Horns in cattle - KOBRA - Universität Kassel
Horns in cattle - KOBRA - Universität Kassel
Horns in cattle - KOBRA - Universität Kassel
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
In order to avoid frequent regroup<strong>in</strong>gs of the herd accord<strong>in</strong>g to performance level<br />
which lead to <strong>in</strong>creased agonistic <strong>in</strong>teractions, Menke and Waibl<strong>in</strong>ger (1999) suggest<br />
to use selection gates towards different feed<strong>in</strong>g areas where different energy levels are<br />
fed. Scheider (2010) found the majority (57%) of 61 farmers keep<strong>in</strong>g dry cows with<strong>in</strong><br />
the herd to avoid separation and re<strong>in</strong>troduction.<br />
Generally, concentrate feeders are seen as a potentially problematic resource<br />
regard<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>creased risks for horn-related <strong>in</strong>juries, especially at udder and vulva. The<br />
advice is to provide enhanced protection for the cows <strong>in</strong> the feed<strong>in</strong>g station by<br />
prolonged walls at the rear or, better, an enclos<strong>in</strong>g mechanism (Menke and<br />
Waibl<strong>in</strong>ger, 1999; Eilers et al., 2005; Schneider, 2008) and m<strong>in</strong>imum dimensions of<br />
80 cm wide and 240 cm long (Menke and Waibl<strong>in</strong>ger, 1999).<br />
An outdoor run provides supplemental withdrawal space (Menke and Waibl<strong>in</strong>ger,<br />
1999; Schneider, 2008) which is beneficial to reduce the frequency of agonistic<br />
<strong>in</strong>teractions (Menke et al., 2000). Schneider (2010) found <strong>in</strong> tendency less agonistic<br />
<strong>in</strong>teractions and <strong>in</strong>juries when a larger outdoor run (9m 2 /cow) was accessible <strong>in</strong><br />
comparison to a smaller (4.5 m 2 ) or no outdoor run.<br />
An unstructured ly<strong>in</strong>g area provides the possibility to flee fast, but at the same time<br />
ly<strong>in</strong>g animals can easier be attacked (Schneider, 2008). In structured ly<strong>in</strong>g areas, i.e.<br />
cubicles, the cows are better protected, but when attacked, usually have to retreat <strong>in</strong><br />
direction of the attack<strong>in</strong>g cow, that is to the rear of the cubicle. Therefore, Eilers et al.<br />
(2005) and Schneider (2008) recommend provision of cubicles with the possibility to<br />
flee forward. At the same time, it is assumed that horned cows need a larger front<br />
head lunge area (get-up-zone) of up to 100 cm (Fürschuss et al., 2004; Schneider,<br />
2008). This expla<strong>in</strong>s the higher cubicle lengths recommended for horned cows of<br />
2.85 m to 3.00 m (Table 2.2). Additionally, Menke and Waibl<strong>in</strong>ger (1999) advise<br />
aga<strong>in</strong>st cubicles on a raised base because they assume a higher risk for pushes aga<strong>in</strong>st<br />
the udder of the ly<strong>in</strong>g cow. Regard<strong>in</strong>g the unstructured ly<strong>in</strong>g area, Schneider et al.<br />
(2008) found <strong>in</strong> tendency less <strong>in</strong>teractions and less <strong>in</strong>juries with larger space<br />
allowances <strong>in</strong> the ly<strong>in</strong>g area (8 m²/cow vs. 4.5 m²).<br />
Tandem und butterfly milk<strong>in</strong>g parlours are recommended because they protect the<br />
cows from threats and pushes of other cows (Menke and Waibl<strong>in</strong>ger, 1999; Schneider,<br />
2008). It is also advised aga<strong>in</strong>st the feed<strong>in</strong>g of concentrate <strong>in</strong> the milk<strong>in</strong>g parlour<br />
11