Veissier [Opens in a new window]
R. Lardy*
Affiliation:
Université Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, Saint-Genès-Champanelle63122, France
A. de Boyer des Roches
Affiliation:
Université Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, Saint-Genès-Champanelle63122, France
J. Capdeville
Affiliation:
Institut de l’Elevage, Antenne de Toulouse–Castanet-Tolosan, Castanet-Tolosan Cedex31321, France
R. Bastien
Affiliation:
Department of Collective Behaviour, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Universitätsstraße 10, Konstanz78464, Germany Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Universitätsstraße 10, Konstanz78464, Germany
L. Mounier
Affiliation:
Université Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, Saint-Genès-Champanelle63122, France
I. Veissier
Affiliation:
Université Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, Saint-Genès-Champanelle63122, France
*
†E-mail: romain.lardy@inrae.fr
Get access

Abstract

The design of self-locking barriers can affect cows’ skin injuries and impair welfare. This study aimed to propose and refine recommendations, expressed relatively to the cows’ dimensions, for self-locking barrier design to reduce risks for skin injuries on the neck/shoulder/back and on carpus of dairy cows. We recorded individual body dimensions and the dimensions of self-locking barriers (e.g. top rail height) and assessed skin injuries on 3801 cows from 131 loose-housing dairy farms. We explored the significant associations between presence/absence of skin injuries and self-locking barrier dimensions using weighted multivariable logistic regression, taking into account the diversity of feeding barriers within each farm. The robustness of the models was assessed by cross-validation. Cows had skin injuries mainly on the neck/shoulder/back (29.0%) and, to a lesser extent, on the carpus (14.0%). The final multivariable logistic regression models comprised 13 factors for skin injuries on the neck/shoulder/back, and 11 factors for skin injuries on the carpus. Skin injuries were significantly reduced when the self-locking barriers were inclined (neck/shoulder/back) and when the cows used a feeding table (i.e. flat) instead of a feeding manger or cribs (i.e. hollow) (carpus). A top rail height >1.05 × cow height (measured at withers) was significantly associated with fewer skin injuries on the neck/shoulder/back and on carpus. Skin injuries on the neck/shoulder/back and carpus were significantly reduced when the bottom rail was on the food side relative to the wall, and at a height <0.39 of cow height. Skin injuries were significantly less frequent when the separation wall had no sharp edges on the food side (neck/shoulder/back), was >0.4 of cow height (carpus), was thinner than 15 cm (neck/shoulder/back and carpus) and when the height of the feeding step was 0.04 to 0.1 of cow height (neck/shoulder/back) and the length of the feeding step was <0.2 of cow length (carpus). A headlock articulation nut positioned between 0.62 and 0.78 of cow height significantly reduced skin injuries on the neck/shoulder/back. Here, by combining the diversity of on-farm self-locking barriers and their respective dimensions, we were able to refine the International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering recommendations for self-locking barrier design and to propose new ones. This information now needs to be confirmed on other datasets, but can already help farmers and dairy industry stakeholders improve the design of self-locking barriers to improve dairy cow welfare.

Keywords

skin alterationdairy cattlefeeding barrierguidelinesequipment dimension
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 8 , August 2020 , pp. 1745 - 1756
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

These two authors contributed equally to this work.

References

Agreste 2010. Les bâtiments d’élevage bovin entre 2001 et 2008. Agreste Primeur 240, 1–4.Google Scholar
Agreste 2019. Enquêtes pratiques d’élevage 2015. Agreste Primeur 356, 1–6.Google Scholar
Akaike, H 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on information, 2–8 September 1971, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 267–281.Google Scholar
Bailey, A and Emad, P 2017. wCorr: Weighted correlations R package. Retrieved on 21 February 2020 from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=wCorr.Google Scholar
Bouffard, V, de Passillé, AM, Rushen, J, Vasseur, E, Nash, CGR, Haley, DB and Pellerin, D 2017. Effect of following recommendations for tiestall configuration on neck and leg lesions, lameness, cleanliness, and lying time in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 2935–2943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burnham, KP, Anderson, DR and Huyvaert, KP 2011. AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65, 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CIGR 1994. The design of dairy cows housing. Report of the CIGR working group No. 14. ADAS Bridgets Dairy Research Centre, Farm Building Reaserch Team, Reading, UK.Google Scholar
CIGR 2014. The design of dairy cow and replacement Heifer housing report of the CIGR section II working Group No. 14, Cattle Housing. CIGR, Gainesville, FL, USA.Google Scholar
Coignard, M, Guatteo, R, Veissier, I, de Boyer des Roches, A, Mounier, L, Lehébel, A and Bareille, N 2013. Description and factors of variation of the overall health score in French dairy cattle herds using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 112, 296–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Boyer des Roches, A 2012. Welfare problems in dairy cows : an epidemiological approach. PhD thesis, University Blaise Pascal - Clermont-Ferrand II, Clermont-Ferrand, France. Available at https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00766796/document.Google Scholar
de Boyer des Roches, A, Lardy, R, Capdeville, J, Mounier, L and Veissier, I 2019. Do International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (CIGR) dimension recommendations for loose housing of cows improve animal welfare? Journal of Dairy Science 102, 10235–10249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Boyer des Roches, A, Veissier, I, Boivin, X, Gilot-Fromont, E and Mounier, L 2016. A prospective exploration of farm, farmer, and animal characteristics in human-animal relationships: an epidemiological survey. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 5573–5585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Boyer des Roches, A, Veissier, I, Coignard, M, Bareille, N, Guatteo, R, Capdeville, J, Gilot-Fromont, E and Mounier, L 2014. The major welfare problems of dairy cows in French commercial farms: an epidemiological approach. Animal Welfare 23, 467–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Boyer des Roches, A, Veissier, I, Gilot-Fromont, E, Capdeville, J and Mounier, L 2013. Taking cows body dimension when designing housing system: a way to improve dairy cows well being. Paper presented at the 33rd International Ethological Conference 4–8 August, 2013, Newcastle, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
DeVries, TJ, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Weary, DM 2004. Effect of feeding space on the inter-cow distance, aggression, and feeding behavior of free-stall housed lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1432–1438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dohoo, IR, Martin, W and Stryhn, H 2009. Veterinary epidemiologic research, 2nd Edition. VER Inc, Charlottetown, Canada.Google Scholar
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) 2012. Scientific opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare of dairy cows: animal welfare measures - dairy cows. EFSA Journal 10, 2554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endres, MI, DeVries, TJ, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Weary, DM 2005. Short communication: effect of feed barrier design on the behavior of loose-housed lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 2377–2380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enea, M 2017. speedglm: Fitting linear and generalized linear models to large data sets. Retrieved on 21 February 2020 from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=speedglm.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2009. Scientific report on the effects of farming systems on dairy cow welfare and disease. Annex to the EFSA Journal 1143, 1–38.Google Scholar
Huzzey, JM, DeVries, TJ, Valois, P and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2006. Stocking density and feed barrier design affect the feeding and social behavior of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 126–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kielland, C, Bøe, KE, Zanella, AJ and Østerås, O 2010. Risk factors for skin lesions on the necks of Norwegian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 3979–3989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kielland, C, Ruud, LE, Zanella, AJ and Østerås, O 2009. Prevalence and risk factors for skin lesions on legs of dairy cattle housed in freestalls in Norway. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5487–5496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, D, Zeileis, A and Hornik, K 2017. vcd: Visualizing categorical data. Retrieved on 21 February 2020 from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vcd/index.html.Google Scholar
Microsoft Corporation and Weston, S 2017a. foreach: Provides foreach looping construct for R. Retrieved on 21 February 2020 from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=foreach.Google Scholar
Microsoft Corporation and Weston, S 2017b. doParallel: Foreach parallel adaptor for the ‘parallel’ package. Retrieved on 21 February 2020 from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=doParallel.Google Scholar
Prunier, A, Mounier, L, Le Neindre, P, Leterrier, C, Mormede, P, Paulmier, V, Prunet, P, Terlouw, C and Guatteo, R 2013. Identifying and monitoring pain in farm animals: a review. Animal 7, 998–1010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Refaeilzadeh, P, Tang, L and Liu, H 2016. Cross-validation. In Encyclopedia ofdatabase systems (eds. Liu, L and Özsu, MT), pp. 1–7. Springer, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Sing, T, Sander, O, Beerenwinkel, N and Lengauer, T 2005. ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics 21, 3940–3941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veissier, I, Capdeville, J and Delval, E 2004. Cubicle housing systems for cattle: comfort of dairy cows depends on cubicle adjustment. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3321–3337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Venables, WN and Ripley, BD 2002. Modern applied statistics with S. Springer, New York, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM and Taszkun, I 2000. Hock lesions and free-stall design. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 697–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® Assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality®Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Zaffino Heyerhoff, JC, LeBlanc, SJ, DeVries, TJ, Nash, CGR, Gibbons, J, Orsel, K, Barkema, HW, Solano, L, Rushen, J, de Passillé, AM and Haley, DB 2014. Prevalence of and factors associated with hock, knee, and neck injuries on dairy cows in freestall housing in Canada. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 173–184.Google ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Lardy et al. supplementary material

Figure S1 and Tables S1-S3

Download Lardy et al. supplementary material(File)
File 161.2 KB