Transition cow facilities:
Off-the-wall ideas that just might work

Paul Dyk, Dairy and Livestock Extension, University of Wisconsin

I drove the same little pickup for 13 years. I bought it out of college, put 270,000 miles on it and even named it Ginger. In the winter, it would often slide on snow, and I'd end up in a ditch somewhere. The safety features included ... well it had a seat belt, and I would have likely been crushed like a soda can if hit by a moped. Since I had paid for it, it lasted a long time and it worked reasonably well. I felt sadness when it went down the road for the last time. Even though there was white smoke coming from the exhaust, even though the brakes, clutch, tires, exhaust, radiator, carburetor and alternator needed to be replaced, and even though the rust was shining through, part of me still thought it was salvageable.

We often become nostalgic about our dairy facilities as well. The facilities may have lots of faults, but we are unable to see them because of what we have invested in them: time, money and emotion. The facilities may actually work reasonably well, but this does not mean there are not new ideas that would be more profitable. Sometimes we need to break away from what we have always done and not be content with mediocre performance. So, here are some new ideas for one group of animals, your transition cows:

1. Keep transition cow pens at 80 percent capacity.

This means that if you have bunk space for 40 lactating cows (24 inches per cow) you should only stock up to 32 cows. Nordlund et al presented some great information on stocking density. Using time-lapse photography, they showed the percent of headlocks filled in a high production group (24 inches). There is never more than an 80 percent usage on the headlocks. This points to the real need for bunk space of 30 inches (80 percent capacity of 24 inches), especially for sensitive groups like the dry and fresh groups.

In two New Mexico dairies, the dry matter intake and the stocking rate are clearly related. Stocking rates below 80 percent clearly showed higher dry matter intakes in the prefresh cows. We know that the key to lowering health problems is maintaining dry matter intake.

When designing freestalls it is very important to remember the surges in the calving rates throughout a year. If you plan for an average number of calvings, 50 percent of the time the prefresh pen will be overcrowded. Planning for 80 to 90 percent of the peak number of historical calvings will result in preferred stocking rates.

So does this actually mean the cows will give more milk? [If you look at] real data from a farm that shows projected first ME milk, it is quite apparent when the farm reduced the stocking density. The real gain from this reduced stocking rate is minimizing the number of busts – those cows that never really peak due to some health issue. When this farm reduced its stocking rate the number of busts were almost totally eliminated. These effects are real and can be dramatic on many farms.

2. Reduce competition at the feedbunk using partitions.

Adapted from University of British Columbia – Research Reports, April 2007

Even though decreasing stocking density at the feedbunk will reduce competition and increase feed access, competition is not eliminated at the feedbunk. This suggests that there are additional factors affecting competition for food resources by lactating dairy cows.

Previous research has shown that the use of a feed barrier that provides some physical separation between adjacent cows (such as headlocks) can reduce competition (displacements) at the feedbunk and that subordinate animals experienced the greatest decreases in competition. Unfortunately, cows also show reduced feeding time when fed using a headlock feed barrier, possibly due to a learned aversion to being restrained in locking headlocks.

Interestingly, researchers have demonstrated in other species, such as pigs, that providing partitions that separate the bodies of adjacent animals can have profound effects on reducing competition and allowing animals to feed for longer periods of time. These effects had not yet been shown in group-housed dairy cattle. Therefore, the first objective of this study was to provide further evidence that increased bunk space reduces the frequency of aggressive behavior at the feedbunk and improves feed access.

The second objective was to determine if the addition of feedstall partitions between adjacent cows even further reduces aggressive behavior at the feedbunk and improves feed access. Twenty-four lactating Holstein cows were subjected to each of three treatments. The treatments tested were:

•2 feet of feedbunk space per cow

•3 feet of feedbunk space per cow

•feed stalls (3 feet of feedbunk space per cow plus feed stall partitions separating adjacent cows)

Time-lapse video was used to record the feeding and standing behavior, as well as the aggressive behavior (displacements) displayed at the feedbunk by the cows.

Total daily feeding time increased when feedbunk space was increased from 24 to 36 inches per cow. Further, the time spent standing in the feeding area while not feeding and the frequency of aggressive interactions at the feedbunk decreased when more bunk space was provided. The addition of the feed stalls resulted in an even further increase in feeding time and decrease in aggressive interactions for the cows compared to when they were provided with 36 inches per cow of bunk space.

The feed stalls also forced cows to change the strategy by which they displaced others from the feedbunk. The presence of the feed stalls forced the cows to initiate contact at the rear of the animal they were displacing rather than from the front or side as in the case of the other two treatments. Further, subordinate cows experienced the greatest decreases in the number of times they were displaced per day when they were provided additional feeding space, and this effect was strongest when the feed stalls were present.

The results indicated that the provision of increased feedbunk space, particularly when combined with feed stalls, will improve access to feed and reduce competition at the feedbunk, especially for subordinate cows. Improved bunk access may help these animals maximize their feed intake to meet their energy demands.

3. House dry cows in cross-ventilated barns.

One of the new wave of ideas in dairy facilities is the idea of housing cows in cross-ventilated barns. Most of the focus of these barns has been on the savings associated with the reduced footprint of the building, controlling air conditions, etc. Regardless of the merits for milking cows, the cross- ventilated barn may actually be best suited for dry cows.

Most people are familiar with the concept of long day lighting for milk cows. This has been widely adopted in new dairy facilities. However, a concept with just as much potential is the idea of short-day photoperiod for dry cows. Research has shown that dry cows exposed to only eight hours of light per day (16 hours of darkness) during the dry period have much higher milk production when they calve.

The major problem with implementing the short-day photoperiod is the modern facilities we have designed. Freestalls with high sidewalls, curtains, etc. can be used if we want to have long-day lighting (just keep the lights on); however, these facilities will not allow us to keep dry cows in 16 hours of darkness.

The beauty of cross-ventilated barns is they may allow us to build barns for dry cows that maintain cow comfort and allow us to manipulate photoperiod for short-day photoperiod. Manipulating photoperiod has been done for years with poultry and some design adaptations would likely need to be made for cross-ventilated barns. There also would be the question of cows calving and how to handle cows calving in the dark.

New ideas, new challenges, but the reward should be great enough to push us to new frontiers. PD

References omitted but are available upon request at editor@progressivedairy.com

—Excerpts from Dairy Frontiers, Vol. 1, No. 4