Making stall beds more comfortable: the effect of longitudinal space and deep-bedding on the comfort and welfare of tie-stall-housed dairy cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding cow comfort in tie-stall barns is an important issue for the Canadian dairy industry, and one area of the stall that contributes greatly to cow comfort is the stall bed. The stall bed is defined both by its size (stall width and longitudinal space) but also by its material components (bedding depth, bedding type, and stall base type). This thesis aimed to determine if making the stall bed more comfortable increased cow welfare in two parts: a literature review and an experimental study. The literature review portion of this thesis made the following conclusions based on the available literature for each sub-topic. Some areas, such as bedding, had been more thoroughly investigated compared to others, such as stall longitudinal space. Of all the material components of the stall bed, bedding depth appears to have the most positive impact on cow welfare as a deeper level of bedding in the stall can negate hard stall bases and more abrasive bedding types. Longitudinal space in tie-stalls is defined both by stall bed length and by the front limit of the stall: the manger wall. Longer stall bed lengths have been shown to increase lying time and decrease injury and lameness prevalence, but are often not utilized by producers due to concerns about cleanliness. The impact of manger wall height on cow welfare has not been researched extensively, but may work in conjunction with other stall components to define the space available to the cow. The experimental portion of this thesis aimed to maximize the comfort of the stall bed by investigating the combined effect of three aspects of the stall bed: stall bed length, manger wall height, and bedding depth. Two rows of 12 tie-stalls were modified. Each row was modified to be a different length: short (178 cm, length commonly found in Quebec) and long (188 cm). Two manger wall height treatments were applied randomly to the stalls in each row: high (20 cm, upper limit of recommendation) and low (5 cm). A 7.6 cm-deep straw bedding layer was added to all stalls through the use of a bedding keeper installed at the end of all stalls. The twenty-four cows were divided into 6 blocks based on parity (2.7 ± 0.32) and DIM (115 ± 13.2 d). Four groups were then formed with 1 cow from each block in each group (n = 6/group). Two groups were assigned to each row and subjected to both manger wall treatments in a crossover design (1-week habituation, 6-week data collection/treatment). Injuries were scored once per week at 17 different body locations and analyzed as a difference from baseline for each period. Lying behaviours were recorded continuously via leg-mounted accelerometers. Data were analyzed using a mixed model with length, sequence, block, treatment, and period as fixed effects, week as a repeated measure, and cow as a random effect.All initially injured areas on the cow healed over the 14-week study. Improvement in hock injury was observed from weeks 1 to 6 for all treatments (P ≤ 0.001, lateral tarsal; P ≤ 0.01, lateral calcanei). Cows in longer (188-cm) stalls were found to spend more time lying (14.1 vs. 13.3 h/d; P < 0.05) and had longer lying bouts than cows in short stalls (74.1 vs. 52.9 min/bout; P < 0.05). Manger wall height did not affect injury or lying time. The higher lying times observed were comparable to those reported in deep-bedded compost packs, indicating that cows with more bedding, especially those in long stalls, were more comfortable. It was confirmed that increased bedding depth has a protective effect on injuries, allowing them to heal within a short time period. Deep-bedded straw stalls with bedding keepers appear to be applicable on tie-stall farms and would be a useful modification for producers that should result in cows that are more comfortable, lie-down for longer, and have fewer injuries
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".