Associations of dairy cow behavior, barn hygiene, cow hygiene, and risk of elevated somatic cell count.

Poor dairy cow hygiene has been consistently associated with elevated somatic cell count (SCC) and the risk of subclinical mastitis. The objective of this study was to determine the associations between dairy cow standing and lying behavior, barn hygiene, cow hygiene, and the risk of experiencing elevated SCC. Lactating Holstein dairy cows (n=69; 86 ± 51 DIM; parity: 2.0 ± 1.2; means ± SD), kept in 1 of 2 groups, were monitored over a 4-mo period. Each group contained 61 ± 1 (mean ± SD) cows over the study period; complete data were obtained from 37 and 32 animals within each respective group. Cows were housed in a sand-bedded, freestall barn with 2 symmetrical pens, each with a free cow traffic automatic milking system. To vary barn hygiene, in 4 consecutive 28-d periods, alley manure scrapers in each of the 2 pens were randomly assigned to frequencies of operation of 3, 6, 12, and 24 times per day. During the last 7 d of each period, cow hygiene (upper leg/flank, lower legs, and udder; scale of 1 = very clean to 4 = very dirty) and stall hygiene (number of 0.15×0.15-m squares contaminated with manure in a 1.20×1.65-m grid) were recorded. Standing and lying behavior of the cows were collected during those days using data loggers. Individual-cow SCC was recorded at the beginning and end of each 28-d period. Elevated SCC was used as an indicator of subclinical mastitis; incidence of elevated SCC was defined as having a SCC >200,000 cells/mL at the end of each 28-d period, when SCC was <100,000 cells/mL at the beginning of the period. Less frequent scraping of the barn alleys was associated with cows having poorer hygiene. Poor udder hygiene was associated with poor stall hygiene. Longer lying duration was associated with poor hygiene of the upper legs/flank and udder. Greater premilking standing duration was associated with poor udder hygiene and decreased frequency of lying bouts was associated with poor hygiene of the lower legs. Higher milk yield was associated with poor hygiene of the udder and lower legs; multiparous cows had poorer hygiene of the upper legs/flank and udder. Over the study period, 24 new cases of elevated SCC were detected. No associations existed for the risk of experiencing an elevated SCC with alley scraping frequency or cow behavior patterns. However, increased odds of occurrence of elevated SCC were noted for cows of lower milk yield as well as for multiparous cows. In summary, these results show that cow hygiene is affected by the standing and lying behavior of cows and by the cleanliness of the cow's environment. These findings emphasize the need for cows to be provided clean standing and lying environments. The results also show that frequent cleaning of barn alley floors will help improve cow hygiene.

[1]  Jorge Alberto Elizondo-Salazar,et al.  Estimación lineal de los requerimientos nutricionales del NRC para ganado de leche. , 2014 .

[2]  J. Rodenburg,et al.  Association of standing and lying behavior patterns and incidence of intramammary infection in dairy cows milked with an automatic milking system. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[3]  J. Sørensen,et al.  Identifying risk factors for poor hind limb cleanliness in Danish loose-housed dairy cows. , 2011, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[4]  H. Barkema,et al.  Invited review: effect of udder health management practices on herd somatic cell count. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[5]  N. Cook,et al.  Time budgets of lactating dairy cattle in commercial freestall herds. , 2010, Journal of dairy science.

[6]  C. Winckler,et al.  Evaluation of data loggers, sampling intervals, and editing techniques for measuring the lying behavior of dairy cattle. , 2010, Journal of Dairy Science.

[7]  H. Hogeveen,et al.  Relationship between udder health and hygiene on farms with an automatic milking system. , 2010, Journal of dairy science.

[8]  T. DeVries,et al.  Relationship between feeding strategy, lying behavior patterns, and incidence of intramammary infection in dairy cows. , 2010, Journal of dairy science.

[9]  Michael M Schutz,et al.  Influence of milk yield, stage of lactation, and body condition on dairy cattle lying behaviour measured using an automated activity monitoring sensor , 2009, Journal of Dairy Research.

[10]  D M Weary,et al.  Lying behavior: assessing within- and between-herd variation in free-stall-housed dairy cows. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[11]  J. A. Fregonesi,et al.  The stall-design paradox: neck rails increase lameness but improve udder and stall hygiene. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[12]  J. A. Fregonesi,et al.  Neck-rail position in the free stall affects standing behavior and udder and stall cleanliness. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[13]  D. Kelton,et al.  Herd-level risk factors for seven different foot lesions in Ontario Holstein cattle housed in tie stalls or free stalls. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[14]  Nigel B Cook,et al.  The influence of the environment on dairy cow behavior, claw health and herd lameness dynamics. , 2009, Veterinary journal.

[15]  M. Magnusson,et al.  Short communication: effect of alley floor cleanliness on free-stall and udder hygiene. , 2008, Journal of dairy science.

[16]  D. Kelton,et al.  Incidence rate of clinical mastitis on Canadian dairy farms. , 2008, Journal of dairy science.

[17]  C. V. Howard,et al.  Dairy cow cleanliness and milk quality on organic and conventional farms in the UK , 2007, Journal of Dairy Research.

[18]  Martin J. Green,et al.  On distinguishing cause and consequence: do high somatic cell counts lead to lower milk yield or does high milk yield lead to lower somatic cell count? , 2006, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[19]  W. Heuwieser,et al.  Factors associated with high milk test day somatic cell counts in large dairy herds in Brandenburg. I: Housing conditions. , 2006, Journal of veterinary medicine. A, Physiology, pathology, clinical medicine.

[20]  N. Cook,et al.  A Tool Box for Assessing Cow , Udder and Teat Hygiene , 2006 .

[21]  M. Endres,et al.  Association between hygiene scores and somatic cell scores in dairy cattle. , 2005, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[22]  D. Weary,et al.  Bacterial populations on teat ends of dairy cows housed in free stalls and bedded with either sand or sawdust. , 2004, Journal of dairy science.

[23]  P. Ruegg,et al.  Relationship between udder and leg hygiene scores and subclinical mastitis. , 2003, Journal of dairy science.

[24]  David J. Wilson,et al.  Monitoring udder health and milk quality using somatic cell counts. , 2003, Veterinary research.

[25]  P. Ruegg,et al.  Effects of tail docking on milk quality and cow cleanliness. , 2002, Journal of dairy science.

[26]  G Benedictus,et al.  Management style and its association with bulk milk somatic cell count and incidence rate of clinical mastitis. , 1999, Journal of dairy science.

[27]  H. Barkema,et al.  Incidence of clinical mastitis in dairy herds grouped in three categories by bulk milk somatic cell counts. , 1998, Journal of dairy science.

[28]  T. Lam,et al.  Estimation of variance components for somatic cell counts to determine thresholds for uninfected quarters. , 1997, Journal of dairy science.

[29]  I. Dohoo,et al.  Evaluation of changes in somatic cell counts as indicators of new intramammary infections , 1991 .

[30]  Schultze Wd,et al.  Changes in penetrability of bovine papillary duct to endotoxin after milking. , 1983 .

[31]  W. Schultze,et al.  Changes in penetrability of bovine papillary duct to endotoxin after milking. , 1983, American journal of veterinary research.

[32]  Mcdonald Js Radiographic method for anatomic study of the teat canal: changes between milking periods. , 1975 .

[33]  J. Mcdonald Radiographic method for anatomic study of the teat canal: changes between milking periods. , 1975, American journal of veterinary research.