Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Dairy Sci ; 102(11): 10606-10615, 2019 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31477309

RESUMEN

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of 2 winter (December to April) housing systems on dairy cow hygiene scores, frostbite, teat condition, clinical mastitis, and activity and rumination across 3 winter seasons (2013, 2014, and 2015). Certified-organic cows (n = 268) were randomly assigned to 2 treatments (2 replicates per system): (1) outdoor straw pack (outdoor) or (2) 3-sided compost-bedded pack barn (indoor). Cows calved during 2 seasons (spring or fall) at the University of Minnesota West Central Research and Outreach Center, Morris, Minnesota, organic dairy. Organic wheat straw was used as bedding for the 2 outdoor straw packs, and bedding was maintained by farm management to keep cows dry and absorb manure throughout the winter. The compost-bedded pack barn (2 pens in the barn) was bedded with organic-approved sawdust, and the bedding material was stirred twice per day with a small chisel plow. Hygiene scores were recorded biweekly as cows exited the milking parlor. Incidence of clinical mastitis was recorded in a binary manner as treated (1) or not treated (0) at least once during a lactation. Frostbite incidence was collected monthly. Activity and rumination times (daily and 2-h periods) were monitored electronically using a neck collar sensor (HR-LD Tags, SCR Dairy, Netanya, Israel). Indoor cows had greater udder hygiene scores (1.75 vs. 1.46) and greater abdomen hygiene scores (1.79 vs. 1.43) compared with outdoor cows. Additionally, the indoor cows had greater upper and lower leg hygiene scores compared with outdoor cows. Incidence of clinical mastitis was greater for indoor cows compared with outdoor cows (27.1% vs. 15.1%, respectively). Frostbite incidence was not different between indoor (30.1%) and outdoor (17.5%) cows. Daily rumination was 509 min/d for indoor cows and 530 min/d for the outdoor cows. In summary, lactating cows housed outdoors on straw-bedded packs had cleaner udders and improved udder health compared with cows housed in a compost-bedded pack barn.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedades de los Bovinos/prevención & control , Industria Lechera , Congelación de Extremidades/veterinaria , Vivienda para Animales , Glándulas Mamarias Animales/fisiología , Rumiación Digestiva , Animales , Bovinos , Femenino , Congelación de Extremidades/prevención & control , Higiene , Israel , Lactancia , Leche , Minnesota , Estaciones del Año
2.
J Dairy Sci ; 102(1): 706-714, 2019 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30343929

RESUMEN

Certified-organic dairy cows (n = 268) were used to evaluate the effect of 2 winter (December to April) housing systems on milk production, somatic cell score (SCS), body weight, body condition score (BCS), and economics across 3 winter seasons (2013, 2014, and 2015). Bedding cultures from the housing systems were also evaluated. Cows were randomly assigned to 2 treatments (2 replicates per group): (1) outdoor (straw pack, n = 140) or (2) indoor (3-sided compost bedded pack barn, n = 128). Cows calved during 2 seasons (spring or fall) at the University of Minnesota West Central Research and Outreach Center, Morris, Minnesota, organic dairy. Milk, fat, and protein production and SCS were recorded from monthly milk recording. Body weight and BCS were recorded biweekly as cows exited the milking parlor. Bedding cultures from the housing systems were collected biweekly. Costs for key inputs and the price received for milk production were recorded for the study period and averaged for use in the profitability analysis. Energy-corrected milk and SCS were not different for the outdoor (15.1 kg/d, 2.64) and indoor (15.7 kg/d, 2.57) housing systems, respectively. In addition, cows in the outdoor and indoor housing systems were not different for body weight (528 vs. 534 kg) and BCS (3.22 vs. 3.23), respectively. Daily dry matter intake was 19.1 kg/d for the outdoor cows and 19.6 kg/d for indoor cows. The total bacteria count from bedding samples tended to be lower in the outdoor (13.0 log10 cfu/mL) compared with the indoor (14.9 log10 cfu/mL) system. Milk revenue and feed cost were not different for the 2 housing systems. Labor and bedding costs were lower and net return was higher for the outdoor housing system. The outdoor straw pack system had a $1.42/cow per day net return advantage over the indoor compost bedded pack barn. In summary, lactating cows housed outdoors on straw-bedded packs did not differ for production or SCS, or for body weight, BCS, or dry matter intake, but had greater profitability than cows housed in an indoor compost bedded pack barn.


Asunto(s)
Bovinos/fisiología , Industria Lechera/economía , Vivienda para Animales , Lactancia/fisiología , Agricultura Orgánica/métodos , Estaciones del Año , Alimentación Animal/economía , Animales , Ropa de Cama y Ropa Blanca/economía , Ropa de Cama y Ropa Blanca/microbiología , Peso Corporal , Recuento de Células/veterinaria , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Industria Lechera/métodos , Ingestión de Alimentos , Femenino , Leche/química , Leche/citología , Leche/economía , Minnesota
3.
J Environ Manage ; 129: 9-17, 2013 Nov 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23792885

RESUMEN

Increasing financial pressures has led farmers to manage cattle outside for the winter months. In temperate areas the environmental risks of outwintering cattle are exacerbated by cooler and wetter weather and identifying how farmers perceive these risks is essential to understanding how potential hazards could be mitigated. A series of workshops were conducted with cattle producers in England and Wales to understand their perceptions of the risks, their decision-making with respect to outwintering and their options for mitigating these risks. A range of risks were identified, but emphasis was placed on environmentally-related risks, such as soil damage, and on social risks, such as public perception of their treatment of the animals. The uncertainties due to the weather were highlighted as the most unmanageable risk. Another significant barrier to mitigating environmental impacts emerged from the lack of options towards choosing appropriate fields in which to conduct outwintering. We argue that the farmer-led nature of outwintering and the development of a wide range of systems is evidence of outwintering being a systems-innovation. We conclude that there is a role for Government intervention through the provision of information which clarifies cross-compliance breaches, but also encourages farmer-led innovation to develop more responsive outwintering systems.


Asunto(s)
Agricultura/métodos , Bovinos , Toma de Decisiones , Ambiente , Percepción , Animales , Industria Lechera/métodos , Inglaterra , Medición de Riesgo , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Gales
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA