New Brunswick Dairy Bedding Manual - New Brunswick Dairy Bedding Manual - New Brunswick Dairy Bedding Manual
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
New Brunswick Da
New Brunswick Dairy Bedding Manual
Don Anderson
Photo courtesy of
New Brunswick Dairy Bedding Manual
Publishe
Published by Milk 2020 Nov
Published by Milk 2020
November 2012
November 2012
Table of Contents:
Acknowledgments … 3
Manual Collaborators … 3
Disclaimer … 3
List of Photos … 4
List of Figures … 4
List of Tables … 5
Executive Summary … 6
Chapter 1- Introduction … 9
Chapter 2 - Comparison of Individual Bedding Materials … 12
Chapter 3 - Quality Livestock Bedding Products Research … 24
Chapter 4 - On-farm Adaptive Bedding and Manure Management Research … 36
Chapter 5 - Future Bedding and Manure Management Research Needs … 49
Chapter 6 - Additional Resources … 51
Appendices … 55
Glossary … 57
Index … 60
2
Acknowledgments:
This Manual was funded in part by the NB Agriculture Profitability Enhancement component of the Canada/New
Brunswick Agriculture Futures Initiative (Agri-Flexibility).
Additional support was provided by Milk 2020 through contributions from the dairy producers and processors of New
Brunswick.
Milk 2020 wishes to thank the New Brunswick dairy producers who participated in the Researching Quality Livestock
Bedding Products research studies as well as those producers who have shared the results of their recent on-farm adaptive
research projects dealing with bedding and manure management.
Manual Collaborators:
Milk 2020: James Walker, Fred Waddy, Reginald Perry, Larry MacGillivray, Derek Roberts, Jack Christie, David Walker;
Maritime Quality Milk: Dr. Greg Keefe;
Quality Milk Management: Don Anderson;
New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fisheries: Brian MacDonald
MILK 2020 Board of Directors wishes to thank Dr. Michael F. Maloney for his excellent work in authoring this Manual.
This publication may be reproduced for personal or internal use provided that its source is fully acknowledged. However, multiple copy
reproduction of this publication in whole or in part for any purpose (including but not limited to resale or redistribution) requires the kind
permission of Milk 2020 (see www.milk2020.ca for contact information).
Thus Manual is also available in French and on Milk 2020’s Website at www.milk2020.ca
Disclaimer:
PLEASE NOTE THIS PUBLICATION IS INTENDED AS A GUIDE ONLY.
Reference to any specific process, method, product or service does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or
endorsement of it. Milk 2020 makes no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the usefulness, completeness, or
accuracy of any processes, methods or fitness for a particular purpose or merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service or
other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this Manual. The user assumes all risk, whether
recommendations are followed or not. Dairy producers are advised before altering the management of the bedding or manure on
their dairy farm they consult an appropriate dairy management specialist familiar with their specific dairy farm operation.
Please note, terms in bold font in the text of the document are defined in the Glossary section of document starting on page 57.
3List of Photos:
Cow Bedding Mattresses - Frank VanderLann … 36
Well bedded stall
Cows using Ulti-Mats
Home Made Pack Mat – Pascobac Holsteins - Hugh O’Neil … 38-39
Spaghetti Rubber used in homemade pack mats
Sand-bedded stalls over homemade pack mats
Sand removed, showing surface of homemade mat
Depth of pack mat surface
Depth of rear curb
Bedding Trailer Sand Shooter – Lawrence's Dairy Farm Ltd … 41
Filling the Sand Shooter
Filling the stalls
Sand Manure Auger – Waddy and Colpitts - David Waddy … 42-43
View of manure cross gutter and auger
McLanahan Horizontal Manure Auger
Cross-gutter collection alley
Sand and Manure Handling System (Pump and Cross Gutter Shuttle) - Annavale Farms – Danny Clain … 44
TEAMCO Manure Push System
Jamesway Gutter Cat Scraper
New barn with sand bedding
New barn with sand bedding
Lagoon February 2012
TEAMCO system pushing manure
Manure Pit with Sand-lane/Manure Discharge – Lonsview Farm Ltd. - Daryl and Eric Walker … 45-46
Sand-lane/manure discharge
Sand-lane/manure discharge
Lagoon manure storage with floating bridge
Lagoon with liquids removed
Loader and spreader
100 HP Electric Lagoon Pump – Waddy and Colpitts - David Waddy … 47-48
Pump being mounted in lagoon
Pump mounted in lagoon
Pump loading liquid manure tank
Pump motor and electrical panel
Pump agitating lagoon
The arrows indicate wear spots
Wear due to sand-laden manure
List of Figures:
Figure 1: Box and whisker plot of lying times for the 5 different bedding types evaluated ... 35
4List of Tables:
Table 1: Estimated Annual Bedding Costs in New Brunswick, (Dollars per cow per year) … 9
Table 2: Comparison of the Absorbency of Common Bedding Materials … 13
Table 3: Description of the herds completing New Brunswick bedding survey … 24
Table 4: Summary of bedding materials and conditioners used by herds completing the survey ... 25
Table 5: Milk quality among responders and non-responders to the mail-out/telephone survey … 25
Table 6: Milk quality parameters for tie and free stall herds among the 104 herds answering that question ... 26
Table 7: Milk quality by bedding type used ... 26
Table 8: Ability of various bedding types and combinations to support the growth of streptococci bacteria over a 4 day incubation
period ... 26
Table 9: Ability of various bedding types and combinations to support the growth of Gram-negative bacteria over a 4 day
incubation period ... 27
Table 10: Ability of various bedding types and combinations to support the growth of Klebsiella bacteria over a 4 day incubation
period ... 27
Table 11: Bedding count ranks for growth of primarily Streptococci for the five bedding materials on days 2, 4 and 14 ... 32
Table 12: Bedding count ranks for growth of gram-negative bacteria for the five bedding materials on days 2, 4 and 14 ... 32
Table 13: Bedding count ranks for growth of primarily Klebsiella for the five bedding materials on days 2, 4 and 14 ... 32
Table 14: Teat end bacteria count ranks for growth for Streptococcal, Gram-negative and Klebsiella on day four of the trial ... 33
Table 15: Culture results for 1481 quarter milk samples from 25 cows collected every 14 days during the 5 month trial period ...33
Table 16: Number of new mastitis infections by species during the five month trial period ... 34
Table 17: New mastitis infections by bedding type for five bedding materials used on 25 cows during 5 28-day study periods ... 34
Table 18: Summary statistics for lying times for the five different bedding types evaluated ... 34
Table 19: Fixed Equipment Costs for bedding stalls on the three farms studied ... 40
Table 20: Variable Equipment Costs for bedding stalls on the three farms studied ... 41
Table 21: Total Costs for bedding stalls on the three farms studied … 41
5Executive Summary:
The objective of the New Brunswick Dairy Bedding Manual is to provide dairy farmers with comparative information on the
different bedding options available to them. This Manual came about as a direct result of the critical shortage of wood based bedding
materials experienced during the first decade of 2000 due to a down turn in the forest industry and a simultaneous increase in demand for
wood byproducts for biofuels. Milk 2020, in keeping with its mission to encourage the sustainable growth of New Brunswick's dairy
industry, recognized this bedding challenge as sufficiently serious that in 2009 it partnered with the Atlantic Veterinary College to look
for solutions. Jointly a research project was completed to find alternate, local, reliable, inexpensive, non-disease promoting sources of
bedding materials for New Brunswick dairy farmers. As well, over the past two years a number of individual dairy operations in New
Brunswick have undertaken adaptive research initiatives related to bedding and manure management designed to improve animal health
and cow comfort on their farms. MILK 2020 felt it important to communicate the results of these research initiatives to all New
Brunswick dairy producers to ensure they could make informed decisions regarding the best bedding material option for their individual
operation. In preparing the Manual, Milk 2020 has also endeavored to include within it other bedding related information that was
considered useful to provincial dairy producers.
Chapter 1 provides a broad overview of the economics of bedding management, the impact of bedding on animal health and cow
comfort and an overview of current manure management processes. The cost and availability of bedding fluctuates and good consistent
bedding can be hard to find and expensive to purchase. In addition, transportation costs can be as much or more than the cost of the actual
bedding material, thus proximity of bedding source has a big impact on overall bedding costs. Based on New Brunswick experience
bedding costs can vary between $8 and $127 per cow per year.
A growing body of research has demonstrated that the laying surface dairy producers provide for their cows impacts animal
health, in particular the incidence of mastitis. Mastitis is caused by microorganisms entering the quarter(s) from a number of sources, one
of the most important being the environment, in particular the bedding cows are exposed to on a daily basis. The risk of developing new
mastitis cases is directly related to the number of bacteria that are present in the bedding. Bacterial numbers are in turn influenced by such
factors as the level of nutrients available, pH, temperature, and moisture levels within the bedding. Organic bedding materials, such as
straw, hay, shavings, sawdust, dried manure solids, recycled newspaper and peat moss contain abundant nutrients for bacterial growth
thus increasing the risk of environmental mastitis cases. On the other hand inorganic bedding, such as sand or silica, do not readily support
bacterial growth and thus can act to reduce the risk of environmental mastitis. However, once inorganic bedding becomes soiled with
manure and urine, bacterial growth can be supported. Individual bacterial species vary as to the pH level they prefer. Bedding additives
can be used to control bacterial populations by altering the pH environment of the bedding. As the temperature and humidity levels rise in
bedding materials, for example during the summer months, growth of mastitis causing bacteria is markedly enhanced. Given dairy cattle
spend 40-65% of their time lying down, the type, quality and management of the bedding material is therefore a significant factor in the
development of environmental mastitis.
Research has demonstrated that the blood flow to the udder is increased by between 25-28% when dairy cows lie down compared
to when they are standing.51,52 This increased blood flow to the udder is converted into additional milk production by the cow. Thus
encouraging increased lying time of cows by enhancing the comfort of their stalls can directly translate into increased milk production for
the dairy operator. In addition, increased lying times also reduce stress on feet and legs contributing to a subsequent decline in the
incidence of lameness. The single most significant factor in determining cow comfort is the stall base that forms the cow’s actual resting
surface. Simply put, bedding enhances cow comfort by keeping cows dry and clean while preventing injury to udders, feet and legs.
Comfortable stall bases can be made of entirely bedding material as is the usual case with sand or a combination of an adequate quantity
of bedding material placed on top of a stall mat or mattress. Once a well-bedded surface is provided, it must then be properly maintained
by the removal of soiled bedding and the addition of fresh bedding. Thus by providing a soft, dry resting area, cows will maximize their
stall lying time and in turn their milk production while at the same time minimizing the risk of new mastitis infections.
A wide range of manure handling systems is utilized across modern dairy facilities. The equipment suitable to handle manure in
any particular operation is determined by the characteristics of the manure itself which in turn is dependent to a great degree by the
bedding material(s) used in that operation. For example manure systems designed to handle organic bedding materials such as straw or
sawdust as a general rule do not adequately handle sand-laden manure. It cannot be stressed enough when contemplating using sand as
bedding it is paramount that the manure handling system be designed to specifically handle sand-laden manure.
Chapter 2 describes the characteristics of the ideal bedding material, compares in detail organic and inorganic bedding types as well as
provides extensive details related to the advantages, disadvantages, economics and guidelines for each individual bedding material. For
example the ideal bedding should have the following characteristics:
• Able to readily absorb large quantities of fluids, thus keeping the stall dry.
• Able to absorb ammonia and other odours.
• Free of dust as much as possible.
• Provide cushion for the cow’s feet.
• Provide soft comfortable surface for cows to lay down on.
6• Act as a non-abrasive lubricant between animal and stall base in particular cow’s knees and hock joints.
• Provide non-slippery surface for cows when they recline or get up.
• Absorb nutrients in feces.
• Contains low numbers of environmental mastitis causing organisms in raw state.
• Readily available at reasonable costs.
• Easily handled and stored in raw state.
• Easily handled when contaminated with feces and urine.
• Environmentally friendly when spread on land.
Some bedding materials have advantages in some areas and disadvantages in others, however, no bedding material offers excellence in all
areas. It is essential to note, regardless of what bedding is used, the management of that bedding material is as important as the
choice of any particular bedding material. Inadequate management of any bedding material will contribute to animal health, cow
comfort and milk quality issues for the dairy producer.
Chapter 3 describes the results of the research project carried out by the Atlantic Veterinary College entitled Researching Quality
Livestock Bedding Products for NB Dairy Farms. The project was designed to assess alternate bedding materials for New Brunswick
dairy farmers from the perspective of on-farm milk quality, the risk of disease associated with each alternative, with particular emphasis
on mastitis as well as cow comfort. The project had two phases, the first being an on-farm survey of New Brunswick dairy producers to
determine the variety of bedding materials used in the province in 2009 followed by a global literature review of different bedding
materials. The second phase involved measuring, under field conditions, the ability of five bedding materials to promote the growth of
mastitis associated bacteria. For the reason that non-bedding factors such as length of time in the stall, humidity on the day the bedding
was sampled and stall usage have a big influence on bacterial growth within bedding, laboratory simulation studies were carried out on the
five bedding materials to compare their abilities to support bacterial growth. The five bedding materials were selected based on previous
research and industry priorities and included peat, wood shavings, sand, straw and recycled manure solids. The study also set out to
compare teat end bacteria counts on cows exposed to each material, new mastitis rates and cow comfort for the candidate bedding
materials.
Research results from this project demonstrated that for all bacterial types, peat clearly supported the lowest amounts of bacterial
growth. Wood and sand were generally intermediate in their support of bacterial growth, with the straw and recycled manure clearly
supporting a very high number of bacteria of all species. The magnitude of the bacterial count differences is biologically important.
Meaning, there is a great difference in the capacity of the bedding materials to support bacterial growth above important risk thresholds
established in the scientific literature. These differences can be visualized graphically in the full report. In this study peat was clearly an
excellent bedding for retarding bacterial growth. For the four organic bedding materials (peat, wood, straw and manure) the back one third
of the stall was cleaned out daily. This is a recommended procedure for organic bedding in tiestalls and freestalls. For the sand-bedded
stalls the bedding depth was two inches, with the material groomed daily and new bedding added, but not all bedding removed. This is
not typical of sand management procedures in deep pack freestalls where most of the previous research has been conducted. Sand was
expected to be the gold standard material. However, under the conditions of this research project, it was inferior to peat and wood. These
results need to be verified for deep bedded freestall sand herds.
Results for teat swab data and new mastitis infections were similar to the bedding bacteria count data, although the differences
were less clear statistically. Peat and wood generally were superior with straw and recycled manure solids inferior. With respect to cow
comfort, all bedding materials appeared to result in acceptable lying times and there were no statistical differences among them.
Numerically, peat had the longest lying times and sand had the shortest. Overall, peat performed extremely well. Further evaluation is
necessary to determine if the handling characteristics of peat make it a viable option for New Brunswick dairy farmers.
The objective of Chapter 4 is to convey the results of the adaptive research projects related to cow comfort, bedding and manure
management carried out on a number of New Brunswick dairy farms over the past several years. These projects demonstrated that:
• Cow mattresses, such as those commercially available, can significantly increase cow comfort and improve milk quality while
reducing the amount of bedding required.
• Dual chambered waterbeds in combination with dried manure solids for bedding have worked well in one new dairy facility.
Owners report that hock joint injuries have been eliminated, cull rates have been reduced, freestalls remain dry and the labor required
to keep the stalls clean has been reduced.
• Producers can construct on-site stall mat systems, which if constructed of the right materials and correctly assembled, can perform as
well as commercially available products.
• Manure press technology can be used successfully to dewater raw cow manure which can then be used as a quality organic bedding
material that when used in combination with dual chamber water beds resulted in improved cow comfort.
7• A trailer mounted sand shooter proved to be a convenient, efficient and cost effective method to bed freestalls with sand in a large
dairy farm operation thus ensuing that this very important job was done on a regular and timely basis.
• A commercially available manure auger conveyance system worked well and proved to be an effective and low maintenance method
to transport manure from the cross collection gutter to a manure transfer system.
• The use of air under high pressure can be used to move sand-laden manure through a transfer pipe from an in-barn holding tank to a
manure lagoon without the use of any mechanical pumping equipment.
• One of the simplest methods to transport sand-laden manure to the manure storage was via a sand-lane in which gravity efficiently
moved the sand-laden manure to the storage lagoon on a year around basis. This method brings with it the added economic
advantages that mechanical equipment is not required to be purchased or maintained.
• A 100 HP electric three phase motor proved to be a more energy efficient method of powering a manure lagoon pump, when
compared to the traditional costs of running the pump with a diesel tractor.
Chapter 5 summarizes the future bedding and manure management research needs in New Brunswick, from the perspective of bedding
material performance, management of sand-laden manure as well as new equipment or technologies that can improve the utilization of
traditional bedding materials.
Chapter 6 lists the details of the articles referenced in the global literature review that was carried out as a component of the Researching
Quality Livestock Bedding Products for NB Dairy Farms. In addition, this chapter provides references for other specific points made
in the Manual as well as listing a number of useful websites dealing with bedding materials and manure management.
8Chapter 1
Introduction:
In New Brunswick the first decade of 2000 was characterized by a down turn in the forest industry which was coupled with a
simultaneous increase in demand for wood byproducts such as sawdust for biofuels. These two factors created a critical shortage of
bedding materials for dairy herds in Atlantic Canada that traditionally used sawdust or shavings for their primary bedding material. Milk
2020, in keeping with its mission to encourage the sustainable growth of New Brunswick's dairy industry, recognized this problem as
sufficiently critical that it decisively took action to assist producers with this challenge. In 2009, Milk 2020 in partnership with the
Atlantic Veterinary College designed and carried out a research project with the objective of attempting to find alternate, local, reliable,
inexpensive, non-disease promoting sources of bedding material for New Brunswick dairy farmers. As well, over the past two years a
number of dairy operations in New Brunswick have undertaken adaptive research initiatives related to bedding and manure management
on their individual farms to improve manure handling, animal health and cow comfort. Given the significance bedding management has
on the profitability of dairy farms, MILK 2020 felt it important to communicate the results of these research endeavors to individual dairy
producers through the development and circulation of a New Brunswick Dairy Bedding Manual.
The objectives of this Manual are:
• To provide dairy farmers with comparative information on different bedding options, enabling them to make informed choices in the
selection and management of bedding materials for their milking cows;
• To assist dairy producers in reducing their bedding costs;
• To improve animal health, in particular reducing the incidence of environmental mastitis;
• To increase the level of cow comfort on New Brunswick dairy farms;
• To act as a technology transfer tool, by communicating the results of recent research studies or adaptive research activities carried out
on New Brunswick dairy farms, for all provincial dairy producers;
• To demonstrate the value of on-farm adaptive research and technology transfer;
• To highlight specific areas where additional research into bedding and manure management would be beneficial for the dairy
industry.
Bedding procurement and management is a costly and time consuming component of dairy farming that can have significant
impacts on the profitability of the entire dairy operation. In addition to taking into the account the cost of the different bedding materials
available, the decision on which bedding material to use needs to factor in animal health, cow comfort, and manure management.
Economics:
The cost and availability of bedding fluctuates and good consistent bedding can be hard to find and expensive to purchase. In
addition, transportation costs can be as much or more than the cost of the actual bedding material, thus proximity of bedding source has a
big impact on overall bedding costs. Based on New Brunswick experience bedding costs can vary between $8 and $127 per cow per year.
Table 1 provides a comparison of annual bedding costs by bedding type.
Table 1: Estimated Annual Bedding Costs in New Brunswick
(Dollars per cow per year)
Bedding Shavings/ Straw Sand Peat Dried Manure
Type Sawdust Solids
Range $78 - $127 $44 - $110 $8 - $127* $72- $101 NA
of Costs
Average $100 $72 $75* $89 NA
Cost
*Please note, only one dairy operator reported a cost rate of $8 per cow per year for sand. If this
uncharacteristically low cost figure was removed from the calculations the adjusted range was $43 - $127
with the modified average cost being $83 per cow per year.
9Animal Health:
A growing body of research has demonstrated that the laying surface dairy producers provide for their cows impacts animal health, in
particular the incidence of mastitis in individual animals and on a herd basis. Mastitis is defined as an inflammation of the mammary
gland, regardless of cause, which results in a significant increase in inflammatory cells in the milk. These inflammatory cells can be
measured by the Somatic Cell Count (SSC) in the milk of an individual animal or on a herd basis through bulk tank testing. The most
common cause of mastitis in cows is a microbial species that enters the gland and initiates the inflammation in the affected quarter(s).
Over 140 species of microbial agents are capable of producing mastitis, but only 20-25 are important causative agents on a routine basis in
dairy herds. These agents are broadly characterized into three distinct groups depending on where they are commonly found. First,
infectious or contagious agents are found living in the quarters of infected cows and are transmitted from these cows to uninfected cows
through some form of mechanical means such as udder wash cloths, milker’s hands and faulty milking equipment. The most common
infectious bacteria in this category are Staphylococcus aureus, and Streptococcus agalactiae. The second source of bacteria is
organisms normally living on the teat skin which enter the gland through the teat canal. The most common example of this group is
coagulase-negative staphylococcus species. Finally, the third source of organisms is the cow’s external environment with one of the
most important sources being the bedding cows are exposed to on a daily basis. The most common environmental agents are the
environmental streptococcus species, most notably Streptococcus uberis and dysgalactiae, the coliforms most importantly E. coli and
Klebsiella species and finally Trueperella pyogenes.
Environmental microbes multiply in the bedding material which allows them to come into close and prolonged contact with the cow’s
teats. Bacterial growth in bedding depends on a number of factors including the level of nutrients available, pH, temperature, and moisture
levels. The availability of nutrients supporting bacterial growth varies significantly between organic and inorganic bedding, the two major
classes of bedding materials. Organic materials are those which originate from previously living plants and for that reason contain
abundant nutrients for bacterial growth in particular carbon and nitrogen. The most common organic bedding materials include straw, hay,
shavings, sawdust, recycled newspaper, recycled manure solids and peat moss. The bacterial populations in clean unused organic bedding
can vary significantly between individual materials, for example clean unused sawdust can be heavily laden with Klebsiella species. On
the other hand inorganic, or as some refer to them as nonnutritive bedding materials, such as sand or silica come from non-living mineral
constituents and thus do not readily support bacterial growth. However, once inorganic bedding becomes soiled with manure, urine or any
other organic material bacterial growth can be supported. Individual bacterial species vary as to the pH level they prefer. Bedding
additives can be used to control bacterial populations by altering the pH environment of the bedding while simultaneously acting as a
drying agent, reducing the moisture levels of the bedding material. As the temperature and humidity levels rise in bedding materials
during the summer months, growth of mastitis causing bacteria is markedly enhanced. This can be a particular problem in the Atlantic
region with its higher summer humidity levels. Consequently in months of high humidity, maintenance of adequate bedding volumes in
stalls is even more critical to reduce bedding moisture concentrations, thus helping to control the bacterial numbers that the cow’s teats
contact. Given dairy cattle spend 40-65% of their time lying down, the type, quality and management of the bedding material is therefore
a significant factor in the development of environmental mastitis. Research has demonstrated failure to provide clean, dry housing
conditions increases the risk of environmental mastitis infections, which may result in higher bulk tank somatic cell counts.38 Furthermore,
as dairy producers strive to increase this lying time to augment milk production, bedding selection and management takes on additional
significance.
The practice of storing excess bedding at front of freestalls, and subsequently raking this bedding to the rear of the stalls, increases the risk
of new environmental mastitis cases. While piled at the front of the stall the bedding material’s moisture content increases as it absorbs
humidity from the barn and water vapor from the cow’s exhaled breath. This increased moisture content enhances the ability of the
bedding material to support the growth of bacteria. In addition, the excess bedding at the front of the stall can become contaminated with
manure from the cows’ front feet which further increases the risk of exposing the teat ends to large numbers of bacterial organisms when
this material is raked to the back of the stall.
Cow Comfort:
Research has demonstrated that the blood flow to the udder is increased by between 25-28% when dairy cows lie down compared to when
they are standing.51,52 This increased blood flow to the udder is converted into additional milk production by the cow. Thus encouraging
increasing lying time by cows in stalls, by enhancing the comfort of those stalls, can directly translate into increased herd milk production.
In addition, increased lying times also reduces stress on feet and legs contributing to a subsequent decline in the incidence of lameness. A
number of stall design features such as length, width, location of positioning devices etc. all contribute to stall comfort but the single most
significant component is that of the stall base that forms the cow’s actual resting surface. Simply put, bedding enhances cow comfort by
keeping cows dry and clean while preventing injury to udders, feet and legs.
Research has shown that optimally cows should be lying 12-14 hours per day and comfortable surfaces will encourage this. A
comfortable surface to the cow appears to be a soft stall base combined with an amount of bedding material. Comfortable stall bases can
be made of entirely bedding material as is the usual case with sand or a combination of stall mat or mattress plus an adequate quantity of
bedding material on top. Research indicates cows prefer lying surfaces with more bedding, and they spend more time lying down in well-
bedded stalls than in those with little or no bedding.11,33,34 Once a well-bedded surface is provided, it must then be properly maintained by
the removal of soiled bedding and the addition of fresh bedding. It has been shown that lying time on sand bedding declined by
10approximately 10 minutes per day for every 1 cm of reduction in the depth of sand.11,8 In addition, a decline in bedding quantity leads to a
rise in moisture levels with use by cows, resulting in increased bacterial counts on both the bedding and the teats. It has also been
reported that bedding with less moisture is preferentially preferred by cows.11 The risk of interdigital dermatitis also increases with
decreasing amounts of bedding.4 Cows housed in deep-bedded sand stalls have a lower prevalence of lameness than cows housed on
mattresses with little or no bedding.5 In addition to providing a comfortable resting place the stall base and bedding on top of it must
provide the cow with adequate traction to facilitate her lying down and getting up in the stall.53 Finally, adequate bedding in the stall
reduces the friction between the stall base and the cow’s extremities, in particular the hock and knees joints when the cow is rising or
lying down. This is particularly important for cows that are lame. When cows with sore feet have to rise or lie down on a firm unyielding
stall surface the pain associated with the process leads to increased time spent standing in the stall between lying bouts, fewer lying
sessions per day and a decrease in lying time and thus a decrease in milk production.54 In summary, by providing a soft, dry stall resting
area, cows will maximize their stall lying time and in turn their milk production.
Manure management:
A wide range of manure handling systems is utilized across modern dairy facilities. The equipment suitable to handle manure in any
particular operation is determined by the characteristics of the manure itself which is determined to a great degree by the bedding
material(s) used in that operation. Regardless of systems used they all have five major component areas, namely collection, transfer,
possible treatment, storage and field application. This Manual deals only with bedding and manure within the dairy facility thus manure
storage and field application are not discussed.
Manure collection can be accomplished by four basic methods. For tiestall barns, manure is generally allowed to collect in gutters behind
the cows and removed from the gutter by an in-gutter chain linked system of paddles that moves the manure to a transfer pit or places the
manure on a storage stack or directly into a manure spreader. In freestall barns manure is collected by scraping, under-floor tanks or flush
systems. Scraping can be accomplished by mechanical scraper systems where a scraping blade is attached to a floor cable or chain that in
turn is connected to a power unit that moves the blade back and forth. The blade is dragged over the surface of the alley to pull the manure
to a collection channel at the end of the alley. When being pulled, the blade extends across the entire alley between two curbs. The blade
is then drawn back to the opposite end of the alley in a collapsed configuration to ensure manure is only pushed one way. Scraped manure
falls into a cross barn collection channel equipped with a barn cleaner or auger to move it on to a transfer point. Automatic scraping
systems allow for frequent removal of manure from the building which improves cow hygiene and decreases daily labor requirements. In
addition, small tractors or skid-steer loaders can be used to scrape alley way manure into the transfer pit. Skid-steers offer the advantage
of being able to clean in cramped areas thus reducing manual cleaning. However, tractor or skid-steers units are more labor intensive than
automatic scrapers. Manure can also be collected in a tank below a slatted floor where either the livestock activity or automatic or robotic
scrapers push the manure through the openings in the floor. Robotic scrapers, guided by floor mounted transponders, have the advantages
of being able to handle complex barn alley layouts, as well as being extremely cow friendly. In a flush system of collection, high volumes
of fresh water, or water recycled from a manure pit or lagoon flows down slopped gutters or alleys arranged from one end of the barn to
the other. The water scours the manure from the gutter or alley and carries it directly to a transfer pit or lagoon by gravity flow. However,
concerns have been raised that flush systems may increase the circulation of disease causing organisms throughout the barn.56 Flush
cleaning systems are not common in New Brunswick dairy facilities.
Transfer involves moving manure from the collection pit to storage via a transfer pipe or channel. The manure enters and is pushed along
the pipe by gravity, centrifugal pump, piston pump, pneumatic pump or pressurized air. Gravity systems offer the advantage of requiring
no mechanical investment or maintenance but must be designed properly to avoid impeding manure flow by abrupt changes in transfer
pipe direction. For systems relying on mechanical intervention, pump selection is one of the most critical design decisions in the entire
manure handling system. The pump must be able to handle the bedding type in use as well as the volume of manure being produced in a
particular facility. Incorrect pump selection or inadequate pump size can lead to the unwelcome circumstance of a plugged transfer pipe.
For example, centrifugal pumps cannot handle manure with solids content greater than 10-12%, whereas piston and pneumatic pumps can
handle manure with a higher solids level. Some pump manufacturers equip their pump’s discharge pipe with a guillotine valve that
provides for the application of compressed air to the transfer pipe to assist the movement of manure into the storage facility. Piston pumps
with hydraulic guillotine valves have proven unsuccessful on some New Brunswick farms with sand-laden manure.
Collection pits may also be used when solids are to be separated from the liquid portion of the manure. Solid separation can be
mechanical, in which the liquid portion of the manure is squeezed though a screen or via a screw within a high pressure chamber. This
dewatering process provides a relatively dry solid material that may be reused as a bedding material. The recycling of a product already
produced on the farm can have significant cost advantages compared to the purchase of off-farm bedding materials.
11Chapter 2
Comparison of Individual Bedding Materials:
It is important to understand, regardless of what bedding is used, the management of that bedding material is as important as the choice of
any particular material. Inadequate management of any bedding material will contribute to poor animal health, lower cow comfort and
increased milk quality issues for the dairy producer.
(i) The Ideal bedding material should have the following characteristics:
• Able to readily absorb large quantities of fluids, thus keeping the stall dry.
• Able to absorb ammonia and other odours.
• Free of dust as much as possible.
• Provide cushioning for cow’s feet.
• Provide soft comfortable surface for cows to lie down on.
• Acts as a non-abrasive lubricant between animal and stall base, in particular cow’s knees and hock joints.
• Provide non-slippery surface for cows when they lie down and get up.
• Absorb nutrients in feces.
• Contains low numbers of environmental mastitis causing organisms in raw state.
• Readily available at reasonable costs.
• Easily handled and stored in raw state.
• Easily handled when contaminated with feces and urine.
• Environmentally friendly when spread on land.
Some bedding materials are better in some areas than others, however no bedding material offers excellence in all areas.
(ii) General comparison of organic and inorganic bedding types:
Organic:
• Common examples are straw, hay, sawdust/shavings, peat, dried manure solids, recycled paper products.
• Provide energy for growth of microorganisms particularly nitrogen and carbon.
• Result in additional nutrients being brought onto the farm, adding nutrient management concerns.6
• Work well with liquid manure handling systems because most of it is broken down by microbial activity.35
• Some organic bedding materials start out with lower bacterial concentrations than others. However, research shows, depending on
the level of management of the stall bedding, that within 24-48 hours of being in the stall, bacterial levels in all organic bedding
materials rise to similar concentrations.6
• Organic bedding materials contain significantly higher bacterial counts than inorganic materials.
• Organic materials such as straw, corn fodder, and sawdust often contain greater than one million colony forming units per gram of
coliform bacteria when used as bedding.
• The control of bacterial populations in organic materials often involves intensive management of stalls and bedding.16
• Studies have shown that their natural ability to absorb and retain fluids leads to significantly higher moisture levels which supports
the growth of environmental bacteria better than inorganic materials such as high quality sand.18,21,10
• Organic products such as sawdust and dried manure solids are considered to provide optimal growing conditions for Klebsiella
pnemonia.27,18,36,13
Inorganic:
• Common examples are sand and silica.
• Initially do not support bacterial growth, however once any type of bedding becomes soiled with fecal matter and urine, bacterial
growth can be supported.6
• Since the bedding material is not broken down by bacterial action it can sometimes cause a problem in liquid manure handling
systems unless the system is specifically designed to handle inorganic bedding.
• Studies suggest that use of inorganic bedding such as sand decreases teat end exposure to environmental mastitis pathogens.
• Use of inorganic bedding materials appears to be most advantageous during summer and fall months when gram-negative bacterial
populations were greatest in bedding for lactating cows.18
• Studies have shown that organic bedding materials had significantly higher moisture content and thus supported the growth of
environmental bacteria better than inorganic materials. 18,21,10
12• Environmental hygiene and the use of inorganic bedding such as sand are recommended to control Klebsiella species.
One of the most significant characteristics of bedding is its ability to absorb fluids. Table 2 below compares the absorbency of common
bedding materials.
Table 2: Comparison of the Absorbency of Common Bedding Materials57
Bedding Material Liters of Water Absorbed
per 45.3 Kgs of Dry Bedding
Sawdust (pine) 113
Sawdust (hardwood) 68
Wood Shavings (pine) 91
Wood Shavings (hardwood) 68
Wood Chips (pine) 136
Oat Straw (combined) 113
Oat Straw (chopped) 109
Wheat Straw (combined) 100
Wheat Straw (chopped) 95
Rye Straw 95
Barley Straw 95
Sand 11
Hay 136
Peat 455
13SHAVINGS/SAWDUST:
General:
• Historically used for years in tiestalls and freestalls.
Advantages:
• Has been shown to reduce the risk of Streptococcus uberis, compared to other beddings such as straw or peat.36
Disadvantages:
• Fine saw dust can be very dusty.
• Becoming more expensive as being used for energy/heating source.
• Tends to decompose slowly thus does not make particularly good crop fertilizer.
• Supply becoming more limited as forestry sector suffers.
• Is an organic material, thus capable of supporting bacterial growth particularly gram-negative bacteria especially Klebsiella species.
• May have Klebsiella species present in notable numbers in clean samples even prior to contamination by urine and feces.
• Initial bacterial counts in kiln-dried shavings will be lower than in moist sawdust but with manure and urine contamination this
advantage is lost.
• Wood products, such as sawdust and shavings, often contain the greatest number of coliform bacteria and have been found to be
heavily contaminated with Klebsiella species.
• Sawdust and wood shavings continue to be popular choices as bedding despite evidence that outbreaks of coliform mastitis within a
herd are commonly attributed to contaminated bedding. 16
• New Brunswick research experience shows this bedding material should be avoided when dealing with streptococcal or gram-
negative bacterial mastitis on a herd basis in particular environmental mastitis caused by Klebsiella species.
• New Brunswick simulation experiments indicated that there were higher rates of Streptococcal bacteria in wood based bedding than
in peat based bedding, on days 0, 2, 4, and 7.
• Often associated with outbreaks of coliform mastitis in herds.
• Will support growth of food borne pathogens such as E. coli 0157:H7 (hamburger disease agent).26
Economics:
• The costs associated with using shavings/sawdust in New Brunswick varies between $78 - $127 per cow per year, with the average
being $100.
Guidelines for Use:
• Dry sawdust/shavings absorb more fluids than wet sawdust/shavings, thus it is important to keep this bedding material dry prior to
use to maximize absorbency, in fact only half as much of these bedding materials are needed if they are kept dry.
• For tiestalls it is recommended the back one third of the stall be completely cleaned daily with additional bedding added to a level of
at least five centimeters (two inches).
• For freestalls, bedding in the stall should be groomed daily i.e. manure and urine removed from the stalls with new bedding added as
needed.
• During a mastitis outbreak or high risk time such as during the summer months, management steps should be intensified or bedding
additives considered.
14STRAW
General:
• Historically used for years in tiestalls to bed animals.
Advantages:
• Available on farm for grain growing dairy farmers.
• Available from other grain growers in New Brunswick or Atlantic Region.
• New Brunswick research experience shows it is an optimal bedding material when dealing with gram-negative or Klebsiella bacterial
mastitis on a herd basis.
Disadvantages:
• Does not absorb fluids easily.
• It is very bulky with large amounts required to provide adequate absorption.
• Can be rough to lie down on.
• Cows may eat some of the material but has limited nutritional value.
• New Brunswick research found fresh straw can be contaminated with high number of bacteria.
• New Brunswick research illustrated it supported high growth of bacteria after only six hours.
• Has been shown to support growth of Streptococcal bacteria.
• New Brunswick research experience shows this bedding material should be avoided when dealing with streptococcal mastitis on a
herd basis.
• Supported the growth of Staphylococcal aureus bacteria more readily than either peat or wood based bedding. 1
• May have Klebsiella species present in notable numbers in clean samples even prior to contamination by urine and feces.
• From a cow comfort point of view has been associated with more hock and claw lesions than in cows bedded with sand.
Economics:
• The costs associated with using straw in New Brunswick varies between $44 - $110 per cow per year, with the average being $72.
(Please note these figures were based on a small sample size).
Guidelines for Use:
• Use of chopped straw reduces the amount of straw required.69
• For tiestalls it is recommended the back one third of the stall be completely cleaned daily with additional bedding added to a level of
at least five centimeters (two inches).
• For freestalls, bedding in the stall should be groomed daily i.e. manure and urine removed from the stalls with new bedding added as
needed.
• During a mastitis outbreak or high risk time such as during the summer months, management steps should be intensified or bedding
additives considered.
15SAND
General:
• From an animal health standpoint sand is the best bedding for dairy cows, in fact it is considered the gold standard for bedding in
freestalls.
• The advantages of using sand as bedding for dairy cows is so great that alternative methods for the storage and handling must be
developed.
• The economic advantages include an improvement in milk quality, better hoof health, maximum cow comfort, and improved traction
in the barn alleyways.
• The benefit of sand bedding to the dairy industry has been well established; the improvement in udder health, foot health, and overall
cow comfort has been demonstrated many times.
• The main issue with using sand bedding has always been the transport and storage of sand-laden manure.
• Freestall dairy barns of all sizes can utilize sand.
Advantages:41
• Is inorganic and thus does not promote bacterial growth.
• Is not particularly absorbent, thus does not retain moisture to support bacterial growth.
• Is a bedding material that is available in most regions of New Brunswick and is typically priced competitively with other types of
bedding.
• Sand provides benefits of cow comfort, cow cleanliness, and general cow health.36
• Stalls bedded with sand produced cows that were cleaner and with less hock lesions and claw diseases than cows bedded on straw. 28
• Improves foot health compared to straw.
• Decreases teat end exposure to environmental mastitis pathogens in particular all three types of environmental mastitis causing
organisms.
• Under New Brunswick conditions sand appeared to be a good bedding choice for decreasing the growth of all three types of mastitis
causing bacteria. It did not readily support the growth of gram-negative bacteria like wood based and compost bedding did.
• Because it does not readily support the growth of gram-negative bacteria its use is most advantageous in summer and fall when gram-
negative bacteria are the greatest.
• Use is recommended to control environmental mastitis caused by Klebsiella species.
• New Brunswick research experience illustrated sand did have lower numbers of Klebsiella bacteria than sawdust on days 0, 2, 4, and
7 of the simulation studies.
• New Brunswick research experience shows it is an optimal bedding material when dealing with streptococcal, gram-negative and
Klebsiella bacterial mastitis on a herd basis.
• New Brunswick experience showed that in 2011 the average SCC of 10 sand bedded herds was 129,560 (min/max-73,417/196,041)
compared to the 2011 provincial average SCC of 231,048.
• Provides good surface drainage.
• Addition of sand-laden manure to heavy clay soils is advantageous for soil structure.
Disadvantages:41
• Very heavy, one cubic meter of sand weighs 1500kgs.
• Adds considerable weight to manure compared to traditional organic bedding materials.
• Extra weight of manure requires heavy-duty tires and frame capacity on manure spreading equipment.
• Not all sand is equal, comes in different size particles which can cause problems as coarser sand settles out of suspension more easily
than finer grained sand.
• Sand can be contaminated with clay or other impurities which can absorb moisture.
• Coarser grade sands are more abrasive to manure handling equipment.
• Fine sand can be tracked around by cows into the milking area.
• Can freeze quite hard when wet.
• Can potentially carry high counts of Streptococcus species.39,24
• Sand-laden manure can be characterized by in-consistent quality due to the separation of the sand and manure components.
• The issue of using sand for dairy cow bedding has been the transfer, storage, and spreading of sand-laden manure. The traditional
means of accomplishing these tasks with organic bedding have generally failed when used with sand-laden manure. Sand-laden
manure is abrasive on alley scrapers and manure pumps. It settles in manure transfer pipes and lagoons and is very difficult to agitate
for removal from the lagoon. All of these issues have created a bad image for sand that in many farmers' minds outweighs the obvious
advantages to the cow.
• Addition of sand-laden manure to sandy soils can be disadvantageous for soil structure.
16Economics:
• The costs associated with using sand in New Brunswick varies between $8 - $127 per cow per year, with the average being $75.
• Sand bedding for dairy cows is widely considered to be the gold standard. Work done at the University of Wisconsin has estimated
the advantage of bedding dairy cows with sand vs. rubber filled mattresses with organic bedding to be in the range of $1,200 per cow
per year. This advantage is a result of measurable increases in milk production, feed efficiency, improved cow comfort, and longer
herd life for individual animals. All of these parameters are critical to the profitability of today's dairy farm. The adoption rate of
using sand in new dairy facilities has been steady with the majority of the new facilities that have been constructed in New Brunswick
over the last five years converting to sand bedding. There also have been several conversions from rubber filled mattresses to sand in
existing facilities. The availability of sand bedding is also an advantage because sand used to make concrete (washed and screened) is
also an excellent source for dairy bedding. The cost per cow per year of sand-bedded barns is on average comparable to traditional
organic bedding sources such as straw, shavings or sawdust.
Guidelines for Use:41
• Important to use cloths for prepping cows housed on sand as opposed to using paper towels, to prevent abrasion of teats.
• Minimum depth of 4 inches with optimum being 6-8 inches.
• Slope sand ½ inch per foot from front of stall to rear curb.
• Important to monitor size particle size of sand.
• Coarse sand promotes rapid drainage, will not stick to cows but can be the cause of bruised knees and lameness in cows.
• Coarse sand can cause excessive wear of manure handling equipment in particular pumps.
• Best to use medium sand (not more than five percent of particles greater than 2mm) or fine sand (not more than five percent of
particles less than 1mm).41
• Extra fine, packs in freestall, does not dry on top and sticks to the udder.41
• Suggest sand used be less than 2% organic matter, washed and screened concrete or mortar sand.
• For tiestalls it is recommended the back one third of the stall be completely cleaned daily with additional bedding added to a level of
at least five centimeters (two inches).
• For freestalls, bedding in the stall should be groomed daily i.e. manure and urine removed from the stalls and bedding raked from the
front to the back of the stalls with new bedding added weekly.
• Aim to use 20 kg of sand per stall per day, this will result in maximum comfort for cow and will provide her with a clean stall.
• Reducing the amount to 10 kg of sand per stall per day will result in less comfort for cow, dirty stalls with exposure of rear curb
resulting in injuries to the hock.
• New Brunswick experience showed that in 2011 in 10 sand bedded herds usage per stall per day averaged 12.32 kgs (min/max-2.19-
25.00).
• In one study, consumption varied between 0.23 to 9.0 cubic meters per stall per year, with an average of 4.6 cubic yards per stall per
year assuming year long use.59
• Can be handled with skid-steer, but cows must be out of the alley ways which presents problems for herds using robotic milker units.
• Specially designed tractor bucket attachments, or side unloading aggregate wagons (sand shooters) are available, making distribution
to individual stalls much more efficient.
• Settling lanes can be designed or mechanical systems are available to recover useable sand enabling the recovered sand to be
recycled.
• Over time, manure from the cows’ hooves that is brushed off by the sand bedding, will accumulate to form an organic layer in the
sand initially six to eight inches below the top surface of the stall sand. With time this bacterially contaminated layer will rise closer
to the surface putting the udder and teat ends in close proximity to large numbers of bacteria. This contaminated layer must be
eliminated by removing the back one third of the stall’s sand to a depth of one foot. Ideally this removal should be carried out at least
annually preferably in the spring before the challenge of the warmer months.
• One of the most important factors to consider in using sand as a bedding material is the design of the system used to handle the sand-
laden manure. Based on New Brunswick experience manure handling systems designed to work with organic bedding materials do
not adapt well to transferring sand-laden manure. When considering using sand as a bedding material it is important to understand
that the manure system must be designed specifically to handle sand–laden manure.
17HAY
General:
• Has been used for many years as bedding material.
Advantages:
• Generally readily available.
• New Brunswick research experience shows it is an optimal bedding material when dealing with gram-negative or Klebsiella bacterial
mastitis on a herd basis.
Disadvantages:
• New Brunswick research experience shows this bedding material should be avoided when dealing with streptococcal mastitis on a
herd basis.
• Poor quality hay can be moldy which can increase risk of respiratory disease for animals and dairy producer.
Guidelines for Use:
• For producers that have been using dry hay for bedding, some of them unroll the round bales and chop them with their forage
harvesters to make a bedding material that is fine enough to use in freestall barns and which can be handled by their manure pumps
without plugging.
• For tiestalls it is recommended the back one third of the stall be completely cleaned daily with additional bedding added to a level of
at least two inches.
• For freestalls, bedding in the stall should be groomed daily i.e. manure and urine removed from the stalls with new bedding added as
needed.
• During a mastitis outbreak or high risk time such as during the summer months, management steps should be intensified or bedding
additives considered.
18You can also read
