Stall Usage Differences of Thirteen Different Freestall Base Types

The Professional Animal Scientist 20 (2004):470–482

StallDifferent Usage Differences of Thirteen Freestall Base Types W. K. FULWIDER and R. W. PALMER1 Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706

Abstract The objective of this study was to compare percentages of cow preference measures for factors affecting use of stalls with different stall bases. Stall status was recorded four times each day in two pens with different stocking densities for a 6-mo period starting June 19, 2002. Six factors were analyzed: stall base, distance to water (WDIST), stall location within stall base section (STLLOC), stalls on interior or exterior row (RLOC), inside barn temperature, and length of time cows were exposed to stall bases (XPOSR). The 101% stocking density (SD) pen had eight different bases: two foam mattresses (FMATR), three rubber mattresses (RMATR), and three rubber mats (RMAT). The 66% SD pen had seven different stall bases, two identical to the first pen: a cork-filled mattress (CMATR), two FMATR, two RMATR, a waterbed, and a RMAT. Each pen was analyzed separately. Stall bases were grouped with 3 to 7 stalls per section and randomly placed in each row. In the 101% SD pen, FMATR and RMATR had the greatest lying and occupied percentages, and two RMAT had the least lying and occupied percentages. In the 66% SD pen, one FMATR and one RMATR had the greatest lying and occupied percentages, waterbeds were intermediate, and the CMATR,

1

To whom correspondence should be addressed: [email protected]

one RMATR, and a RMAT were inferior. Waterbeds were the stall base of choice during the coldest weather. In both pens, cows preferred the exterior (EXTR) row during evening and early morning. The addition of a foam layer increased use of mattresses and mats. (Key Words: Stall Use, Freestall Base, Cow Preference, Stocking Density.)

Introduction The high production levels expected of a modern dairy cow increase the need to provide a safe, comfortable environment for her. Cows spend 10 to 14 h/d lying down (Gaworski et al., 2003; McFarland, 2003). The stall surface must be non-abrasive, to prevent hock lesions, and compressible, to prevent knee swelling and injury. Cows with the advantage of a softer base are known to stand up and lie down twice as often as cows on concrete (Rushen and de Passille, 1999). A cow should be able to perform natural movements when getting up and lying down without injuring herself (Rushen and de Passille, 1999). Evaluating cow preference for different freestall bases is a useful means for determining cow comfort. Providing a comfortable environment enhances health, production, longevity, and overall profitability of a dairy business. Preference testing is an effective means of measuring cow comfort. Observation of stall use and cow ac-

tivity, lying or standing in stalls, or feeding, via videotape images, has been done in several studies (Sonck et al., 1999; Anderson, 2002; Overton et al., 2002; Gaworski et al., 2003; House et al., 2003; WagnerStorch et al., 2003). Using videotape images to record cow activity removes the potential influence of human presence on cow activity. A few studies show stall base, stall design, length of exposure time, stall or row location, stocking density (SD), and temperature as effects on stall use. Different stall base studies report conflicting stall usage results. This study was conducted to determine cow preference for 13 different freestall bases, as well as five other factors affecting stall use: distance to water (WDIST), stall location within a stall base section (STLLOC), stalls on interior or exterior row (RLOC), inside barn temperature, and length of time cows were exposed to stall bases (XPOSR).

Materials and Methods This study was conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Arlington Agricultural Research Station freestall barn from June 19, 2002 to December 17, 2002. The facility is a naturally ventilated, four-row, 104stall, tail-to-tail barn that is not insulated. The barn has the following dimensions: 30.5 m (100 ft) × 36.6 m (120 ft) long; the roof pitch is 4/12. The barn is oriented East to West. Eave sidewall height is 3.7 m (12 ft).

Stall Usage Differences of Thirteen Different Stall Base Types

The barn has a wood-post frame structure with 15.2-cm × 15.2-cm (6in × 6-in) wood posts situated at the feedbunk line and at the front of the internal row of stalls. Ventilation is controlled by a 16.5-cm (6.5-in) eave opening and 2.7-m (9-ft) adjustable curtains. The barn has a 61-cm (24in) ridge opening. Fans and sprinklers were not used. Stalls were 1.2 m (46 in) wide and 2.4 m (8 ft) long. Brisket boards were 3.8-cm × 19.1-cm (1.5-in × 7.5-in) boards attached to and below stall dividers, approximately 1.7 m (66 in) from the rear curb, and extended down to the top of the stall surface. Neck rails were mounted 1.14 m (45 in) above the top of the rear curb or approximately 1.07 m (41 in) above the stall surface. All stall bases had a concrete base with a 7.6-cm (3-in) upward slope toward the brisket board. Stalls were bedded with sawdust twice per week, and soiled bedding was removed following the scheduled milking (parlor system) or human intervention time (automatic milking system). Stall bedding dates were not recorded, so stall usage by days since bedding was not analyzed. A closed circuit monitor camera system, with one camera on each side, from ADT Security Systems, Inc. (Menlo Park, CA) was used to observe cow activity 24 h/d. A video recorder (Pelco TLR2096; Clovis, CA) and Simplex Monochrome Multiplexer (Pelco MX4016MS) were used to record digital images. Stalls were panned in a specific order by video cameras. Stall numbers were assigned accordingly for identification purposes. The RLOC was defined as stalls on interior (INTR) or exterior (EXTR) rows of the barn. Interior rows were located near the feed alley, whereas stalls on the outside of the building were EXTR. There were two pens in the barn: the north pen, which housed cows milked with a robotic milker, and the south pen, which housed cows milked 2× in a conventional parlor. The SD decreased steadily in the

north pen, beginning with a high 76% SD and ending in December with a low 44% SD, for an average 66% SD. The south pen averaged 101% SD, with a relatively steady SD, having a high 105% SD in July and a low 92% SD in October. Cows on the 66% SD side had to pass through the robot to access the feed alley and through a one-way gate on the west end to return to the freestall area. The STLLOC was defined as END or NOTEND. Stalls on row ends or next to a different stall base were END stalls; all others were classified as NOTEND. The number positioned directly beneath every stall is the WDIST, measured in water units; 1 water unit was approximately one stall width. The WDIST was measured to the nearest water site. The XPOSR term indicates the amount of time cows were exposed to their pen; these were summarized by month of observation. Earlier research in this barn (Wagner-Storch et al., 2003) evaluated stall use for six different stall base types (concrete, sand, a foam mattress [FMATR], a rubber mattress [RMATR], a rubber mat [RMAT], and a waterbed). It was later discovered that one manufacturer (Pasture Mat) had installed two different versions of a mattress (RMATR1 and RMATR2). The mattresses both had the same type of bottom layer and top cover, but the center layer was different. One had a 2.5-cm (1-in) layer of foam rubber, and the other had a 1.9-cm (0.75-in) layer of felt. For this research, mattress types with high stall preference values were retained (i.e., RMATR1, RMATR2, a FMATR, and a waterbed), and nine new stall base types were installed. Stall status was recorded for a corkfilled mattress (CMATR), 4 FMATR, 3 RMATR, 4 RMAT, and a waterbed (Table 1). The freestall barn layout and observation recording sheet for part 3 of this research (not to scale) is shown in Figure 1. Stalls were identified by stall number and stall base type. In

471

Part 1 research, stall numbers 13, 14, 38, and 39 in the south pen and stall numbers 17, 18, 19, 50, 51, and 52 in the north pen were RMATR1 stalls. Stall numbers 15, 16, and 37 in the south pen and stall numbers 14, 15, 16, 53, and 54 in the north pen were RMATR2 stalls. In Part 2 research, stall numbers 21 to 23 and 48 to 50 in the south pen were filled with small rubber chunks (0.63-cm in diameter) (RBRC1), and stall numbers 25 to 27 and 44 to 47 in the south pen were filled with small rubber buffings (RBRC2) stalls. Observations were taken four times/d at 1400, 2000, 0400, and 0900 h from June 19, 2002 until December 17, 2002. The 1400-h observation time allowed for possible delays in the regularly scheduled 1200-h tape change. Regularly scheduled dark times were from 2130 to 0330 h. The 0400-h observation time allowed stall use observation after the lights were turned on. The 2000 and 0900-h observation times allowed for observations 2 h after scheduled parlor milking times and allowed for variation in milking times and times for cows to eat after returning from the parlor. When viewing videotape images and recording observations, the following steps were used. Stalls were observed in sequential order on the south side of the barn and assigned a status of empty; cow lying in stall; cow standing half-in, half-out; cow standing in stall; or unsure. Unsure was the designation for stalls that could not be accurately recorded as any of the aforementioned. Stalls in the north pen were then similarly observed. Five HOBO H8 Pro Series (Onset Computer Corporation, Pocasset, MA) sensors recorded temperature every 15 min. Individual sensors were positioned in each quadrant of the barn [northeast (NE), northwest (NW), southeast (SE), southwest (SW)] 11.6 to 12 m (38 to 40 ft) from each end wall and 2.7 to 3.0 m (9 to 10 ft) above the alley, over the front of the INTR row of stalls. The

472

Fulwider and Palmer

TABLE 1. Descriptive code, product name, supplier name and address, product classification, and description of all stall base types tested. Item CMATRb FMATR1c FMATR2d FMATR3e FMATR4f RMATR1-Newg RMATR1g RMATR2h RMATR3i RMAT2j RMAT3k RMAT4l RMAT5m WATRn

Product namea

Product supplier

Supplier address

Product class

Cow Comfort Corkmat Comfy Cow Mattress威 Foamat Bedding System™ DeLaval Cow Mattress M100威 Comfy Cow Mattress威 Pasture Mat威 with foam insert Pasture Mat威 with foam insert Pasture Mat威 with felt insert Ulti-Mat All Rubber Cow Mattress Supreme Comfort Pad Kraiburg Softbed II威 Heavy Cush Berg-Simplex Dairy Pad Cow Waterbed威

Amorim Solutions Sikkema’ Equipment Foxworthy Supply DeLaval, Inc. Sikkema’ Equipment Dodgeland Ag Systems Dodgeland Ag Systems Dodgeland Ag Systems Zartman Farms Cow Comfort Systems Humane Mfg. LLC Agromatic J & D Mfg. Berg Equipment Corporation Relative Products, LLC

Trevor, WI Byron Center, WI Kent City, MI Kansas City, MO Byron Center, WI Platteville, WI Platteville, WI Platteville, WI

Cork-filled mattress Foam-filled mattress Foam-filled mattress Foam-filled mattress Foam-filled mattress Rubber-filled mattress Rubber-filled mattress Rubber-filled mattress

Ephrate, PA Baraboo, WI Fond du Lac, WI Eau Claire, WI Marshfield, WI Reedsburg, WI

Rubber-filled mattress Rubber mat Rubber mat Rubber mat Rubber mat Waterbed

a

Products listed were donated and installed by the supplier listed. Listing of products by product name is not an endorsement for the product. b The CMATR-based stall was a multi-celled, cork-filled mattress with top cover. c The FMATR1-based mattresses were comprised of cross-linked, closed-cell, non-absorbent, polyethylene foam and vinyl from the automobile industry and a Tafcoat waterproof cover. The Tafcoat cover is a composite material composed of two layers of bonded polyester, a non-woven fabric derived from recycled soft drink bottles. It is an impervious membrane of olefin copolymer resin, providing a chemical resistant, waterproof barrier. d The FMATR2-based stalls contained a 7.5-cm (3-in) waterproof soft foam mat with a waterproof, premium rubber top cover. e The FMATR3-based stalls consisted of composite foam in PVC-sealed envelope with a PVC cover. f The FMATR4-based stalls were made of cross-linked, closed-cell, non-absorbent polyethylene foam and a geo-textile cover with urethane topcoat. g The RMATR1-based stalls and RMATR1-new based stalls were comprised of a multi-celled, rubber crumb-filled mattress with a 2.5-cm (1-in) foam pad and needle-punched polypropylene top cover impregnated with wax to increase water shedding. h The RMATR2-based stalls consisted of a multi-celled, rubber crumb-filled mattress with a 1.9-cm (0.75-in) felt pad and needle-punched polypropylene top cover impregnated with wax to increase water shedding. i The RMATR3-based stalls were 6.8-cm (3-in) thick and were made of recycled tire rubber, which was mixed with pliable polyurethane adhesive mold-formed under pressure. The top cover was non-woven and water-resistant. j The RMAT2-based stalls were 4.4-cm (1.75-in) thick and were comprised of a foam cushion completely encased in rubber. k The RMAT3-based stalls were comprised of a solid rubber anti-slip cover over a 2.2-cm (0.88-in) foam pad. The rear onethird of the mat was sloped to enhance drainage. l The RMAT4-based stalls were 3.1-cm (1.25-in) thick vulcanized rubber with a pebble top and large corrugated undersurface. m The RMAT5-based stalls consisted of 3.2-cm (1.4-in) vulcanized rubber with a textured surface and deeply grooved bottom. n The WATR-based stalls were made of two layers of 100% natural vulcanized rubber. Each layer had a fiber layer and six plies of rubber, and each stall was individually filled with 11.4 L (3 gal) of calcium chloride and 49.2 L (13 gal) of water.

fifth sensor was in a radiation shield on the north side of the barn 6.4 m (21 ft) from the barn and 1.1 m (3.5 ft) above the ground. Approximate location of the four inside sensors (NE, NW, SE, and SW) is illustrated in Figure 1.

Temperature data from the nearest sensor were assigned to each stall for each observation. Because of different systems for collecting barn temperature data and stall occupancy, the actual stall’s status observation time differs from the temperature by

0 to 10 min. Stalls 1 to 13 and 40 to 50 in the south pen were assigned the temperature recorded from the sensor SE. Stalls 14 to 39 in the south pen were assigned the temperature recorded by sensor SW. Temperatures recorded from sensor NW

Stall Usage Differences of Thirteen Different Stall Base Types

473

Figure 1. Freestall barn layout and observation recording form (not to scale; 13 stall base types). WU = Water unit. See Table 1 for manufacturer information.

were assigned to Stalls 1 to 16 and 43 to 54 at the 66% SD. Finally, temperatures recorded from sensor NE were assigned to Stalls 17 to 42 at the 66% SD. Percentages of each status (empty; lying; standing; half-in-half-out; unsure) were calculated as the number of stall-day status observations divided by total number of stall-day observations for the different categories or factors tested across the 6-mo study. Stall occupied percentages (lying; standing; half-in-half-out) were calculated using stall-day lying; standing; standing half-in, half-out; and unsure observations and divided by the total number of stall-day observations. The unsure percentages were very small and had little impact on other stall statuses. Percentages for different factors analyzed using logistic regression with the GENMOD procedure in SAS (SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC) and contrast

statements were used to determine significant differences between percentages (Stokes et al., 1995). Each side was analyzed separately because of different SD in the south and north pens. Stocking densities were a function of herd management and were not set intentionally as part of the study’s design. The CATMOD Procedure in SAS was used to model lying and occupied as binary outcomes. Independent variables considered continuous were XPOSR, WDIST, and temperature. Independent variables considered categorical were stall base, RLOC, STLLOC, and side. Any twoway interactions deemed biologically significant or meaningful were also analyzed.

Results and Discussion Part 1 of this research was to reanalyze the data from Wagner-

Storch et al. (2003) to see if there was a difference between the two Pasture Mat mattress types (RMATR1 and RMATR2; Table 2). The RMATR1 was found to have significantly higher stall usage values than RMATR2. The RMATR1 was equal to washed mason sand for lying percentage. Both sand and RMATR1 had larger lying percentages than RMATR2, and RMATR2 was superior to the other stall base types tested. Ranking of stall base types by percentage occupied was the same except RMATR1 was higher than RMATR2. Because cow preference for the RMATR1 and RMATR2 base types appeared to be different, these stall base types were analyzed separately for the remainder of the research. For Part 2 of our research, two crushed rubber (RBRC1 and RBRC2) types were used to replace sand in the sand stalls on the south side of

474

Fulwider and Palmer

TABLE 2. Stall status percentagesa by baseb for each barn sidec (five types plus RMATR split)d. Item 100% SD (South)g Empty Half-in, half-out Lying Occupiedh Standing Unsure Total numberi Low SD (North)j Empty Half-in, half-out Lying Occupied Standing Unsure Total number

CONC 61.2t 7.0uv 22.8y 38.7z 8.8w 0.2v 7688 83.7t 2.9v 10.3x 38.7z 5.1v 0.1u 7130

FMATR1

RMATR1

RMATR2

15.5x 6.0w 57.4v 84.1v 20.7u 0.4u 6727

10.5z 6.3vw 68.4t 89.4t 14.7v 0.1v 3844

13.3y 5.8w 60.9u 86.8u 20.0u 0.0v 2883

44.7x 4.2t 39.1u 84.1v 11.9t 0.1u 10,812

31.9y 3.7tu 53.4t 89.4t 11.0tu 0.0u 5898

50.5w 3.1uv 35.6v 86.8u 10.6u 0.2u 4915

RMAT1 34.7v 7.3u 32.9x 64.8x 24.6t 0.5u 6727 81.0u 2.2w 11.8x 64.8x 5.1v 0.0u 10.813

SAND

WATR

X

SEf

19.8d 7.0bc 68.7a 79.0d 3.3e 1.2a 13,454

38.2u 8.3t 45.4w 61.6y 7.9w 0.2v 6727

29.3 7.0 51.0 70.1 12.2 0.5

0.007 0.003 0.008 0.007 0.005 0.001

65.4v 25.6w 25.6w 61.6y 3.9w 1.1t 9830

61.4 3.4 27.6 70.1 7.3 0.3

0.007 0.002 0.003 0.007 0.003 0.001

a

Percentage = number of stall-day-status observations/total number of stall-day observations by stall base by side. CONC = concrete, FMATR1 = Comfy Cow Mattress威 with Cow-Flex Top Cover (Sikkema’s Equipment, Byron Center, MI), RMATR1 = Pasture Mat威 with foam layer (Promat Ltd., Seaforth, Ontario, Canada), RMATR2 = Pasture Mat威 with felt layer (Promat Ltd.); RMAT1= Comfort Zone-Milk Mat (Alfa Laval-Agri, Kansas City, MO); SAND = sand stalls, and WATR = Cow Waterbed威 (Relative Products, Reedsburg, WI). c Data collected from May 9, 2001 to February 9, 2002. d RMATR1 and RMATR2 were found to be significantly different from one another for both sides. In the following studies, they are treated as two different stall base types. Columns other than RMATR1 and RMATR2 were published in a previous study (Wagner-Storch et al., 2003). e Mean percentages are total stall-day status observations/total number stall-day observations by side. f Pooled SE for each status by side. g South side of the freestall barn with 100% stocking density. h Occupied is defined as lying + standing + half-in, half-out. i Total number of stall-day observations by stall base by side. j North side of the freestall barn with low stocking density. t,u,v,w,x,y,z Means within row with different letters are significantly different (P<0.05). b

the barn. Stall bases previously filled with sand were filled and maintained the same as sand stalls. The objective of this effort was to determine the effect on stall usage by using RBRC1 or RBRC2 rather than sand. It was felt that rubber, if preferred by the cow, might be less damaging to equipment and easier to separate from manure. The RBRC2 consisted of small rubber buffings, and RBRC1 consisted of small chunks of rubber with a diameter of about 0.63 cm. For a 30-d period (March 1 to March 31, 2002), eight different stall bases were observed (Table 3). The RBRC2 was second to RMATR1 and equal to

RMATR2 for lying percentage. Of the stall bases tested, RBRC1 was inferior to four, equal to one, and superior to two of the stall bases tested for lying percentage. Neither RBRC1 nor RBRC2 were found to be superior for occupied percentage. It was concluded that use of crushed rubber as a stall base filler had no obvious advantage over products currently being used. Part 3 of this study tested 13 different stall base types for a 6-mo period (June 19 to December 17, 2002). Stall use was analyzed using the CATMOD procedure (SAS; Stokes et al., 1995). The lying and occupied models included the following pre-

dictors: intercept, stall base type, RLOC, STLLOC, side of barn, XPOSR, WDIST, temperature, and base interaction with all other predictors, interactions of RLOC × side of barn, RLOC × temperature, and side of barn × WDIST. The results showed WDIST, STLLOC, RLOC, temperature, and XPOSR all affect stall use. Table 4 shows the lying and occupied model analysis variables, chi-square values, and P values. In the lying model, all P values were significant with the exception of base, RLOC, side of barn, RLOC × side of barn, and side of barn × WDIST. In the occupied model, P values were significant for all pre-

475

Stall Usage Differences of Thirteen Different Stall Base Types

TABLE 3. Stall status percentagesa by baseb for the south barn sidec (five types plus rubber chunks and buffings)d. Item

CONC

FMATR1

RBRC1

RBRC2

RMATR1

RMATR2

RMAT1

WATR

X

SEf

97% SD (South)g Empty Half-in, half-out Lying Occupiedh Standing Unsure Total numberi

60.1u 7.0v 21.9z 39.9z 11.0x 0.0w 872

12.5x 3.5w 57.3w 87.3v 26.5u 0.3w 763

30.0vw 12.6u 49.3x 66.8y 5.0y 3.2u 763

13.9x 8.0v 70.0v 81.7w 4.1y 4.5u 763

3.9y 1.8w 76.4u 96.1u 17.9vw 0.0w 436

9.5x 2.1w 67.9v 90.5v 20.5v 0.0w 327

33.2v 3.9w 32.1y 64.4y 28.2u 2.5v 763

27.0w 3.9w 54.5wx 72.7x 14.6wx 0.3w 763

27.0 5.8 50.5 71.7 15.4 1.5

0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.004

a

Percentage = number of stall-day-status observations/total number of stall-day observations by stall base by side. CONC = concrete, FMATR1 = Comfy Cow Mattress威 with Cow-Flex Top Cover (Sikkema’s Equipment, Byron Center, MI), RBCR1 = small rubber chunks, RBRC2 = small rubber buffings, RMATR1 = Pasture Mat威 with foam layer (Promat Ltd., Seaforth, Ontario, Canada), RMATR2 = Pasture Mat威 with felt layer (Promat Ltd.), RMAT1 = Comfort Zone-Milk Mat (Alfa Laval Agri, Kansas City, MO), and WATR = Cow Waterbed威 (Relative Products, Reedsburg, WI). c Data collected from March 1, 2002 to March 31, 2002. d Rubber chunks and crumb rubber replaced sand. Cows preferred rubber buffings to rubber chunks. Rubber buffings were not superior to other surfaces, so no further investigation was attempted. e Mean percentages are total stall-day status observations/total number stall-day observations by side. f Pooled SE for each status by side. g South side of the freestall barn with 97% stocking density. h Occupied is defined as lying + standing + half-in, half-out. i Total number of stall-day observations by stall base by side. u,v,w,x,y,z Means within columns with different letters are significantly different (P<0.05). b

.

dictors and interactions except side of barn × WDIST. All stalls were of the same design, so this was not a factor. According to chi-square values, side effect, RLOC, and stall base explained the least amount of variation in the lying model, but were significant at (P<0.05) in the occupied model. This result indicated that side and RLOC had the least impact on whether cows lie in stalls. The side variable was included in the model to determine the effect of SD and barn orientation. Stocking density was not included as a variable because of its confounding with side. Temperature and XPOSR best explained the variation in lying status, and STLLOC and WDIST were other significant (P<0.0001) predictors of lying status. The effects of temperature and XPOSR on lying status suggested preference for a particular base changed over time.

The stall base effect had significant (P<0.0001) interactions with RLOC, STLLOC, XPOSR, and WDIST. Stall base interaction with temperature was significant at (P<0.05) in the lying model. This indicated that a cow’s preference to lie on a particular stall base varied for each of these factors. The RLOC had significant (P<0.0001) interaction with temperature, which indicated lying percentages on INTR and EXTR rows were different for temperature intervals. Base, RLOC, and side were not significant (P<0.05) predictors for lying, but were kept in the model because of interaction with other factors. The RLOC was significant at (P<0.01) in the occupied model, and base and side were significant at (P<0.05). The XPOSR effect best explained the variation in stall occupied (P<0.0001), but STLLOC, WDIST, and temperature effects were also significant (P< 0.0001) predictors.

The RLOC was significant at P<0.01 in the occupied model, and stall base and side were significant at P<0.05. Stall base had significant (P<0.0001) interaction with RLOC, STLLOC, XPOSR, WDIST, and temperature. The RLOC × side was significant at P<0.05. Table 5 shows the percentage of stalls empty; half-in, half-out; lying; standing; or unsure for each barn side for the 13 different stall base types tested. It also shows the percentage of occupied stalls, which combines the three statuses of lying, standing, and half-in, half-out. The 13 different stall base types were categorized by type of construction for comparison purposes, but overlap in the components of each makes direct comparisons by category difficult. Mattresses (RMATR and FMATR) were defined as any stall base having a cover over some type(s) of interior product, whereas RMAT were those stall

476

Fulwider and Palmer

TABLE 4. Lying and occupied model analysis variables, χ2 values, and P values. Lying model Item Intercept Basea,b RLOCa,c STLLOCa,d Sidea,e XPOSRf,g WDISTf,h TEMPf,i Base × RLOC Base × STLLOC Base × XPOSR Base × WDIST Base × TEMP RLOC × Side RLOC × TEMP Side × WDIST

Occupied model

χ2

P

χ2

P

10.87 20.17 0.74 44.42 0.22 87.45 29.11 107.69 42.79 92.28 47.00 51.68 31.72 0.04 25.68 0.22

0.001 0.0639 0.3888 <0.0001 0.6425 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0015 0.8459 <0.0001 0.6383

26.91 24.74 7.72 30.82 5.70 75.38 28.28 49.33 72.91 80.17 44.27 67.11 44.47 5.26 59.84 2.14

<0.0001 0.0161 0.0055 <0.0001 0.0170 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0219 <0.0001 0.1436

a

Independent variables were considered categorical in model analyses. Base represents 13 different freestall bases in this study. c RLOC (row location) represents interior and exterior row categories. d STLLOC represents END and NOTEND of stall section categories. e Side represents north or south pen in the barn. f Independent variables were considered continuous in model analyses. g XPOSR is time cows were exposed to bases. h WDIST is distance from stall base to waterer. i TEMP is temperature in degrees Fahrenheit in four sections of the barn and outside northern exposure of barn. b

base types without a cover. Mattress interiors composed mainly of rubber were referred to as RMATR types, and interiors composed mainly of foam where referred to as FMATR. Designations RMATR1, RMAT2, and RMAT3 are examples of overlap in definitions, as RMATR1 was rubber filled with a foam interior layer and RMAT2 and RMAT3 were rubber mats with foam interiors. Values for lying time percentage and percentage of time stall was occupied in Table 5 were chosen to characterize cow preference for different stall base types. The average lying and occupied percentage values were higher on the south side than on the north side because of the higher SD of the two sides of

the barn (101% vs 66%). The RMATR1 and RMATR2 were allowed to remain on both sides of the barn for this experiment because they had high cow preference values from previous research work (Wagner-Storch et al., 2003). The FMATR1 was allowed to remain on the 101% SD side, and the waterbed was allowed to remain on the 66% SD side because they had intermediate cow preference results previously. It was felt that retaining some stall base types from previous work would allow comparisons to be made between the two experiments. The RMATR1 ranked highest on both sides of the barn for both lying percentage and occupied percentage. On the 101% SD side,

FMATR2, and on the 66% SD side, FMATR3, were equal to the RMATR1 stall base type for lying and occupied percentages. The RMATR3 was also equal to RMATR1 and FMATR2 for lying percentage on the 101% SD side. On the 101% SD side, RMATR2, FMATR1, and RMAT2 were intermediate, and RMAT3 and RMAT4 were inferior. On the 66% SD side, FMATR4 and waterbed were intermediate, and RMATR2, CMATR, and RMAT5 were inferior. In general, it was concluded that FMATR and RMATR were preferred to RMAT and that the addition of a foam layer increased the use of mattresses and mats. Stall lying percentages for RBRC1 and RBRC2 were similar to those reviewed by (Rodenburg and House, 2000) and those reported by (Sonck et al., 1999). The waterbed percentage (40.2%) was comparable with that reported by (WagnerStorch et al., 2003) (45.4%) and that reported by (Sonck et al., 1999) (45.95%). The four RMAT in this study were consistently the least preferred stall bases for percentages lying and occupied, which was similar to findings reported by Sonck et al. (1999) and Wagner-Storch et al. (2003). Table 6 shows the percentage of stalls with cows lying for each side by month of year. The XPOSR term influenced lying percentages. Lying percentage varies month to month for stall bases. The stall base × XPOSR interaction is significant (P<0.0001), indicating stall use for particular stall bases was different for different levels of XPOSR. The FMATR4 on the 66% SD side of the barn exhibited the most variation by month (41.6% in July to 17.8% in December). The RMATR1 and RMATR2, the only stall bases represented on both sides of the barn, had the most variation by month (51.4% in July to 72.9% in December and 41.7% in June to 62.4% in September, respectively) on the 101% SD side and the least variation by month (45.7% in August to

477

Stall Usage Differences of Thirteen Different Stall Base Types

TABLE 5. Stall status percentagesa by baseb for each barn sidec (13 stall base types). Item

RMATR1

RMATR2

FMATR1

FMATR2

RMATR3

RMAT2

RMAT3

RMAT4

Xd

SEe

101% SD (South)f Empty Half-in, half-out Lying Standing Occupiedg Unsure Total numberh

12.1yz 6.1v 59.7v 22.2vw 87.9vw 0.0w 736

19.4x 6.2v 52.9w 21.6vw 80.6x 0.0w 552

18.4x 4.6v 52.1w 24.6v 81.3x 0.3w 1288

9.2z 5.5v 62.4v 22.5vw 90.5v 0.3w 1288

13.7y 6.2v 58.9v 19.2wx 84.3wx 1.9v 1288

26.6w 5.6c 50.5w 17.1xy 73.2y 0.2w 1472

34.1v 6.1v 43.1x 14.9y 64.1z 1.9v 1288

33.1v 6.7v 41.9x 16.5xy 65.1z 1.9v 1288

21.6 5.8 52.2 19.5 77.5 0.9

0.014 0.008 0.016 0.012 0.014 0.003

66% SD (North)i Empty Half-in, half-out Lying Standing Occupied Unsure Total number

RMATR1

RMATR2

CMATR

FMATR3

FMATR4

RMAT5

WATR

X

SE

40.0z 2.9wxy 46.8v 10.3vw 60.1v 0.0w 1134

71.0w 2.1y 20.3x 6.4x 28.7y 0.3vw 945

75.5v 2.5xy 18.3xy 3.8y 24.5yz 0.0w 1512

38.0z 4.0vw 48.9v 8.9w 61.7v 0.2w 1341

50.0y 3.4vwx 35.3w 11.2v 50.0w 0.1w 1687

76.7v 2.5xy 15.7y 5.1xy 23.3z 0.1w 1323

59.1x 4.5v 31.8w 4.0y 40.2x 0.07v 1512

58.5 3.2 31.1 7.1 41.4 0.2

0.015 0.005 0.014 0.007 0.015 0.001

a

Percentage = number of stall-day status observations/total number of stall-day observations by stall base by side. CMATR = Cow Comfort Corkmat (Amorim Industrial Solutions, Trevor, WI), FMATR1 = Comfy Cow Mattress威 with CowFlex Top Cover (Sikkema’s Equipment, Byron Center, MI), FMATR2 = Foamat™ Bedding System (Foxworthy Supply, Kent City, MI), FMATR3 = DeLaval Cow Mattress M100威 (DeLaval, Inc., Kansas City, MO), FMATR4 = Comfy Cow Mattress威 with Super-Mat Top Cover (Sikkema’s Equipment), RMATR1= Pasture Mat威 with foam (Promat Ltd., Seaforth, Ontario, Canada), RMATR2 = Pasture Mat威 with felt (Promat Ltd.), RMATR3 = Ulti-Mat All Rubber Cow Mattress威 (Zartmann Farms, Ephrata, PA), RMAT2 = Supreme Comfort Pad威 (Humane Manufacturing, Baraboo, WI), RMAT3 = Kraiburg Softbed II威 (Agromatic, Fond du Lac, WI), RMAT4 = Heavy Cush (J & D Manufacturing, Eau Claire, WI), RMAT5 = Simplex Dairy Pad威 (Berg Equipment Corporation, Marshfield, WI), and WATR = Cow Waterbed威 (Relative Products, LLC, Reedsburg, WI). c Data collected from June 19, 2002 to December 17, 2002. d Mean percentages are total stall-day status observations/total number stall-day observations by side. e Pooled standard error for each status by side. f South side of the freestall barn with 101% stocking density. g Occupied is defined as lying + standing + half-in, half-out. h Total number of stall-day observations by stall base by side. i North side of the freestall barn with low stocking density. v,w,x,y,z Percentages within rows with different letters are significantly different (P<0.05). b

53.9% in October and 18.2% in June to 12% in December, respectively) on the 66% SD side of the barn. The highest lying percentages for each mattress type on the 101% SD side were observed the last 4 mo of the study. With the exception of RMATR1 and waterbed on the 66% SD side, all stall bases had their highest lying percentages in the first 3 mo of the study and the lowest lying percentages in the last 2 mo. This result was due to the SD density in the 66% SD pen steadily declining over the course of the study.

The FMATR2 and RMATR1 were the most preferred bases in the 101% SD pen for each month. The RMATR3 was among the most preferred bases for 5 of 6 mo; FMATR1 and RMATR2 were among the most preferred bases 4 of 6 mo. There were only four incidences when a RMAT was among the most preferred bases. Stocking density decreased slightly over the course of the study with a high of 105% in July and a low of 92% in October. On the 66% SD side, the FMATR3 was the most preferred base each

month. The RMATR1 was a preferred base for 5 of 6 mo. Preference for the waterbed was intermediate and remained relatively constant over the course of this study. Preference for CMATR, FMATR4, RMATR2, and RMAT5 declined over time. This was likely more pronounced because of declining SD (72% in June to 42% in December). Table 7 shows the percentage of stalls occupied for each stall base by month for each side. Trends were similar to those for lying percentages. Rubber mat base stalls consis-

478

Fulwider and Palmer

TABLE 6. Percentagea of stalls with cows lying for each baseb and mean number of cows by month for each sidec. Item

Cows (no.)d RMATR1 RMATR2 FMATR1 FMATR2 RMATR3 RMAT2 RMAT3 RMAT4

101% SD (South)g June July August September October November December

51.5 52.7 52.6 50.9 46.0 49.3 49.1

± ± ± ± ± ± ±

0.4 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.1

Cows (no.)d 66% SD (North)b June July August September October November December

38.0 36.9 37.2 34.2 30.1 26.4 22.1

± ± ± ± ± ± ±

0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.1

54.2w 51.4wx 57.6wxy 61.3w 65.3w 60.0wxy 72.9w

41.7wx 46.7wxy 55.6xy 62.4w 51.9xy 52wxy 55.6xyz

58.3w 51.4wx 49.8y 55.3wx 48.4y 51.4xy 58.3wxy

52.4w 56.7w 65.8w 61.8w 67.5w 62.3wx 66.7wx

56.0w 55.5w 61.5wx 57.1w 60.7wx 65.1w 51.2xyz

47.9wx 43.9xy 54.6xy 56.5w 46.2y 54.5wxy 51.0xyz

42.9wx 43.3xy 36.4z 45.2xy 44.4y 47.4y 42.9yz

34.5x 38.0y 39.4z 41.0y 46.8y 48.6xy 41.7z

Xe

SEf

48.7 48.2 52.1 54.1 53.2 55.1 53.8

0.06 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.05

RMATR1

RMATR2

CMATR

FMATR3

FMATR4

RMAT5

WATR

X

SE

45.5w 41.4w 45.7x 45.8wx 53.9w 49.4w 42.2w

18.2y 19.4x 28.4y 21.9z 24.6y 9.2z 12.0z

23.9wxy 20.7x 21.8yz 18.4z 21.5yz 10.6z 6.7z

40.8wx 48.0w 55.8w 50.2w 50.4w 47.3w 38.1wx

34.0wxy 41.6w 40.5x 40.2xy 35.6x 25.2y 17.8yz

19.5y 21.2x 13.4z 16.5z 16.1z 9.9z 11.4z

30.7wxy 23.2x 29.4y 33.6y 40.4x 33.2x 28.3xy

30.5 31.2 33.5 32.7 34.5 26.4 22.0

0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04

a

Percentage = number of stall-day lying observations/total number of stall-day observations by stall base for each month by side. b CMATR = Cow Comfort Corkmat (Amorim Industrial Solutions, Trevor, WI), FMATR1 = Comfy Cow Mattress威 with CowFlex Top Cover (Sikkema’s Equipment, Byron Center, MI), FMATR2 = Foamat™ Bedding System (Foxworthy Supply, Kent City, MI), FMATR3 = DeLaval Cow Mattress M100威 (DeLaval, Inc., Kansas City, MO), FMATR4 = Comfy Cow Mattress威 with Super-Mat Top Cover (Sikkema’s Equipment), RMATR1= Pasture Mat威 with foam (Promat Ltd., Seaforth, Ontario, Canada), RMATR2 = Pasture Mat威 with felt (Promat Ltd.), RMATR3 = Ulti-Mat All Rubber Cow Mattress威 (Zartmann Farms, Ephrata, PA), RMAT2 = Supreme Comfort Pad威 (Humane Manufacturing, Baraboo, WI), RMAT3 = Kraiburg Softbed II威 (Agromatic, Fond du Lac, WI), RMAT4 = Heavy Cush (J & D Manufacturing, Eau Claire, WI), RMAT5 = Simplex Dairy Pad威 (Berg Equipment. Corporation, Marshfield, WI), and WATR = Cow Waterbed威 (Relative Products, LLC, Reedsburg, WI). c Data collected from June 19, 2002 to December 17, 2002. d Mean (±SE) number of cows during each month by side. e Total stall-day lying observations/total number stall-day observations for each month by side. f Pooled standard error for each month by side. g South side of the barn with 100% stocking density. h North side of the freestall barn with low stocking density. w,x,y,z Percentages within rows with different letters are significantly different (P<0.05).

tently had the lowest rankings for occupied percentages for month to month. The FMATR2 and RMATR1 were consistently the highest for percentage occupied in the 101% SD pen on a month-to-month basis. Preference for FMATR1, RMATR2, and RMATR3 started out high and declined over time. Results were similar in the 66% SD pen, with FMATR3 having the highest percentage occupied every month. The RMATR1 was the next most preferred. The waterbed tended to be

intermediate in preference, but was equally preferred with FMATR3 in June and December. The CMATR and RMAT5 consistently ranked the lowest for occupied percentages. Table 8 and Figure 2 show the effect of row location, INTR vs EXTR, on stall usage. Figure 2 shows that, overall, cows prefer the external row of stalls for both lying and occupied percentages for both sides of the barn. Table 8 shows that this preference is different for different times of the day. It shows that cows

have higher lying and occupied percentages on the EXTR side at 0400 h and most of the time at 2000 h. Occupancy for the INTR is only higher for the occupied percentage at the 1400-h observation on the north side of the barn. These results differ from (Wagner-Storch et al., 2003), as cows in that study preferred the EXTR row for lying in both pens at all times, with the exception of the 14000-h observation in the 101% SD pen, when there was no preference difference. Cows

479

Stall Usage Differences of Thirteen Different Stall Base Types

TABLE 7. Percentagea of stalls occupiedb for each basec and mean number of cows by month for each sided. Item

Cows (no.) FMATR1 FMATR2 RMATR1 RMATR2 RMATR3 RMAT2 RMAT3 RMAT4

101% SD (South)g June July August September October November December

51.5 52.7 52.6 50.9 46.0 49.3 49.1

± ± ± ± ± ± ±

0.4 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.1

Cows (no.) 66% SD (North)b June July August September October November December

38.0 36.9 37.2 34.2 30.1 26.4 22.1

± ± ± ± ± ± ±

0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.1

85.4w 79.3w 91.7w 96.0w 89.6w 83.0w 89.6w

80.6wx 78.0w 91.9w 86.0xy 74.1xy 74.7xyz 75.0xy

83.3w 85.7w 87.9wx 84.8xy 80.6xy 87.4wx 75.0xy

75.0wxy 68.6x 80.7y 80.7y 66.7z 72.0yz 66.7y

65.5xy 67.4x 62.8z 65.9z 61.1z 61.1z 66.7y

60.7y 64.1x 61.9z 68.7z 65.5z 68.6yz 63.1y

Xe

SEf

76.0 75.9 80.2 81.7 74.3 77.3 75.5

0.06 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05

84.5w 81.2w 82.3xy 86.2xy 74.2y 81.1wxy 84.5wx

79.8wx 86.5w 93.9w 94.0w 90.5w 92.0w 90.5w

CMATR

FMATR3

FMATR4

RMATR1

RMATR2

RMAT5

WATR

X

SE

31.8x 25.4y 31.5yz 25.8z 26.9y 14.9z 10.8y

54.0w 62.6w 72.4w 63.0w 62.5w 58.8w 43.8w

49.5wx 59.4w 65.2w 54.9x 46.8x 32.9y 23.7x

59.1w 55.7w 64.0w 53.7x 67.1w 62.2w 54.4w

29.1z 30.3x 36.8x 27.5x 30.3y 20.0y 21.3yz

31.2x 28.6y 25.4z 22.8z 22.7y 15.9z 16.2xy

37.5wx 33.6y 39.5y 40.6y 48.7x 40.9xy 35.0w

41.9 42.6 48.1 41.8 43.5 34.8 28.7

0.07 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04

a

Percentage = number of stall-day lying observations/total number of stall-day observations by stall base for each month by side. b Occupied is defined as lying + standing + half-in, half-out. c CMATR = Cow Comfort Corkmat (Amorim Industrial Solutions, Trevor, WI), FMATR1= Comfy Cow Mattress with Cow-Flex Top Cover (Sikkema’s Equipment, Byron Center, MI), FMATR2 = Foamat™ Bedding System (Foxworthy Supply, Kent City, MI), FMATR3 = DeLaval Cow Mattress M100威 (DeLaval, Inc., Kansas City, MO), FMATR4 = Comfy Cow Mattress威 with Super-Mat Top Cover (Sikkema’s Equipment), RMATR1= Pasture Mat威 with foam (Promat Ltd., Seaforth, Ontario, Canada), RMATR2 = Pasture Mat威 with felt (Promat Ltd.), RMATR3 = Ulti-Mat All Rubber Cow Mattress威 (Zartmann Farms, Ephrata, PA), RMAT2 = Supreme Comfort Pad威 (Humane Manufacturing, Baraboo, WI), RMAT3 = Kraiburg Softbed II威 (Agromatic, Fond du Lac, WI), RMAT4 = Heavy Cush (J & D Manufacturing, Eau Claire, WI), RMAT5 = Simplex Dairy Pad威 (Berg Equipment. Corporation, Marshfield, WI), and WATR = Cow Waterbed威 (Relative Products, LLC, Reedsburg, WI). d Data collected from June 19, 2002 to December 17, 2002. e Mean percentage occupied equals total stall-day occupied observations/total number stall-day observations for each month by side. f Pooled standard error for each month by side. g South side of the barn with 101% stocking density. h North side of the freestall barn with low stocking density. w,x,y,z Percentages within rows with different letters are significantly different (P<0.05).

in the Wagner-Storch et al. study (2003) preferred to occupy the EXTR row at all times. Table 4 shows a strong RLOC × TEMP interaction. Combining this information suggests that cows prefer the outside rows of stalls during the evening and early morning hours of the day and inside rows of stalls during the hotter times of the day. Figure 3 shows the percentage of stalls with cows standing, lying, or stalls occupied for END and NO-

TEND stall location by side of barn. The NOTEND stalls were preferred to END stalls for lying and occupied percentages in the 66% SD pen; there was no difference between END and NOTEND stalls in the 101% SD pen. This was probably the result of lack of choice because of the higher SD. The interaction between stall base and STLLOC suggests that something about END stalls affects cow preference for specific stall base types.

Figure 4 shows the percentage of stalls with cows lying on the 101% SD pen for each stall base type by temperature (°F) interval. The temperature effect influenced lying and occupied percentages for each stall base. Stall use decreased as temperature increased in the 101% SD pen. This was supported by the significant (P<0.05) stall base × temperature interaction, which indicates cow preference for different stall base types at different temperature

480

Fulwider and Palmer

TABLE 8. Percentagea of stalls with cows lying and stalls occupiedb for INTR (interior) and EXTR (exterior) row by time of day for each sidec. Lying Item 101% SD (South)h 1400 h 2000 h 0400 h 0900 h 66% SD (North)i 1400 h 2000 h 0400 h 0900 h

Occupied

INTR

EXTR

Xd

SEe

INTR

EXTR

Xf

SEg

47.3x 44.3x 54.4y 58.7x

41.9x 48.2x 59.7x 59.6x

44.4 46.4 57.3 59.2

0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02

73.6x 62.6y 77.2y 77.5y

69.9x 79.9x 88.7x 85.7x

64.0 71.9 83.4 81.9

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

25.3x 24.7y 39.5y 25.8x

22.5x 30.0x 47.0x 29.3x

23.8 27.6 43.6 27.7

0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02

38.8x 33.4y 51.2y 35.1x

29.0y 43.7x 57.4x 37.1x

33.5 39.3 54.6 36.2

0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02

a Percentage = number of stall-day lying (occupied) observations/total number stall-day observations by row for each time by side. b Occupied is defined as lying + standing + half-in, half-out. c Data collected from June 19, 2002 to December 17, 2002. d Mean percentage lying equals total stall-day lying observations/total number stall-day observations for each time by side. e Pooled standard error for lying by time. f Mean percentage occupied equals total stall-day occupied observations/total number stall-day observations for each time by side. g Pooled standard error for occupied by time. h South side of the freestall barn with 101% stocking density. i North side of the freestall barn with 66% stocking density. x,y Percentages within rows, lying and occupied analyzed separately, with different letters are significantly different (P<0.05).

Figure 2. Percentage of stalls with cows standing, cows lying, or stalls occupied for interior and exterior rows by side of barn. Occupied = lying + standing + half-in, half-out. Percentages = number of stallday preference measure observations/total number of stall-day observations. SD = stocking density. Percentages within preference measure, by side, with different letters (a,b) differ (P<0.05). SE = preference measures’ pooled SE.

intervals. Cows preferred to lie on RMATR1, FMATR1, and RMATR2, respectively, for the lowest temperature range. The RMATR1, FMATR2, and RMATR3 were preferred at median temperature ranges. At the highest temperature range, FMATR2, RMATR3, and RMATR1, had the highest lying percentages. Rubber mats consistently had the lowest percentage lying across all temperatures. Figure 5 shows the percentage of stalls with cows lying in the 66% SD pen, with highest lying percentages at mid-range temperatures. At the temperature range 1 to 20°F, the waterbed was most preferred for lying at 40%, followed by RMATR1 at 33.3%. Cows preferred to lie on RMATR1, FMATR3, waterbed, and FMATR4, respectively, when temper-

Figure 3. Percentage of stalls with cows standing, cows lying, or stalls occupied for END and NOTEND stall locations by side of barn. Occupied = lying + standing + half-in, half-out. Percentages = number of stall-day preference measure observations/ total number of stall-day observations. END = end stall of a stall section and NOTEND = not end of a stall section. SD = stocking density. Percentages within preference measure, by side, with different letters (a, b) differ (P<0.05). SE = preference measures’ pooled SE.

Figure 4. Percentage of stalls with cows lying on the 101% SD (stocking density) side for each stall base type by temperature interval. Percentage lying = number of stall-day lying observation/total stall-day observations by stall base. FMATR1 = Comfy Cow Mattress威 with Cow-Flex Top Cover (Sikkema’s Equipment, Byron Center, MI), FMATR2 = Foamat™ Bedding System (Foxworthy Supply, Kent City, MI), RMATR1 = Pasture Mat威 with foam (Promat Ltd., Seaforth, Ontario, Canada), RMATR2 = Pasture Mat威 with felt (Promat Ltd.), RMATR3 = Ulti-Mat All Rubber Cow Mattress威 (Zartmann Farms, Ephrata, PA), RMAT2 = Supreme Comfort Pad威 (Humane Manufacturing, Baraboo, WI), RMAT3 = Kraiburg Softbed II威 (Agromatic, Fond du Lac, WI), and RMAT4 = Heavy Cush (J & D Manufacturing, Eau Claire, WI). SE = each temperature interval’s pooled SE.

Stall Usage Differences of Thirteen Different Stall Base Types

Figure 5. Percentage of stalls with cows lying on 66% SD (stocking density) side for each stall base type by temperature interval. Percentage lying = number of stall-day lying observations/total stall-day observations by stall base. CMATR = Cow Comfort Cork Mattress (Amorim Industrial Solutions, Trevor, WI), FMATR3 = DeLaval Cow Mattress M100威 (DeLaval, Inc., Kansas City, MO), FMATR4 = Comfy Cow Mattress威 with Super Mat Top Cover (Sikkema’s Equipment, Byron Center, MI), RMATR1 = Pasture Mat威 with foam (Promat Ltd., Seaforth, Ontario, Canada), RMATR2 = Pasture Mat威 with felt (Promat Ltd.), RMAT5 = Simplex Dairy Pad威 (Berg Equipment Corporation, Marshfield, WI), and WATR = Cow Waterbed威 (Relative Products, LLC, Reedsburg, WI). SE = each temperature interval’s pooled SE.

atures were at mid ranges. The CMATR, RMATR2, and RMAT5 ranked low across all temperatures. Figure 6 shows the percentage of stalls occupied in the 101% SD pen for each stall base type by temperature (°F) interval. Results for stall occupied percentages in the101% SD pen showed FMATR2, RMATR1, and RMATR3 having the highest (P<0.05) occupied percentages across all temperatures. The FMATR1 and RMATR2 follow with the next highest lying percentages. The RMAT2, RMAT3, and RMAT4 consistently showed the lowest occupied percentages. Figure 7 shows the percentage of stalls occupied in the 66% SD pen for each stall base type by temperature (°F) interval. The RMATR1 and waterbed had the highest occupied percentages for the lowest temperature range. The FMATR3, FMATR4,

Figure 6. Percentage of stalls occupied on 101% SD (stocking density) side for each stall base type by temperature interval. Occupied = lying + standing + half-in, half-out. Percentage occupied = number of stall-day occupied observations/total stallday observations by stall base. FMATR1 = Comfy Cow Mattress威 with Cow-Flex Top Cover (Sikkema’s Equipment, Byron Center, MI), FMATR2 = Foamat™ Bedding System (Foxworthy Supply, Kent City, MI), RMATR1 = Pasture Mat威 with foam (Promat Ltd., Seaforth, Ontario, Canada), RMATR2 = Pasture Mat威 with felt (Promat Ltd.), RMATR3 = Ulti-Mat All Rubber Cow Mattress威 (Zartmann Farms, Ephrata, PA), RMAT2 = Supreme Comfort Pad威 (Humane Manufacturing, Baraboo, WI), RMAT3 = Kraiburg Softbed II威 (Agromatic, Fond du Lac, WI), and RMAT4 = Heavy Cush (J & D Manufacturing, Eau Claire, WI). SE = each temperature interval’s pooled SE.

RMATR1, and waterbed had the highest occupied percentages, respectively, for mid-range temperatures. The FMATR4, FMATR3, and RMATR1 had the highest occupied percentages, respectively, at the highest temperatures. The waterbed had higher occupied percentages than CMATR, RMATR2, and RMAT5 at all temperature ranges. Waterbed preference during the coldest temperatures may be enhanced by the ability of water to hold and save heat. Stall use percentages by WDIST showed that cows preferred stalls the furthest away from water in the 101% SD pen. This differs from a previous study (Wagner-Storch et al., 2003), where cows preferred stalls near and far from water. The

481

Figure 7. Percentage of stalls occupied on 66% SD (stocking density) side for each stall base type by temperature interval. Percentage occupied = number of stall-day occupied observations/total stall-day observations by stall base. CMATR = Cow Comfort Cork Mattress (Amorim Industrial Solutions, Trevor, WI), FMATR3 = DeLaval Cow Mattress M100威 (DeLaval, Inc., Kansas City, MO), FMATR4 = Comfy Cow Mattress威 with Super Mat Top Cover (Sikkema’s Equipment, Byron Center, MI), RMATR1 = Pasture Mat威 with foam (Promat Ltd., Seaforth, Ontario, Canada), RMATR2 = Pasture Mat威 with felt (Promat Ltd.), RMAT5 = Simplex Dairy Pad威 (Berg Equipment Corporation, Marshfield, WI), and WATR = Cow Waterbed威 (Relative Products, LLC, Reedsburg, WI). SE = each temperature interval’s pooled SE.

difference was likely due to cows’ preference for particular stall bases. Cows preferred stalls closer to and farthest from water in the 66% SD pen. This result was explained by the significant WDIST × stall base interaction. Lying and occupied percentages for RMAT (with the exception of RMAT2, which had a foam interior) in both pens, and CMATR and RMATR2 in the 66% SD pen were below the mean lying and occupied percentages. The RMATR1 and RMATR2 were the only stall base types available in both pens (101% and 66% SD). The RMATR1 ranked highest in previous research efforts (Wagner-Storch et al., 2003) and in this trial for percentages standing and occupied in both pens. On the 101% SD side, RMATR1, FMATR2, and RMATR3 had the highest lying percentages, whereas

482

RMATR1 and FMATR2 had the highest occupied percentages. The FMATR2 and RMATR1 ranked higher for lying and occupied percentages than FMATR1 and RMATR2. Rubber mats RMAT3 and RMAT4 had the lowest lying and occupied percentages. For the 66% SD pen, FMATR3 and RMATR1 ranked highest for lying and occupied percentages. The FMATR4 and waterbed were intermediate for lying and occupied percentages, whereas CMATR, RMATR2, and RMAT5 were inferior. Competition for stalls was less in the 66% SD pen, so cows could more easily occupy the stall of their choice and avoid less desirable stall types. The higher occupied percentages for RMAT in the 101% SD pen was likely due to the higher SD in this pen. Cows preferred the EXTR row of stalls during the evening and early morning hours and tended to like the INTR row during the daytime hours. This result might have been due to a cow’s preference for the sun or breeze, relative to temperature. The NOTEND stalls were preferred to END stalls for lying and occupied percentages in the 66% SD pen, and there was no difference between END and NOTEND stalls in the 101% SD pen. This was probably the result of lack of choice because of the higher SD. The interaction between stall base and STLLOC suggests that something about END stalls affects cow preference for specific stall base types. The WDIST was a significant predictor of stall use, but the analysis yielded conflicting results regarding cow preference for stall WDIST. This confusing result was probably due to random location of cow-preferred stall bases. Cow preference for a particular base appears to be affected by temperature. Foam-filled mattresses and RMATR were the preferred bases across all temperature intervals in the 101% SD pen. Mattresses provide cushion, as well as insulation,

Fulwider and Palmer

protecting the cow during times of cold weather. Waterbeds were the stall base of choice in the 66% SD pen, during the coldest weather, RMATR and the RMAT. Percentages lying and occupied increased with SD, suggesting that SD needs to be considered when assessing stall usage. Percentage of cows lying in or occupying stalls was highest in early morning before milking and late morning after feeding for 101% SD cows. Cows in the 66% SD pen, with robot access, have the luxury of choosing their own schedule. These cows exhibited their highest lying percentages at early morning, with equal percentages for early morning and evening. Highest stall occupied percentages were shown early morning and evening.

Implications Stall base type was shown to affect cow preference in this study. Lying and occupied percentages were higher overall for FMATR and RMATR. Waterbeds, available on the 66% SD side, were the base of choice during the coldest weather. A number of stall base types were inferior, regardless of temperature or XPOSR. With respect to this study, the following guidelines are suggested when assessing freestall comfort. 1) Observe stall occupancy in the morning before feeding and milking activities begin. 2) Count stalls that have a cow lying or standing in them. 3) If the barn is stocked at 100%, a 55 to 65% lying percentage and 80 to 85% occupied percentage is very good. 4) Observations taken later in the day may drop by 15 to 20%.

Acknowledgments The authors thank the employees of the Blaine Dairy, Arlington research facility for their assistance in switching tapes and monitoring camera function. The authors also

thank Peter Crump and Yu-mei Chang for their assistance in the statistical analysis of the data. This research was sponsored in part by UDSA/Hatch Project number WISO4703.

Literature Cited Anderson, N. G. 2002. Cozying up to cow comfort. In Midwest Dairy Herd Health Conf., Middleton, WI. p 11. Dairy Team, Univ. of Wisconsin Extension, Dept. of Dairy Sci., College of Ag. and Life Sci., Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison. Gaworski, M. A., C. B. Tucker, D. M. Weary, and M. L. Swift. 2003. Effects of stall design on dairy cattle behavior. In Proc. 5th Int. Dairy Housing Conf., Fort Worth, TX. p 139, Am Soc. Ag. Eng., St. Joseph, MI. House, H. K., J. Rodenburg, and B. R. Lang. 2003. The effect of neck rail and mounting rail position on cow behavior. In Proc. 5th Int. Dairy Housing Conf., Fort Worth, TX. p 147, Am Soc. Ag. Eng., St. Joseph, MI. McFarland, D. F. 2003. Freestall design: Cow recommended refinementsIn Proc. 5th Int. Dairy Housing Conf., Fort Worth, TX. p 131, Am Soc. Ag. Eng., St. Joseph, MI. Overton, M. W., W. M. Sischo, G. D. Temple, and D. A. Moore. 2002. Using timelapse video photography to assess dairy cattle lying behavior in a free-stall barn. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2407. Rodenburg, J., and H. K. House. 2000. The impact of freestall base and bedding on cow comfort. In Dairy Housing and Equipment Systems Managing and Planning for Profitability, p 214. NRAES-129. Rushen, J., and A. M. de Passille. 1999. Environmental design for healthier and more profitable cows. [Online.] Available: http:// www.afns.ualberta.ca/Hosted/WCDS/ Proceedings/1999/chap28.htm. Accessed Sep 9, 2003. Sonck, B., J. Daelemans, J. Langenakens. 1999. Preference test for free stall surface material for dairy cows. In Emerging Technologies for the 21st Century. p 1. Am. Soc. Ag. Eng., St. Joseph, MI. Stokes, M. E., C. S. Davis, and G. G. Koch. 1995. Using the GENMOD procedure. In Categorical Data Analysis Using the SAS System. p 208. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC. Wagner-Storch, A. M., R. W. Palmer, and D. W. Kammel. 2003. Factors affecting stall use for different freestall bases. J. Dairy Sci. 2003 86:2253.