International Journal of Livestock Research, Vol.

10 (7) July’2020
http://www.ijlr.org
eISSN: 2277-1964
NAAS Rating 2020 – 5.36

Review Article

A Review: Effect of Bedding Material on Production,

Reproduction and Health and Behavior of Dairy Animals
Amit Kumar Singh1*, Tripti Kumari1, Manmohan Singh Rajput1, Anusmita
Baishya1, Ninad Bhatt1 and Surjyakanta Roy2
1
Ph.D. LPM Scholar, Livestock Production Management Division, National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal,
Haryana, INDIA
2
PhD Agriculture Extension Scholar, Agriculture Extension Division, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New
Delhi, INDIA

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

How to cite this paper: Singh,

A., Kumari, T., Rajput, M., Baishya, A.,
Abstract
Bhatt, N., & Roy, S. (2020). A Review
:Effect of Bedding Material on Proper housing is necessary to obtain improved production, reproduction,
Production, Reproduction and Health health performances along with the well-being of dairy animals. Proper
and Behavior of Dairy Animals.
International Journal of Livestock bedding is an inevitable part of proper housing. It provides overall comfort,
Research, 10(7), 11-20. doi: encourages production performance, and helps in avoiding injuries and
http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20200207 lameness to the dairy animals. It is equally important to have proper bedding
073618
for better udder health of dairy animal. There can be various bedding materials
Received : Feb 07, 2020 for the animals like sand, wood shavings, rubberized mats, concrete floor, saw
Accepted : May 24, 2020 dust, straws, etc. Selecting a good bedding material is always advisable for
Published : Jul 31, 2020 better health, production and reproduction performance of dairy animals. New
approaches are being made to enhance the comfort level of dairy animals for
Copyright © Singh et al., 2020
which they are provided with suitable bedding materials. Selection of bedding
This work is licensed under the material may depend also upon various climatic conditions. This review
Creative Commons Attribution article enlightens the important research works done in this field for better
International License (CC BY 4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/ understanding and selection of proper bedding material for dairy animals.
licenses/by/4.0/
Keywords: Bedding Materials, Dairy Animals, Health, Production,
Reproduction
 Available @ http://ijlr.org/issue/vol-10-7-pp-11-20/

Introduction

In last two decades the focus on better quality milk production and well-being of animals have become the priority
of many modern farms. Better management conditions may improve the performance of dairy animals (Singh et al.,
2020a; Singh et al., 2020b). Good farm management should be adopted to increase the farm profitability (Kumari
et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2020c). To ensure longevity and long-term productive capability of dairy animals it is
necessary to provide healthy and comfortable environment to them. For this, highly mechanized farming practices
are coming into play which intensifies the animal production systems. In recent years, efforts have been made to
improve welfare and overall-health of dairy cows by adding a higher level of comfort regarding the housing
environment (Mishra et al., 2017). It has been investigated that housing system and resting surface have influence
on milk yield and reproductive performance similar to feeding and keeping methods in dairy herd (Singh et al.,
2020d). Good bedding and flooring provides comfortable area for animals to take rest and it also helps to improve
health and productive performance. Bedding improves the physical comfort of the floor (MauriceTuyttens, 2005).
Moreover, resting is prioritized over other behaviors by dairy cows. Cows that are deprived of lying show behavioral
and physiological disorders (Thomsen et al., 2012) which may be unpleasant and unhealthy for dairy animals.
Furthermore, it was remarked in a latest study that bedding material may introduce bacterial count in milk (Bradley
et al., 2018) leading to a potential concern for both human and animal health. Bedding material may be used as a
flooring material. It provides comfort to animal, encourages resting, contribute to udder health, milk quantity and
quality. It may also help in subsidizing injury and fatigue. Different factors involve in selecting a proper bedding
material for dairy animal housing. Availability of bedding materials should also be given importance while bedding
material selection. Climatic conditions of a particular region may considerably influence the type of bedding
material.

Proper reviews covering the different bedding materials on performances of dairy cows are very scanty. Therefore,
the present review has been made to cover latest studies done on production, reproduction, health, well-being and
behavioural aspects of dairy cows under different types of bedding materials.

Types of Bedding Material

There may be broadly two types of bedding materials namely, Organic and Inorganic bedding materials. Organic
bedding materials includes straw, wood shavings, hay, crop residues, saw dust (Bradley et al., 2018), composted
manure, wood chips (Chamberlain, 2018), etc. On the other hand, inorganic bedding materials include sand,
limestone, gypsum, rubber mattresses (Bradley et al., 2018), cement, etc. Wood shavings are generally mixed with
sawdust for improved aeration, compact ability, improved tilling process (Janni et al., 2006). Chipped wood usage
as bedding material may lead to injury due to sharp edges (Bewly et al., 2013).

Organic Bedding Materials

Pros Cons
Absorb moisture Reservoir of bacterial population
Compatible with manure handling systems Supports rapid bacterial growth
Readily available Mastitis infection is more
Cheaply available May lead to foul smell

Inorganic Bedding Materials

Pros Cons
Inert in nature Not readily available
Does not support the growth of bacteria Not compatible with manure handling systems

Bedding Material’s Characteristics

Comfort

First and foremost aim of bedding material is to provide overall comfort to the animals. It should promote the

12 International Journal of Livestock Research

 Singh et al., 2020

productivity and well-being of animal.

Particle Size

Particle size depends upon the type of bedding material. For sand it is 0.1 to 2mm, for wood shavings it is 2-4cm.
Large sand particle can cause discomfort and even injuries to animals whereas, very fine particles like that of
sawdust may cling to the animal’s skin and teats thereby causing itching and may cause contamination with
pathogens.

Moisture

Bedding material should be kept as dry as possible. Wet materials may become breeding place for microbes which
may be unhealthy for the animals. Wetness of bedding material depends upon the particle size. Small particle size
coupled with moisture makes it dense and compact Moisture characteristic is the main driver of environmental
mastitis to dairy animals when bedding is concerned (Fávero et al. 2015). It is difficult to control especially when
the ventilation facility is poor in animal house (Lobeck et al., 2011; Black et al., 2014). Proper ventilation and
sunlight exposure facility in animal house may help in adequately reducing moisture levels in bedding (Galama et
al., 2015; Leso et al., 2020). Bewley & Taraba (2013) recommended 40 to 60 % moisture in upper 15 cm layer of
bedding material.

Availability

Bedding materials should be economical (Leso et al., 2020), easily and locally available. Composted bedding
material may be required for area of 6m2/ cow to 15 m2/cow for free walking (Leso et al., 2020).

Inert

Bedding should not encourage bacterial growth, but organic matter such as wood shavings, straw and paper
byproducts do. They should be unpalatable to animals. Regular changing of bedding on an average of a week is
suggested if organic materials are incorporated. Depth of bedding may vary from 20 cm to 1 m as per the
management practice of the farm (Leso et al., 2020). However, (Bickert et al., 2000) suggested that a minimum of
15 cm bedding is necessary for good performance of dairy animals.

Climatic Conditions and Bedding Materials

Free stall barns require lesser bedding materials, provided better overall health in hotter climates than composted
bedding. Additionally, free stall barns are easier to manage than compost bedded barns (Bickert et al., 2000).
Composted bedding can be utilized in hot- humid conditions provided fan conditioning should be there (Bewley &
Taraba, 2017). Asian country’s dairy farms are coming up with free stall designs (Chamberlain, 2018). Chamberlain
(2018) also proposed in his review that in near days composted bedding will be tested for Australian climatic
conditions. However, there is a lack of research for composted bedding under tropical type of climate.

Effect of Bedding Materials on Health and Performance of Dairy Animals

It was found that bedding material does not affect body condition score (BCS) of dairy cows and also similar hygiene
score was noticed amongst different bedding materials in the barn (Shane et al., 2010). Poorly managed and
confinement housing can have the potential for environmental mastitis in milking cows as it exposes teats to high
levels of bacteria which may be present in the bedding material (Faull et al., 1996). Organic bedding materials tend
to contain higher levels of environmental bacteria, and bulk milk somatic cell than inorganic materials (Godden et
al., 2002; Rowbotham & Ruegg, 2016). It is reported that cows kept on concrete also had a higher risk of developing
heel erosions and were more likely to become lame, show higher claw growth and wear (Vanegas et al., 2006).
Health parameters like teat and udder wound, mastitis, fever and uterine infection cases were more in number in
concrete floor as compared to sand bedding material (Kumar et al., 2017). Mastitis is considered as one of the most
devastating problem for dairy industry (Kansal et al., 2020; Kumari et al., 2019; Bhakat et al., 2017). Udder injuries
or mastitis disease cases were found least in case of sand followed by rubber mat and concrete floor bedding
materials (Madke, 2007). Fecal prevalence of Escherichia coli was found to be less in case of sand bedded animal

International Journal of Livestock Research 13

 Available @ http://ijlr.org/issue/vol-10-7-pp-11-20/

as compared to saw dust bedded animals (Westphal et al., 2011). Flitz et al. (1978) observed the behavior of dairy
cows (German Black Pied, German Red Pied and Holstein- Friesian) which revealed that daily 4 % FCM yields in
winter were significantly higher in deep litter housing as compared to stall fed housing. In a study, Black et al.
(2013) found significantly higher milk in compost bedded (CB) cows than non CB cows.

Highest ammonia concentrations were seen in sand bedded animals whereas methane was emitted most in
composted bedding materials as compared to straw, free stall, wood chips as bedding materials (Leso et al., 2020).
Reason behind high ammonia emission in sand bedding may be due to absorption of more urine and faeces whereas
more methane emission in composted bedding may be due to the presence of more decomposed organic materials.

Bedding, Floor Type and Lameness

The effects of lameness, for the profitability of a dairy farm, are negative (Cha et al., 2010). Prolonged standing on
concrete is a major predisposing factor for lameness (Singh et al., 1993). Reports show that cases of recovery of
hook lesions, lesion severity, hoof lesion score, sole haemorrhages, heel horn erosions were found less in sand
bedded animals as compared to straw bedded animals (Norring et al., 2008). Usually hoof lesion are associated with
lameness cases in dairy animals (Kester et al., 2014) which has the potential for economic loss and poor welfare.
Kester et al. (2014) suggested that hock lesions may occur in dairy animals out of several reasons such as lesser
feeding space (Rutherford et al., 2008), lameness, no grazing facility, poor bedding in stalls of animals or it may
happen due to pathological conditions. High friction and abrasive hard bedding surfaces may lead to hook lesions
(Brenninkmeyer et al., 2012). In addition to this if upward projections are present over the bedding surface, on
continous rubbing with animal body may lead to the formation of lesions over the skin too (Kielland et al., 2009).
Rutherford et al. (2008) also remarked that the cows mated in early age (15 months) were at higher risk of hoof
leasion. Furthermore, Van Gastelen et al. (2011) reported higher prevalence of hock lesions on farms in which foam
mattresses was used as compared to farms using box compost, sand, or horse manure. Dermatitis, heel horn erosion,
white line hemmorhage, sole ulcer, white line separation cases were seen lesser on hoof health of tied dairy cows in
rubber slatted floor as compared to hard floor (Hultgren & Bergsten, 2001).

Hook lesions have been found associated to other health problems such as skin lesions, teat alterations, joint
problems, increased somatic cell count (SCC) (Regula et al., 2004; Fulwider et al., 2007) haemorrhages, swelling
and scabs (Livesey et al., 2002). This may lead to discomfort to dairy animals thereby adversely affecting their
overall performance. Premature culling, prolonged calving interval, cost of labour and treatments, change in milk
fat, and milk yield, unproductive future income may be the effect of lameness in dairy cows (Peake et al., 2011).
Risk of hook lesions is more prevalent in high producing cows than lower ones, especially during later stage of
lactation (≥270 days) (Potterton et al., 2011; Kielland et al., 2009), and increase in lactation number (Rutherford et
al., 2008).

Bedding Material and Reproductive Health

Association of repeat breeding cases with bedding material revealed that concrete floor had most cases followed by
sand and rubberized bedding material. Dystocia and Retained placenta cases were more in concrete and rubberized
floor and least in sand bedding (Kara et al., 2015). Gnyp and Utvinczuk (1993) observed more fertility rate in cows
housed with litter as compared to that in without litter housing. Lower somatic cell count (SCC) and higher oestrus
detection rates were shown in CB cows. Mounting activity for oestrus detection was markedly inhibited by slippery
floors than rough floor; however, softer floor like pasture based is preferred over hard bedding like concrete for
proper mounting activity (Palmer et al., 2010).

Effect of Bedding Materials on Behavior of Animals

Lying is an important behavior for cattle occupying approximately 50% of their daily time budget (Krohn &
Munksgaard, 1993). Cows prefer to lie down on soft bedding materials. It was found that number of lying bouts
can be considered as an important indicator of the quality of the bedding material provided (Manninen et al., 2008).
Further, lying times are lower and standing times are higher when dairy cow forced to use hard surfaces, specifically
concrete (Haley et al., 2001). It was seen that dairy cow prefers dry bedding more as compared to wet bedding and
it was also seen that cow lie down for more time during winter season than summer season (Reich et al., 2010).

14 International Journal of Livestock Research

 Singh et al., 2020

Daily Time Budget for Lactating Dairy Animals (Grant, 2004)

1) Eating 3 to 5 hr (9 to 14 meals/day)
2) Lying/resting 12 to 14hr
3) Ruminating 7 to 10 hr
4) Drinking 30 min
5) Management activities 2.5 to 3.5 hr
6) Social interactions 2 to 3 hr

Table 1: Effect of modified housing system on behavior of crossbred cows under different seasons (Sinha, 2015)

Hot Humid Season Automn Season

Behavioral Parameters
Modified (Sand) Existing (Concrete) Modified (Sand) Existing (Concrete)
Sitting time 9.57 8.4 10.14 9.12
Standing time 8.41 9.59 8.19 9.24
Standing rumination 1.24 1.38 1 1.05
Total rumination 7.13 6.31 7.01 6.15
Duration of lying bouts 1.11 1.05 1.16 1.1
Feeding bouts 8.61A±0.20 9.63B±0.32 10.31a±0.41 10.69b±0.43
Sitting time, standing time, standing rumination, total rumination, duration of lying bouts (hr/day); feeding bouts (numbers/day)

Table 2: Distribution of time spent in shed (%) on various activities of the crossbred cows housed under sand and
concrete floor in hot-humid and autumn season (Sinha, 2015)

Shed Sitting Idle Sitting Eating Standing Standing Idle

Season
Type (%) Rumination (%) Time (%) Rumination (%) (%)
Hot humid 22 31 30 8 9
Sand
Autumn 23 32 30 5 10
Hot humid 19 30 29 7 15
Concrete
Autumn 22 27 29 6 16

From Table 1 and Table 2 it is clear that modified housing (sand) showed more comfort activities like lying, lying
ruminating, sitting ruminating and lower standing time. However, higher standing time represents discomfort. Sand
bedded animals had significantly lower feeding bout which represents more comfort to the animals of sand bedded
animals as compared to that of concrete floor. Mattachini et al. (2019) showed that high feeding bouts shows
discomfort to dairy cows whereas group of animals which had lower feeding bouts produced significantly higher
milk than high feeding bout group.

Importance of Different Bedding Materials for Dairy Animal

Inorganic materials, namely sand, have been considered as the gold standard for bedding material (Justice-Allen et
al., 2010). Sand is inert; it can be recycled and reused as bedding (Van Gastelen et al., 2011). It does not support
bacterial growth (Godden et al., 2007). Sand is also non‐absorbent, which means that it does not retain or soak up
urine and leaked milk (Gooch & Inglis, 2010) which hinders bacterial growth. Moreover, it is found that bacteria
types and counts found in bedding materials have a positive correlation with the bacteria types and counts present
on the teat end (Zdanowicz et al., 2004). Lowest case of mastitis found in sand bedded animals (Bey & Reneau,
2002). Increased milk yield may be observed in free stall pens with sand than without other type of sand bedding
(Calegari et al., 2012). Sand bedding reduces the development of new cases of lameness. A depth of 25 cm has been
suggested, with complete sand bedding replacement necessary every 12 to 14 days (Cook et al., 2010). Particle size
should be 0.1‐1mm and of uniform in size (Schoonmaker, 1999).

Organic husbandry practices are found effective for hook health maintenance. Rutherford et al., (2008) suggested
for use of straws as bedding material for better hoof health. Cows have been seen to prefer straw bedding than sand,

International Journal of Livestock Research 15

 Available @ http://ijlr.org/issue/vol-10-7-pp-11-20/

lying time was found more on straw than sand. However, hoof health and cleanliness maintenance was better in
sand as compared to straw bedding (Norring et al., 2008) thus poorer udder health in straw bedded animals (Leso
et al., 2020). Addition of lime powder, formaldehyde-based compounds may decrease the risk of health hazards
(Patterton et al., 2011). Mattresses were introduced for bedding of dairy animals however they were found to
compromise the cow comfort, increased risk for hoof lesions, and lameness (Cook et al., 2004 ; Fulwider et al.,
2007). Rubber mats are comparatively costlier than above mentioned bedding materials, it may lead to undesirable
overgrowth of claw (Platz et al., 2008). Leso et al. (2020) remarked that composed bedding than free stall or straws
may improve overall cow comfort, better leg health, better expression of natural behavior, and improved manure
quality of dairy cows.

Recycled Manure Solids (RMS)

Recently, survey was done to see the suitability of recycled manure solids (RMS). It was found that RMS was used
successfully by farmers in US as an alternative source of bedding material for dairy cows having comparative SCC
(Husfeldt et al., 2012) as compared to raw and undigested bedding materials but, farmers are suggested to be
cautious regarding maintenance of strict hygiene, milking practices and closely monitor its effects on herd health
(Leach et al., 2015). (Lobeck et al., 2011) found that during autumn season it is difficult to maintain the cleanliness
of cows. As several recent researches done on usage of RMS suggest that it may be more favorable for the growth
of environmental pathogens as compared to other bedding materials (Rowbotham and Ruegg, 2016; Bradley et al.,
2018). Recommended dry matter in RMS is > 34% (Bradley et al., 2018). More moisture percentage in RMS may
lead to adverse circumstances towards economic aspect of farm (Fávero et al., 2015).

Conclusion

Cow comfort is an essential management practice. Bedding improves productive and reproductive performance.
Selection of proper bedding material should be considered equally important as housing. The bedding materials
used in cow stalls needs to be dry and clean to reduce potential risks for mastitis. Bedding material has a high impact
on walking and lying comfort of dairy animal. RMS has been introduced recently seeing its positive impact on
health and performance of dairy animals however, one should be cautious while considering its usage under different
micro and macro environmental conditions. Providing soft bedding materials such as straw, sand, mattress than
conventional concrete floor reduces the chance of lameness and improves the reproductive performance. Composted
bedding may be used as an alternative for free stall or straw based bedding. Composted bedding performed better
than other in most of the climatic zones, however studies are required for tropical climates. Locomotory activities
on soft beddings have found to enhance hoof health. Grazing facility in addition to proper bedding may improve
production and reproduction performances of dairy cows.

Conflict of Interests

There is no conflict of interest.

Publisher Disclaimer

IJLR remains neutral concerning jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliation.

References

1. Bewley, J. & Taraba, J. (2013). Guidelines for Managing Compost Bedded-Pack Barns. the dairy practices
council. Publication: DPC 110. 2013.
http://extension.missouri.edu/webster/documents/resources/agriculture/compostbarns/Guidelines_for_Managi
ng_Compost_Bedded-Pack_Barns--DairyPracticesCouncil110.pdf
2. Bewley, J. & Taraba, J. (2017). Compost bedding pack barns for dairy cows – 2017 Webinar - 70 Minute
Recording. https://eurodairy.eu/webinar-compost-bedded-pack-barns-dairy-cows-usa-knowledge-experience/
3. Bey, R.F. & Reneau, J.K. (2002). Manage bedding to control bacteria and reduce udder infections. Pages 103–
113 in Proc. Minn. Dairy Health Conf. Coll. Vet. Med., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul.

16 International Journal of Livestock Research

 Singh et al., 2020

4. Bhakat, C., Chatterjee, A., Mandal, A., Mandal, D.K., Karunakaran, M. & Dutta, T.K. (2017). Effect of
cleanliness and hygiene on occurrence of mastitis in crossbred cows in West Bengal. Life Science International
Research Journal, 4 (1): 10 -14.
5. Bickert, W.G., Holmes, B., Janni, K.A., Kammel, D., Stowell, R. & Zulovich, J.M. (2000). Dairy free stall
housing and equipment. Pages 27–45 in Designing Facilities for the Milking Herd. 7th ed., Mid-West Plan
Service, Iowa State University, Ames. 2000.
6. Black, R.A., Taraba, J., Day, G., Damasceno, F., Newman, M., Akers, K.A., Wood, C.L., McQuerry, K.J. &
Bewley, J.M. (2014). The relationship between compost bedded pack performance, management, and bacterial
counts. Journal of Dairy Science, 97: 2669–2679.
7. Black, R.A., Taraba, J.L., Day, G.B., Damasceno, F.A. & Bewley, J.M. (2013). Compost bedded pack dairy
barn management, performance, and producer satisfaction. Journal of Dairy Science, 96, 8060–8074.
8. Bradley, A.J., Leach, K.A., Green, M.J., Gibbons, J., Ohnstad, I.C., Black, D.H. & Breen, J. E. (2018). The
impact of dairy cows’ bedding material and its microbial content on the quality and safety of milk – A cross
sectional study of UK farms. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 269: 36–45. https: /
/doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017.12.022.
9. Brenninkmeyer, C., Dippel, S., Brinkmann, J., March, S., Winckler, C. & Knierim, U. (2012). Hock lesion
epidemiology in cubicle housed dairy cows across two breeds, farming systems and countries. Preventive
Veterinary Medicine, 109: 236–245.
10. Calegari, F., Calamari, L. & Frazzi, E. (2012). Misting and fan cooling of the rest area in a dairy barn.
International Journal of Biometeorology, 56: 287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-011-0432-7.
11. Cha, E., Hertl, J.A., Bar, D. & Gröhn, Y.T. (2010). The cost of different types of lameness in dairy cows
calculated by dynamic programming. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 97(1): 1–8. https:/
/doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.07.011.
12. Chamberlain, P. (2018). Dairy compost bedding pack barns literature review for subtropical dairy ltd.
comfortable cows on compost bedding in Nth. USA. Progressive Dairyman, 29.
13. Cook, N.B., Bennett, T.B. & Nordlund, K.V. (2004). Effect of free stall surface on daily activity patterns in
dairy cows with relevance to lameness prevalence. Journal of Dairy Science, 87: 2912–2922. https: / / doi.org/
10 .3168/ jds. S0022 -0302(04)73422 -0.
14. Faull, W.B., Hughes, J.W., Clarkson, M.J., Downham, D.Y., Manson, F.J., Merritt, J.B., Murray, R.D., Russell,
W.B., Sutherst, J.E. & Ward, W.R. (1996). Epidemiology of lameness in dairy cattle: the influence of cubicles
and indoor and outdoor walking surfaces. Veterinary Record, 139: 130-136.
15. Fávero, S., Portilho, F.V.R., Oliveira, A.C.R., Langoni, H. & Pantoja, J.C.F. (2015). Factors associated with
mastitis epidemiologic indexes, animal hygiene, and bulk milk bacterial concentrations in dairy herds housed
on compost bedding. Livestock Science, 181: 220–230. https: / / doi .org/ 10 .1016/ j. livsci .2015 .09 .002.
16. Flitz, P.G., Oldigs, B., Smidt, D. & Langholz, H.J. (1978). Reaction of dairy cows and young beef bull to
modern housing systems. Zuchtungskunde, 50(2): 132-145.
17. Fulwider, W.K., Grandin, T., Garrick, D.J., Engle, T.E., Lamm, W.D., Dalsted, N.L. & Rollin, B.E. (2007).
Influence of free-stall base on tarsal joint lesions and hygiene in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 90:
3559–3566. https: / / doi .org/ 10 .3168/ jds .2006 -793.
18. Galama, P.J., de Boer, H.C., van Dooren, H.J.C., Ouweltjes, W. & Driehuis, F. (2015). Sustainable aspects of
ten bedded pack barns in the Netherlands. Report 873. Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Lelystad, the
Netherlands.
19. Gnyp, J. & Utvinczuk, Z. (1993). Efficiency of cow performance under various management systems. Roc-
Nank-Zoot, 20(1): 235-243.
20. Godden, S., Bey, R., Farnsworth, R., Reneau, J. & LaValle, M. (2002). Field Validation of a Milk Line
Sampling Device for Monitoring Milk Quality and Udder Health. Journal of Dairy Science, 85(6): 1468–1475.
https: / /doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(02)74215-x.
21. Godden, S., Bey, R., Lorch, K., Farnsworth, R. & Rapnicki, P. (2007). Ability of organic and inorganic bedding
materials to promote growth of environmental bacteria. Journal of Dairy Science, 91: 151-159.
22. Gomez, A. & Cook, N.B. (2010). Time budgets of lactating dairy cattle in commercial freestall herds. Journal
of Dairy Science, 93(12): 5772–5781. https: / /doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3436.
23. Gooch, C.A. & Inglis, S.F. (2010). Sand for bedding dairy cow stalls. Biological and Environmental
Engineering Department, Cornell University. [Online] Available: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/dairymod.
24. Grant, R. (2004). Taking advantage of natural behavior improves dairy cow performance. Accessed on
08/22/2018 at htt p://www. extension.org.

International Journal of Livestock Research 17

 Available @ http://ijlr.org/issue/vol-10-7-pp-11-20/

25. Haley, D.B., de Passille´, A.M. & Rushen. J. (2001). Assessing cow comfort: Effects of two floor types and
two tie stall designs on the behaviour of lactating dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 71: 105–117.
26. Hultgren, J. & Bergsten, C. (2001). Effects of a rubber-slatted flooring system on cleanliness and foot health
in tied dairy cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 52(1): 75–89. https:/ /doi:10.1016/s0167-5877(01)00237-
9.
27. Husfeldt, A.W., Endres, M. I., Salfer, J.A. & Janni, K.A. (2012). Management and characteristics of recycled
manure solids used for bedding in Midwest freestall dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science, 95(4): 2195–2203.
https:/ /doi:10.3168/jds.2011-5105.
28. Janni, K.A., Endres, M.I., Reneau, J.K. & Schoper, W.W. (2006). Compost dairy barn layout and management
recommendations Pages 97–102 in ASAE Annual Meeting Vol. 23(1). American Society of Agricultural and
Biological Engineers, Boston, MA.
29. Justice-Allen, A., Trujillo, J., Corbett, R., Harding, R., Goodell, G. & Wilson, D. (2010). Survival and
replication of Mycoplasma species in recycled bedding sand and association with mastitis on dairy farms in
Utah. Journal of Dairy Science, 93(1): 192–202. https: / /doi:10.3168/jds.2009-2474.
30. Kansal, G., Yadav, D.K., Singh, A.K. & Rajput, M.S. (2020). Advances in the management of bovine mastitis.
International Journal of Advances in Agricultural Science and Technology, 7(2): 10-22.
31. Kara, N K., Galic, A. & Koyuncu, M. (2015). Comparison of Milk Yield and Animal Health in Turkish Farms
with Differing Stall Types and Resting Surfaces. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 28(2): 268-
272. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.14.0366.
32. Kester, E., Holzhauer, M. & Frankena, K. (2014). A descriptive review of the prevalence and risk factors of
hock lesions. The Veterinary Journal, 202(2): 222-228.
33. Kielland, C., Ruud, L.E., Zanella, A.J. & Osteras, O. (2009). Prevalence and risk factors for skin lesions on
legs of dairy cattle housed in free stalls in Norway. Journal of Dairy Science, 92: 5487–5496.
34. Krohn, C.C. & Munksgaard, L. (1993). Behaviour of dairy cows kept in extensive (loose housing/pasture) or
intensive (tie-stall) environments. II. Lying and lying-down Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 37(1): 1-16.
35. Kumar, A., Kamboj, M.L., Chandra, S. & Bharti, P. (2017). Effect of modified housing system on physiological
parameters of Murrah buffaloes during autumn and winter season. Indian Journal of Animal Research, https:/
/doi:10.18805/ijar. B-3305.
36. Kumari, T., Bhakat, C. & Singh, A.K. (2020). Adoption of management practices by the farmers to control sub
clinical mastitis in dairy animals. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 8(2): 924-927.
37. Kumari, T., Bhakat, C., Singh, A.K., Sahu, J., Mandal, D.K. & Choudhary, R.K. (2019). Low cost management
practices to detect and control sub-clinical mastitis in dairy cattle. International Journal of Current
Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 8(05): 1958-1964.
38. Leach, K.A., Archer, S.C., Breen, J.E., Green, M.J., Ohnstad, I.C., Tuer, S. & Bradley, A.J. (2015). Recycling
manure as cow bedding: Potential benefits and risks for UK dairy farms. The Veterinary Journal, 206(2): 123–
130. https: / /doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.08.013.
39. Leso, L., Barbari, M., Lopes, M.A., Damasceno, F.A., Galama, P., Taraba, J.L. & Kuipers A. (2020). Invited
review: Compost-bedded pack barns for dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 103(2): 1072-1099.
40. Livesey, C.T., Marsh, C., Metcalf, J.A. & Laven, R.A. (2002). Hock injuries in cattle keptin straw yards or
cubicles with rubber mats or mattresses. Veterinary Record, 150: 677–679.
41. Lobeck, K.M., Endres, M.I., Shane, E.M., Godden, S.M. & Fetrow, J. (2011). Animal welfare incross
ventilated, compost-bedded pack, and naturally ventilated airy barns in the upper Midwest. Journal of Dairy
Science, 94: 5469–5479.
42. Madke, P.K. (2007). Studies on the productive and reproductive performance of crossbreed cows wth suitable
shelter management interventions. Ph. D. Thesis, National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal.
43. Manninen, M., Sankari, S., Jauhiainen, J., Kivinen, T., Anttila, P. & Soveri, T. (2008). Effects of outdoor winter
housing and feeding level on performance and blood metabolites of suckler cows fed whole-crop barley silage.
Livestock Science, 115: 179- 194.
44. Mattachini, G., Pompe, J., Finzi, A., Tullo, E., Riva, E. & Provolo, G. (2019). Effects of Feeding Frequency
on the Lying Behavior of Dairy Cows in a Loose Housing with Automatic Feeding and Milking System.
Animals, doi:10.3390/ani9040121
45. MauriceTuyttens, F.A. (2005). The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: A review. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science, 92(3): 261-282.
46. Mishra, M., Upadhyay, D., Gurav, A. & Domple, V. (2017). Effect of floor on lameness in crossbred dairy
Cow: A Review. International Journal of Livestock Research, 7(12): 22-40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20170607061548.

18 International Journal of Livestock Research

 Singh et al., 2020

47. Norring, M., Manninen, E., de Passillé, A.M., Rushen, J., Munksgaard, L. & Saloniemi, H. (2008). Effects of
Sand and Straw Bedding on the Lying Behavior, Cleanliness, and Hoof and Hock Injuries of Dairy Cows.
Journal of Dairy Science, 91(2): 570–576. https: / /doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0452.
48. Palmer, M.A., Olmos, G., Boyle, L.A. & Mee, J.F. (2010). Estrus detection and estrus characteristic in housed
and pasture Holstein-Friesian cows. Theriogenology, 74: 255- 264.
49. Peake K.A., Biggs A.M., Argo C.M., Smith R.F., Christley R.M., Routly J.E. & Dobson H. (2011). Effects of
lameness, subclinical mastitis and loss of body condition on the reproductive performance of dairy cows.
Veterinary Record, doi: 10.1136/vr.c6180.
50. Platz, S., Ahrens, F., Bendel, J., Meyer, H.H.D. & Erhard, M.H. (2008). What happens with cow behavior
when replacing concrete slatted floor by rubber coating: A case study. Journal of Dairy Science, 91: 999–1004.
https: / / doi .org/ 10 .3168/ jds .2007 -0584.
51. Potterton, S.L., Green, M.J., Harris, J., Millar, K.M., Whay, H.R. & Huxley, J.N. (2011). Risk factors
associated with hair loss, ulceration, and swelling at the hock in free stall housed UK dairy herds. Journal of
Dairy Science, 94: 2952–2963.
52. Regula, G., Danuser, J., Spycher, B. & Wechsler, B. (2004). Health and welfare of dairy cows in different
husbandry systems in Switzerland. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 66: 247–264.
53. Reich, L.J., Weary, D.M., Veira, D.M. & von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. (2010). Effects of sawdust bedding dry
matter on lying behavior of dairy cows: A dose-dependent response. Journal of Dairy Science, 93(4): 1561–
1565. https: / /doi:10.3168/jds.2009-2713.
54. Rowbotham, R.F. & Ruegg, P.L. (2016). Bacterial counts on teat skin and in new sand, recycled sand, and
recycled manure solids used as bedding in freestalls. Journal of Dairy Science, 99: 6594–6608. https: / /doi
.org/ 10 .3168/ jds .2015 -10674.
55. Rutherford, K.M., Langford, F.M., Jack, M.C., Sherwood, L., Lawrence, A.B. & Haskell, M.J. (2008). Hock
injury prevalence and associated risk factors on organic and non-organic dairy farms in the United Kingdom.
Journal of Dairy Science, 91: 2265–2274.
56. Schoonmaker, K. (1999). Maximize the comfort of sand. Dairy Herd Management, 24-25.
57. Shane, E.M., Endres, M.I., Johnson, D.G. & Reneau, J.K. (2010). Bedding Options for an Alternative Housing
System for Dairy Cows: A Descriptive Study. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 26(4): 659–666. https: /
/doi:10.13031/2013.32062.
58. Singh, A.K., Bhakat, C., Kumari, T., Mandal, D.K., Chatterjee, A. & Dutta, T.K. (2020b). Influence of
alteration of dry period feeding management on body weight and body measurements of Jersey crossbred
cows at lower Gangetic region. Journal of Animal Research, 10(1): 137-141.
59. Singh, A.K., Bhakat, C., Mandal, D.K., Mandal, A., Rai, S., Chatterjee, A. & Ghosh, M.K. (2020a). Effect of
reducing energy intake during dry period on milk production, udder health and body condition score of Jersey
crossbred cows at tropical lower Gangetic region. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 52: 1759-1767.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-019-02191-8.
60. Singh, A.K., Bhakat, C., Yadav, D.K., Kumari, T., Mandal, D.K., Rajput, M.S. & Bhatt, N. (2020c). Effect of
pre and post-partum Alphatocopherol supplementation on body measurements and its relationship with body
condition, milk yield, and udder health of Jersey crossbred cows at tropical lower Gangetic region. Journal of
Entomology and Zoology Studies, 8(1): 1499-1502.
61. Singh, A.K., Yadav, D.K., Bhatt, N., Sriranga, KR. & Roy, S. (2020d). Housing management for dairy animals
under Indian tropical type of climatic conditions-a review. Veterinary Research International, 8(2): 94-99.
62. Singh, S.S., Ward, W.R., Lautenbach, K., Hughes, J.W. & Murray, R.D. (1993). Behaviour of first lactation
and adult dairy cows while housed and at pasture and its relationship with sole lesions. Veterinary Record, 133:
469–474.
63. Sinha, R. (2015). Effect of modified housing system on performance and behaviour of crossbreed cows during
hot humid and autumn season. MVSc Thesis, National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal.
64. Thomsen, P.T., Munksgaard, L. & Sørensen, J.T. (2012). Locomotion scores and lying behaviour are indicators
of hoof lesions in dairy cows. The Veterinary Journal, 193(3): 644–647. https: /
/doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.06.046
65. Van Gastelen, S., Westerlaan, B., Houwers, D.J. & van Eerdenburg, F.J.C.M. (2011). A study on cow comfort
and risk for lameness and mastitis in relation to different types of bedding materials. Journal of Dairy Science,
94(10): 4878–4888. https: / /doi:10.3168/jds.2010-4019.

International Journal of Livestock Research 19

 Available @ http://ijlr.org/issue/vol-10-7-pp-11-20/

66. Vanegas, J., Overton, M., Berry, S.L. & Sischo, W.M. (2006). Effect of Rubber Flooring on Claw Health in
Lactating Dairy Cows Housed in Free-Stall Barns. Journal of Dairy Science, 89(11): 4251–4258. https: /
/doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(06)72471-7.
67. Westphal, A., Williams, M.L., Baysal-Gurel, F., LeJeune, J.T. & McSpadden Gardener, B.B. (2011). General
Suppression of Escherichia coliO157:H7 in Sand-Based Dairy Livestock Bedding. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 77(6): 2113–2121. https: / /doi:10.1128/aem.01655-10.
68. Zdanowicz, M., Shelford, J.A., Tucker, C.B., Weary, D.M. & von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. (2004). Bacterial
Populations on Teat Ends of Dairy Cows Housed in Free Stalls and Bedded with Either Sand or Sawdust.
Journal of Dairy Science, 87(6): 1694–1701. https: / / doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(04)73322-6.

******************

20 International Journal of Livestock Research