Open Collections

Replication Data for: Effect of neck-rail placement on free-stall use and the force exerted on the rail by naïve dairy heifers

Weary, Daniel

How cattle respond when introduced to new housing systems is understudied. Indoor housed dairy heifers are often kept on open packs early in life and then later transition to free-stall housing. The neck-rail in free stalls acts as a physical and visual barrier intended to prevent animals from entering too far in the stall, with the aim of improving the cleanliness of the stall surface. Unfortunately, this barrier can hinder stall use and in some cases may be a hazard to animals due to physical contact. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effects of two different neck-rail positions on frequency of stall use (for lying and standing) and misuse (standing backwards in the stall and lying down outside of the stall) by naïve dairy heifers. A secondary aim was to measure, via the use of an instrumented neck-rail, the maximum force with which heifers contacted this part of the stall. We also assessed stall cleanliness and bedding use. Holstein heifers (n=16) were randomly assigned to one of two neck-rail positions: 110 cm and 130 cm (as measured diagonally from the inside of the rear curb to the bottom of the instrumented neck-rail). Animals were tested individually and responses were measured over first 6 h following introduction to the free stalls. On average (median, min, max) heifers lay down 3.5 (0, 6) times in the free-stall when the neck-rail was positioned at 130 cm vs. 0 (0, 4) times at 110 cm. Heifers also were more likely to stand fully in the stall when the neck-rail was positions at 130 cm vs. 110 cm (3.5, 0, 9 vs. 1, 0, 3), and were also more likely to stand backwards in the stall (3, 0, 5 vs. 0, 0, 1). In contrast, heifers tested at the 130 cm position were rarely observed lying down outside of the stall (1, 0, 4), while this behavior was more common at the 110 cm treatment (4, 0, 7). Contrary to our expectation, the force with which heifers contacted the neck-rail was higher in the 130 cm vs. the 110 cm treatment (337, 6, 548 vs. 78, 26, 403 N). At the 130 cm vs. 110 cm position stalls were more likely be contaminated with feces (6, 0, 11 vs. 0, 0, 5 contaminated squares), and bedding levels showed a greater decline (10.2, 8.6, 12.2 vs. 7.6, 6.7, 11.9 cm decline). We conclude the neck-rail position acts as a barrier for naïve heifers, such that a more restrictive position reduces the likely the heifers use the stall correctly and increases misuse. Stalls with more restrictive neck-rails stay cleaner and better retain bedding, in part due to their lack of use.

Dataset

University of British Columbia Library

10.14288/1.0434176

https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/N92VOI

Dataverse