De Palo P, Tateo A, Zezza F, Corrente M, Centoducati P
Department of Health and Welfare of Animals, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Università degli Studi di Bari, Bari, Italy.
J Dairy Sci. 2006 Dec;89(12):4583-95. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72508-5.
An evaluation of behavioral and hygienic conditions was carried out with 4 materials used as free-stall flooring for dairy cows: polyethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) and polypropylene vinyl acetate (PVA) mats, wood shavings, and solid manure. The free-stall type selected by cows was evaluated in response to changes in environmental temperature and humidity. Two tests were used: 1) a preference test, in which 8 cows were housed in a pen with 32 free stalls and 4 types of flooring; and 2) an aversion test, in which 32 cows were placed in 4 pens, each with 8 free stalls. The free stalls in each pen had a single type of bedding material. These tests showed that the comfort of dairy cows was predominantly influenced by environmental conditions. The preference test for lying showed that cows preferred free-stall floors with EVA mats over those with PVA mats, wood shavings, and solid manure (332.4 +/- 24.0 vs. 130.8 +/- 6.2, 160.9 +/- 23.7, and 102.6 +/- 23.2 min/d, respectively), but under conditions of heat stress, with a temperature-humidity index > 80, they chose wood shavings and solid manure lying areas. These results were confirmed by the aversion test. In all experimental and environmental conditions, the PVA mats were the least suitable. The mats contaminated with organic manure and the free stalls bedded with wood shavings and organic solids did not differ in either the coliform load on the lying surfaces (EVA mats: 290 +/- 25; PVA mats: 306 +/- 33; wood shavings: 290 +/- 39; and solid manure: 305 +/- 23 log(10) cfu/mL) or the total bacterial count in the raw milk (EVA mats: 232 +/- 22; PVA mats: 233 + 24; wood shavings: 221 +/- 24; and solid manure: 220 +/- 25 log(10) cfu/mL). These results demonstrate that the comfort of dairy cows housed in barns with free stalls as resting areas does not depend only on the material used, but also on the value of the material in microenvironmental conditions.
对4种用作奶牛散栏式牛舍地面的材料进行了行为和卫生条件评估:聚乙烯醋酸乙烯酯(EVA)和聚丙烯醋酸乙烯酯(PVA)垫、刨花以及固体粪便。针对环境温度和湿度的变化,对奶牛选择的散栏类型进行了评估。采用了两项测试:1)偏好测试,将8头奶牛安置在一个有32个散栏和4种地面材料的围栏中;2)厌恶测试,将32头奶牛放置在4个围栏中,每个围栏有8个散栏。每个围栏中的散栏都使用单一类型的垫料。这些测试表明,奶牛的舒适度主要受环境条件影响。躺卧偏好测试显示,奶牛更喜欢带有EVA垫的散栏地面,而不是带有PVA垫、刨花和固体粪便的地面(分别为332.4±24.0分钟/天和130.8±6.2分钟/天、160.9±23.7分钟/天、102.6±23.2分钟/天),但在热应激条件下,即温度 - 湿度指数>80时,它们会选择刨花和固体粪便的躺卧区域。厌恶测试证实了这些结果。在所有实验和环境条件下,PVA垫是最不合适的。被有机粪便污染的垫子以及铺垫刨花和有机固体的散栏,其躺卧表面的大肠菌群负荷(EVA垫:290±25;PVA垫:306±33;刨花:290±39;固体粪便:305±23 log₁₀ cfu/mL)或原料奶中的总细菌数(EVA垫:232±22;PVA垫:233 + 24;刨花:221±24;固体粪便:220±25 log₁₀ cfu/mL)均无差异。这些结果表明,在以散栏作为休息区域的牛舍中,奶牛的舒适度不仅取决于所使用的材料,还取决于该材料在微环境条件下的价值。