New Brunswick Dairy Bedding Manual - Milk 2020

New Brunswick Dairy Bedding ManualNew BrunswickPhoto courtesy of Don AndersonNew Brunswick Dairy Bedding ManualPublished by Milk 2020Published by Milk 2020November 2012November 2012Publ

Table of Contents:Acknowledgments … 3Manual Collaborators … 3Disclaimer … 3List of Photos … 4List of Figures … 4List of Tables … 5Executive Summary … 6Chapter 1- Introduction … 9Chapter 2 - Comparison of Individual Bedding Materials … 12Chapter 3 - Quality Livestock Bedding Products Research … 24Chapter 4 - On-farm Adaptive Bedding and Manure Management Research … 36Chapter 5 - Future Bedding and Manure Management Research Needs … 49Chapter 6 - Additional Resources … 51Appendices … 55Glossary … 57Index … 602

Acknowledgments:This Manual was funded in part by the NB Agriculture Profitability Enhancement component of the Canada/NewBrunswick Agriculture Futures Initiative (Agri-Flexibility).Additional support was provided by Milk 2020 through contributions from the dairy producers and processors of NewBrunswick.Milk 2020 wishes to thank the New Brunswick dairy producers who participated in the Researching Quality LivestockBedding Products research studies as well as those producers who have shared the results of their recent on-farm adaptiveresearch 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 MacDonaldMILK 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 copyreproduction of this publication in whole or in part for any purpose (including but not limited to resale or redistribution) requires the kindpermission 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.caDisclaimer: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 orendorsement of it. Milk 2020 makes no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the usefulness, completeness, oraccuracy of any processes, methods or fitness for a particular purpose or merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service orother information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this Manual. The user assumes all risk, whetherrecommendations are followed or not. Dairy producers are advised before altering the management of the bedding or manure ontheir 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 57.3

List of Photos:Cow Bedding Mattresses - Frank VanderLann … 36Well bedded stallCows using Ulti-MatsHome Made Pack Mat – Pascobac Holsteins - Hugh O’Neil … 38-39Spaghetti Rubber used in homemade pack matsSand-bedded stalls over homemade pack matsSand removed, showing surface of homemade matDepth of pack mat surfaceDepth of rear curbBedding Trailer Sand Shooter – Lawrence's Dairy Farm Ltd … 41Filling the Sand ShooterFilling the stallsSand Manure Auger – Waddy and Colpitts - David Waddy … 42-43View of manure cross gutter and augerMcLanahan Horizontal Manure AugerCross-gutter collection alleySand and Manure Handling System (Pump and Cross Gutter Shuttle) - Annavale Farms – Danny Clain … 44TEAMCO Manure Push SystemJamesway Gutter Cat ScraperNew barn with sand beddingNew barn with sand beddingLagoon February 2012TEAMCO system pushing manureManure Pit with Sand-lane/Manure Discharge – Lonsview Farm Ltd. - Daryl and Eric Walker … 45-46Sand-lane/manure dischargeSand-lane/manure dischargeLagoon manure storage with floating bridgeLagoon with liquids removedLoader and spreader100 HP Electric Lagoon Pump – Waddy and Colpitts - David Waddy … 47-48Pump being mounted in lagoonPump mounted in lagoonPump loading liquid manure tankPump motor and electrical panelPump agitating lagoonThe arrows indicate wear spotsWear due to sand-laden manureList of Figures:Figure 1: Box and whisker plot of lying times for the 5 different bedding types evaluated ... 354

List of Tables:Table 1: Estimated Annual Bedding Costs in New Brunswick, (Dollars per cow per year) … 9Table 2: Comparison of the Absorbency of Common Bedding Materials … 13Table 3: Description of the herds completing New Brunswick bedding survey … 24Table 4: Summary of bedding materials and conditioners used by herds completing the survey ... 25Table 5: Milk quality among responders and non-responders to the mail-out/telephone survey … 25Table 6: Milk quality parameters for tie and free stall herds among the 104 herds answering that question ... 26Table 7: Milk quality by bedding type used ... 26Table 8: Ability of various bedding types and combinations to support the growth of streptococci bacteria over a 4 day incubationperiod ... 26Table 9: Ability of various bedding types and combinations to support the growth of Gram-negative bacteria over a 4 dayincubation period ... 27Table 10: Ability of various bedding types and combinations to support the growth of Klebsiella bacteria over a 4 day incubationperiod ... 27Table 11: Bedding count ranks for growth of primarily Streptococci for the five bedding materials on days 2, 4 and 14 ... 32Table 12: Bedding count ranks for growth of gram-negative bacteria for the five bedding materials on days 2, 4 and 14 ... 32Table 13: Bedding count ranks for growth of primarily Klebsiella for the five bedding materials on days 2, 4 and 14 ... 32Table 14: Teat end bacteria count ranks for growth for Streptococcal, Gram-negative and Klebsiella on day four of the trial ... 33Table 15: Culture results for 1481 quarter milk samples from 25 cows collected every 14 days during the 5 month trial period ...33Table 16: Number of new mastitis infections by species during the five month trial period ... 34Table 17: New mastitis infections by bedding type for five bedding materials used on 25 cows during 5 28-day study periods ... 34Table 18: Summary statistics for lying times for the five different bedding types evaluated ... 34Table 19: Fixed Equipment Costs for bedding stalls on the three farms studied ... 40Table 20: Variable Equipment Costs for bedding stalls on the three farms studied ... 41Table 21: Total Costs for bedding stalls on the three farms studied … 415

Executive Summary:The objective of the New Brunswick Dairy Bedding Manual is to provide dairy farmers with comparative information on thedifferent bedding options available to them. This Manual came about as a direct result of the critical shortage of wood based beddingmaterials experienced during the first decade of 2000 due to a down turn in the forest industry and a simultaneous increase in demand forwood byproducts for biofuels. Milk 2020, in keeping with its mission to encourage the sustainable growth of New Brunswick's dairyindustry, recognized this bedding challenge as sufficiently serious that in 2009 it partnered with the Atlantic Veterinary College to lookfor solutions. Jointly a research project was completed to find alternate, local, reliable, inexpensive, non-disease promoting sources ofbedding materials for New Brunswick dairy farmers. As well, over the past two years a number of individual dairy operations in NewBrunswick have undertaken adaptive research initiatives related to bedding and manure management designed to improve animal healthand cow comfort on their farms. MILK 2020 felt it important to communicate the results of these research initiatives to all NewBrunswick dairy producers to ensure they could make informed decisions regarding the best bedding material option for their individualoperation. In preparing the Manual, Milk 2020 has also endeavored to include within it other bedding related information that wasconsidered 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 cowcomfort and an overview of current manure management processes. The cost and availability of bedding fluctuates and good consistentbedding can be hard to find and expensive to purchase. In addition, transportation costs can be as much or more than the cost of the actualbedding material, thus proximity of bedding source has a big impact on overall bedding costs. Based on New Brunswick experiencebedding 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 animalhealth, in particular the incidence of mastitis. Mastitis is caused by microorganisms entering the quarter(s) from a number of sources, oneof the most important being the environment, in particular the bedding cows are exposed to on a daily basis. The risk of developing newmastitis cases is directly related to the number of bacteria that are present in the bedding. Bacterial numbers are in turn influenced by suchfactors as the level of nutrients available, pH, temperature, and moisture levels within the bedding. Organic bedding materials, such asstraw, hay, shavings, sawdust, dried manure solids, recycled newspaper and peat moss contain abundant nutrients for bacterial growththus increasing the risk of environmental mastitis cases. On the other hand inorganic bedding, such as sand or silica, do not readily supportbacterial growth and thus can act to reduce the risk of environmental mastitis. However, once inorganic bedding becomes soiled withmanure and urine, bacterial growth can be supported. Individual bacterial species vary as to the pH level they prefer. Bedding additivescan be used to control bacterial populations by altering the pH environment of the bedding. As the temperature and humidity levels rise inbedding materials, for example during the summer months, growth of mastitis causing bacteria is markedly enhanced. Given dairy cattlespend 40-65% of their time lying down, the type, quality and management of the bedding material is therefore a significant factor in thedevelopment of environmental mastitis.Research has demonstrated that the blood flow to the udder is increased by between 25-28% when dairy cows lie down comparedto when they are standing. 51,52 This increased blood flow to the udder is converted into additional milk production by the cow. Thusencouraging increased lying time of cows by enhancing the comfort of their stalls can directly translate into increased milk production forthe dairy operator. In addition, increased lying times also reduce stress on feet and legs contributing to a subsequent decline in theincidence of lameness. The single most significant factor in determining cow comfort is the stall base that forms the cow’s actual restingsurface. 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 quantityof bedding material placed on top of a stall mat or mattress. Once a well-bedded surface is provided, it must then be properly maintainedby the removal of soiled bedding and the addition of fresh bedding. Thus by providing a soft, dry resting area, cows will maximize theirstall 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 inany particular operation is determined by the characteristics of the manure itself which in turn is dependent to a great degree by thebedding material(s) used in that operation. For example manure systems designed to handle organic bedding materials such as straw orsawdust as a general rule do not adequately handle sand-laden manure. It cannot be stressed enough when contemplating using sand asbedding 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 asprovides extensive details related to the advantages, disadvantages, economics and guidelines for each individual bedding material. Forexample 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 allareas. It is essential to note, regardless of what bedding is used, the management of that bedding material is as important as thechoice of any particular bedding material. Inadequate management of any bedding material will contribute to animal health, cowcomfort 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 QualityLivestock Bedding Products for NB Dairy Farms. The project was designed to assess alternate bedding materials for New Brunswickdairy farmers from the perspective of on-farm milk quality, the risk of disease associated with each alternative, with particular emphasison mastitis as well as cow comfort. The project had two phases, the first being an on-farm survey of New Brunswick dairy producers todetermine the variety of bedding materials used in the province in 2009 followed by a global literature review of different beddingmaterials. The second phase involved measuring, under field conditions, the ability of five bedding materials to promote the growth ofmastitis associated bacteria. For the reason that non-bedding factors such as length of time in the stall, humidity on the day the beddingwas sampled and stall usage have a big influence on bacterial growth within bedding, laboratory simulation studies were carried out on thefive bedding materials to compare their abilities to support bacterial growth. The five bedding materials were selected based on previousresearch and industry priorities and included peat, wood shavings, sand, straw and recycled manure solids. The study also set out tocompare teat end bacteria counts on cows exposed to each material, new mastitis rates and cow comfort for the candidate beddingmaterials.Research results from this project demonstrated that for all bacterial types, peat clearly supported the lowest amounts of bacterialgrowth. Wood and sand were generally intermediate in their support of bacterial growth, with the straw and recycled manure clearlysupporting 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 thresholdsestablished in the scientific literature. These differences can be visualized graphically in the full report. In this study peat was clearly anexcellent bedding for retarding bacterial growth. For the four organic bedding materials (peat, wood, straw and manure) the back one thirdof the stall was cleaned out daily. This is a recommended procedure for organic bedding in tiestalls and freestalls. For the sand-beddedstalls the bedding depth was two inches, with the material groomed daily and new bedding added, but not all bedding removed. This isnot typical of sand management procedures in deep pack freestalls where most of the previous research has been conducted. Sand wasexpected to be the gold standard material. However, under the conditions of this research project, it was inferior to peat and wood. Theseresults 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 differenceswere less clear statistically. Peat and wood generally were superior with straw and recycled manure solids inferior. With respect to cowcomfort, 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 isnecessary 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 manuremanagement 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 whilereducing 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 requiredto 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 aswell 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 beddingmaterial 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 largedairy 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 methodto 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 amanure 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 efficientlymoved the sand-laden manure to the storage lagoon on a year around basis. This method brings with it the added economicadvantages 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, whencompared 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 beddingmaterial performance, management of sand-laden manure as well as new equipment or technologies that can improve the utilization oftraditional 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 ResearchingQuality Livestock Bedding Products for NB Dairy Farms. In addition, this chapter provides references for other specific points madein the Manual as well as listing a number of useful websites dealing with bedding materials and manure management.8

Introduction:Chapter 1In New Brunswick the first decade of 2000 was characterized by a down turn in the forest industry which was coupled with asimultaneous increase in demand for wood byproducts such as sawdust for biofuels. These two factors created a critical shortage ofbedding materials for dairy herds in Atlantic Canada that traditionally used sawdust or shavings for their primary bedding material. Milk2020, in keeping with its mission to encourage the sustainable growth of New Brunswick's dairy industry, recognized this problem assufficiently critical that it decisively took action to assist producers with this challenge. In 2009, Milk 2020 in partnership with theAtlantic 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 anumber of dairy operations in New Brunswick have undertaken adaptive research initiatives related to bedding and manure managementon their individual farms to improve manure handling, animal health and cow comfort. Given the significance bedding management hason the profitability of dairy farms, MILK 2020 felt it important to communicate the results of these research endeavors to individual dairyproducers 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 theselection 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 outon 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 dairyindustry.Bedding procurement and management is a costly and time consuming component of dairy farming that can have significantimpacts on the profitability of the entire dairy operation. In addition to taking into the account the cost of the different bedding materialsavailable, 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. Inaddition, transportation costs can be as much or more than the cost of the actual bedding material, thus proximity of bedding source has abig 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)BeddingTypeShavings/SawdustStraw Sand Peat Dried ManureSolidsRangeof CostsAverageCost$78 - $127 $44 - $110 $8 - $127* $72- $101 NA$100 $72 $75* $89 NA*Please note, only one dairy operator reported a cost rate of $8 per cow per year for sand. If thisuncharacteristically low cost figure was removed from the calculations the adjusted range was $43 - $127with the modified average cost being $83 per cow per year.9

Animal Health:A growing body of research has demonstrated that the laying surface dairy producers provide for their cows impacts animal health, inparticular the incidence of mastitis in individual animals and on a herd basis. Mastitis is defined as an inflammation of the mammarygland, regardless of cause, which results in a significant increase in inflammatory cells in the milk. These inflammatory cells can bemeasured by the Somatic Cell Count (SSC) in the milk of an individual animal or on a herd basis through bulk tank testing. The mostcommon 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 indairy 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 cowsthrough some form of mechanical means such as udder wash cloths, milker’s hands and faulty milking equipment. The most commoninfectious bacteria in this category are Staphylococcus aureus, and Streptococcus agalactiae. The second source of bacteria isorganisms normally living on the teat skin which enter the gland through the teat canal. The most common example of this group iscoagulase-negative staphylococcus species. Finally, the third source of organisms is the cow’s external environment with one of themost important sources being the bedding cows are exposed to on a daily basis. The most common environmental agents are theenvironmental streptococcus species, most notably Streptococcus uberis and dysgalactiae, the coliforms most importantly E. coli andKlebsiella 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’steats. Bacterial growth in bedding depends on a number of factors including the level of nutrients available, pH, temperature, and moisturelevels. The availability of nutrients supporting bacterial growth varies significantly between organic and inorganic bedding, the two majorclasses of bedding materials. Organic materials are those which originate from previously living plants and for that reason containabundant 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 beddingcan vary significantly between individual materials, for example clean unused sawdust can be heavily laden with Klebsiella species. Onthe other hand inorganic, or as some refer to them as nonnutritive bedding materials, such as sand or silica come from non-living mineralconstituents and thus do not readily support bacterial growth. However, once inorganic bedding becomes soiled with manure, urine or anyother organic material bacterial growth can be supported. Individual bacterial species vary as to the pH level they prefer. Beddingadditives can be used to control bacterial populations by altering the pH environment of the bedding while simultaneously acting as adrying agent, reducing the moisture levels of the bedding material. As the temperature and humidity levels rise in bedding materialsduring the summer months, growth of mastitis causing bacteria is markedly enhanced. This can be a particular problem in the Atlanticregion with its higher summer humidity levels. Consequently in months of high humidity, maintenance of adequate bedding volumes installs is even more critical to reduce bedding moisture concentrations, thus helping to control the bacterial numbers that the cow’s teatscontact. Given dairy cattle spend 40-65% of their time lying down, the type, quality and management of the bedding material is thereforea significant factor in the development of environmental mastitis. Research has demonstrated failure to provide clean, dry housingconditions 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 additionalsignificance.The practice of storing excess bedding at front of freestalls, and subsequently raking this bedding to the rear of the stalls, increases the riskof new environmental mastitis cases. While piled at the front of the stall the bedding material’s moisture content increases as it absorbshumidity from the barn and water vapor from the cow’s exhaled breath. This increased moisture content enhances the ability of thebedding material to support the growth of bacteria. In addition, the excess bedding at the front of the stall can become contaminated withmanure from the cows’ front feet which further increases the risk of exposing the teat ends to large numbers of bacterial organisms whenthis 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 whenthey are standing. 51,52 This increased blood flow to the udder is converted into additional milk production by the cow. Thus encouragingincreasing 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. Anumber of stall design features such as length, width, location of positioning devices etc. all contribute to stall comfort but the single mostsignificant component is that of the stall base that forms the cow’s actual resting surface. Simply put, bedding enhances cow comfort bykeeping 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. Acomfortable surface to the cow appears to be a soft stall base combined with an amount of bedding material. Comfortable stall bases canbe made of entirely bedding material as is the usual case with sand or a combination of stall mat or mattress plus an adequate quantity ofbedding material on top. Research indicates cows prefer lying surfaces with more bedding, and they spend more time lying down in wellbeddedstalls than in those with little or no bedding. 11,33,34 Once a well-bedded surface is provided, it must then be properly maintained bythe removal of soiled bedding and the addition of fresh bedding. It has been shown that lying time on sand bedding declined by10

approximately 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 arise in moisture levels with use by cows, resulting in increased bacterial counts on both the bedding and the teats. It has also beenreported that bedding with less moisture is preferentially preferred by cows. 11 The risk of interdigital dermatitis also increases withdecreasing amounts of bedding. 4 Cows housed in deep-bedded sand stalls have a lower prevalence of lameness than cows housed onmattresses with little or no bedding. 5 In addition to providing a comfortable resting place the stall base and bedding on top of it mustprovide the cow with adequate traction to facilitate her lying down and getting up in the stall. 53 Finally, adequate bedding in the stallreduces the friction between the stall base and the cow’s extremities, in particular the hock and knees joints when the cow is rising orlying down. This is particularly important for cows that are lame. When cows with sore feet have to rise or lie down on a firm unyieldingstall surface the pain associated with the process leads to increased time spent standing in the stall between lying bouts, fewer lyingsessions per day and a decrease in lying time and thus a decrease in milk production. 54 In summary, by providing a soft, dry stall restingarea, 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 anyparticular operation is determined by the characteristics of the manure itself which is determined to a great degree by the beddingmaterial(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 manurestorage 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 behindthe 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 themanure on a storage stack or directly into a manure spreader. In freestall barns manure is collected by scraping, under-floor tanks or flushsystems. Scraping can be accomplished by mechanical scraper systems where a scraping blade is attached to a floor cable or chain that inturn 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 manureto a collection channel at the end of the alley. When being pulled, the blade extends across the entire alley between two curbs. The bladeis then drawn back to the opposite end of the alley in a collapsed configuration to ensure manure is only pushed one way. Scraped manurefalls into a cross barn collection channel equipped with a barn cleaner or auger to move it on to a transfer point. Automatic scrapingsystems allow for frequent removal of manure from the building which improves cow hygiene and decreases daily labor requirements. Inaddition, small tractors or skid-steer loaders can be used to scrape alley way manure into the transfer pit. Skid-steers offer the advantageof being able to clean in cramped areas thus reducing manual cleaning. However, tractor or skid-steers units are more labor intensive thanautomatic scrapers. Manure can also be collected in a tank below a slatted floor where either the livestock activity or automatic or roboticscrapers push the manure through the openings in the floor. Robotic scrapers, guided by floor mounted transponders, have the advantagesof being able to handle complex barn alley layouts, as well as being extremely cow friendly. In a flush system of collection, high volumesof fresh water, or water recycled from a manure pit or lagoon flows down slopped gutters or alleys arranged from one end of the barn tothe 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 Flushcleaning 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 alongthe pipe by gravity, centrifugal pump, piston pump, pneumatic pump or pressurized air. Gravity systems offer the advantage of requiringno mechanical investment or maintenance but must be designed properly to avoid impeding manure flow by abrupt changes in transferpipe direction. For systems relying on mechanical intervention, pump selection is one of the most critical design decisions in the entiremanure handling system. The pump must be able to handle the bedding type in use as well as the volume of manure being produced in aparticular 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 canhandle manure with a higher solids level. Some pump manufacturers equip their pump’s discharge pipe with a guillotine valve thatprovides for the application of compressed air to the transfer pipe to assist the movement of manure into the storage facility. Piston pumpswith 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 bemechanical, in which the liquid portion of the manure is squeezed though a screen or via a screw within a high pressure chamber. Thisdewatering process provides a relatively dry solid material that may be reused as a bedding material. The recycling of a product alreadyproduced on the farm can have significant cost advantages compared to the purchase of off-farm bedding materials.11

Chapter 2Comparison 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 ofany particular material. Inadequate management of any bedding material will contribute to poor animal health, lower cow comfort andincreased 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 onthe level of management of the stall bedding, that within 24-48 hours of being in the stall, bacterial levels in all organic beddingmaterials 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 ofcoliform 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 supportsthe 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 Klebsiellapnemonia. 27,18,36,13Inorganic:• 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, bacterialgrowth can be supported. 6• Since the bedding material is not broken down by bacterial action it can sometimes cause a problem in liquid manure handlingsystems 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 bacterialpopulations 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 ofenvironmental bacteria better than inorganic materials. 18,21,1012

• 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 commonbedding materials.Table 2: Comparison of the Absorbency of Common Bedding Materials 57Bedding MaterialLiters of Water Absorbedper 45.3 Kgs of Dry BeddingSawdust (pine) 113Sawdust (hardwood) 68Wood Shavings (pine) 91Wood Shavings (hardwood) 68Wood Chips (pine) 136Oat Straw (combined) 113Oat Straw (chopped) 109Wheat Straw (combined) 100Wheat Straw (chopped) 95Rye Straw 95Barley Straw 95Sand 11Hay 136Peat 45513

SHAVINGS/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. 36Disadvantages:• 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 thisadvantage is lost.• Wood products, such as sawdust and shavings, often contain the greatest number of coliform bacteria and have been found to beheavily contaminated with Klebsiella species.• Sawdust and wood shavings continue to be popular choices as bedding despite evidence that outbreaks of coliform mastitis within aherd are commonly attributed to contaminated bedding. 16• New Brunswick research experience shows this bedding material should be avoided when dealing with streptococcal or gramnegativebacterial 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 thanin 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). 26Economics:• The costs associated with using shavings/sawdust in New Brunswick varies between $78 - $127 per cow per year, with the averagebeing $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 touse 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 ofat 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 asneeded.• During a mastitis outbreak or high risk time such as during the summer months, management steps should be intensified or beddingadditives considered.14

STRAWGeneral:• 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 bacterialmastitis 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 aherd 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 ofat 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 asneeded.• During a mastitis outbreak or high risk time such as during the summer months, management steps should be intensified or beddingadditives considered.15

SANDGeneral:• From an animal health standpoint sand is the best bedding for dairy cows, in fact it is considered the gold standard for bedding infreestalls.• The advantages of using sand as bedding for dairy cows is so great that alternative methods for the storage and handling must bedeveloped.• The economic advantages include an improvement in milk quality, better hoof health, maximum cow comfort, and improved tractionin the barn alleyways.• The benefit of sand bedding to the dairy industry has been well established; the improvement in udder health, foot health, and overallcow 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 ofbedding.• 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 causingorganisms.• Under New Brunswick conditions sand appeared to be a good bedding choice for decreasing the growth of all three types of mastitiscausing 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 gramnegativebacteria 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, and7 of the simulation studies.• New Brunswick research experience shows it is an optimal bedding material when dealing with streptococcal, gram-negative andKlebsiella 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 easilythan 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 traditionalmeans of accomplishing these tasks with organic bedding have generally failed when used with sand-laden manure. Sand-ladenmanure is abrasive on alley scrapers and manure pumps. It settles in manure transfer pipes and lagoons and is very difficult to agitatefor removal from the lagoon. All of these issues have created a bad image for sand that in many farmers' minds outweighs the obviousadvantages to the cow.• Addition of sand-laden manure to sandy soils can be disadvantageous for soil structure.16

Economics:• 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 estimatedthe advantage of bedding dairy cows with sand vs. rubber filled mattresses with organic bedding to be in the range of $1,200 per cowper year. This advantage is a result of measurable increases in milk production, feed efficiency, improved cow comfort, and longerherd life for individual animals. All of these parameters are critical to the profitability of today's dairy farm. The adoption rate ofusing sand in new dairy facilities has been steady with the majority of the new facilities that have been constructed in New Brunswickover the last five years converting to sand bedding. There also have been several conversions from rubber filled mattresses to sand inexisting facilities. The availability of sand bedding is also an advantage because sand used to make concrete (washed and screened) isalso an excellent source for dairy bedding. The cost per cow per year of sand-bedded barns is on average comparable to traditionalorganic 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 ofparticles 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 ofat 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 thefront 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 curbresulting 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 peryear 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 distributionto individual stalls much more efficient.• Settling lanes can be designed or mechanical systems are available to recover useable sand enabling the recovered sand to berecycled.• Over time, manure from the cows’ hooves that is brushed off by the sand bedding, will accumulate to form an organic layer in thesand initially six to eight inches below the top surface of the stall sand. With time this bacterially contaminated layer will rise closerto the surface putting the udder and teat ends in close proximity to large numbers of bacteria. This contaminated layer must beeliminated 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 leastannually 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 sandladenmanure. Based on New Brunswick experience manure handling systems designed to work with organic bedding materials donot adapt well to transferring sand-laden manure. When considering using sand as a bedding material it is important to understandthat the manure system must be designed specifically to handle sand–laden manure.17

HAYGeneral:• 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 bacterialmastitis on a herd basis.Disadvantages:• New Brunswick research experience shows this bedding material should be avoided when dealing with streptococcal mastitis on aherd 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 forageharvesters to make a bedding material that is fine enough to use in freestall barns and which can be handled by their manure pumpswithout plugging.• For tiestalls it is recommended the back one third of the stall be completely cleaned daily with additional bedding added to a level ofat 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 asneeded.• During a mastitis outbreak or high risk time such as during the summer months, management steps should be intensified or beddingadditives considered.18

PEAT MOSSGeneral:Has been used for centuries in Europe, fell out of favor with the advent of other materials, but its usage is returning as other materialsbecome more expensive or less available.Advantages:• Readily available in New Brunswick, see location of peat bogs in eastern New Brunswick in Appendix 1.• Comes in bulk and bale formats.• Low weight to volume ratio.• Slightly acidic pH i.e. pH of approximately 4• Highly absorbent, readily absorbs urine and other fluids, can absorb nearly 10 times its weight in water.• Nearly three times as absorbent as wood shavings.• Also absorbs malodours such as ammonia in urine better than straw, shavings or sawdust thus retaining nitrogen for manureenhancement.• Binds other nutrients in cow manure in particular nitrogen and potassium for future release to plants.• High in organic matter, thus enhancing soil structure making it an excellent soil amendment.• Environmentally friendly, retains nutrients in dairy manure for release to plants thus reducing nutrient runoff.• Provides an excellent cushion for cow’s feet and animals to lie down on.• Easy for manure systems to work with.• Cows will lay down more quickly in peat than in straw. 1• May reduce hock lesions in cows. 1• Cows remain cleaner in particular areas such as legs, udder and flanks. 1• Finland farmers report positive health improvements in their cows including better claw health, an absence of hock lesions, lesspneumonia and cleaner animals.• New Brunswick research experience shows it is an optimal bedding material when dealing with Streptococcal mastitis, gram-negativeand Klebsiella bacterial mastitis on a herd basisDisadvantages (including challenges):• One study shows cows may eat peat bedding. 1• Is organic thus will support bacterial growth if heavily contaminated.• Is very dark in color when wet.• Makes barn very dark as light is absorbed by the peat moss.• Very dusty when dry.• Some Finland farmers experienced peat dust gathering in their milking equipment.• Peat bales may freeze in winter.Economics:• The costs associated with using peat moss in New Brunswick varies between $72 - $101 per cow per year, with the average being$89.Guidelines for Use:• For tiestalls it is recommended the back one third of the stall be completely cleaned daily with additional bedding added to a level ofat least two inches.• For freestalls, bedding in the stall should be groomed daily i.e. manure and urine removed from the stalls and with new beddingadded as needed.• During a mastitis outbreak or high risk time such as during the summer months, management steps should be intensified or beddingadditives considered.19

DRIED MANURE SOLIDS/DEHYDRATED MANURE 59General:• Also referred to as pressed manure solids, and recycled manure solids.• Dried manure solids are the product of removing the liquid portion from raw cow manure.• Some farms put the dried manure solids through a composting process to kill disease causing microorganisms.Advantages:• Raw product is produced on the farm.• Offers reduced costs by eliminating the need to purchase bedding from off-farm sources.• Some farm operations produce more manure that can be used for cropland, thus excess is available at virtually no cost.• Can provide a financial benefit to operator without negatively affecting level of mastitis.• Some evidence to show less frequent adding of fresh dried manure solids in deep bedded stalls has a positive impact on SCC andmastitis levelsDisadvantages:• Use of raw non-composted manure does carry the risk of transmitting disease producing microorganisms across herdmates.• To reduce the possible transmission of disease producing microorganisms dried manure solids should be adequately composted. (allmaterial used for bedding must reach a temperature of 55 degrees Celsius for a minimum of 72 hours during the composting process).• Composting may not kill all Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis bacteria, the causative agent of Johnes disease. Thus, usingdried manure solids raw or composted can increase the risk of spreading Johnes disease in a herd in particular if it is used to bed dairycalves.• To reduce risk of spreading Johnes Disease in a herd, dried manure solids should not be used to bed dairy calves as calves routinelyingest bedding materials.• Is an organic material, thus capable of supporting bacterial growth.• In deep beds tends to mat together from the weight of the cow.Guidelines for Use:• Can be composted using a drum composter or windrow composting.• If using mattresses it is recommended spreading at least two to three inches of the material on top of the mattress with refreshmenttimes varying between two to six times per week.• In deep bedded stalls 12 to 24 inches of dried manure solids have been used successfully.• For tiestalls it is recommended the back one third of the stall be completely cleaned daily with additional bedding added to a level ofat 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 asneeded.• During a mastitis outbreak or high risk time such as during the summer months, management steps should be intensified or beddingadditives considered.20

COMPOST SYSTEMSGeneral:• Cows are maintained on a bedded pack resting area.• Producers can use dry, fine wood shavings or sawdust for bedding to encourage the rapid growth of bacteria which increase thetemperature of the pack sufficiently to inactivate the growth of disease producing organisms.• Stirring aerates and mixes manure and urine on the surface into the pack to provide a fresh surface for cows to lie down on.Advantages:• Provides excellent cow comfort.• Cows remain relatively clean, very comfortable and have fewer lameness problems.• Mastitis incidence similar to traditional bedding types, in some cases had lower somatic cell counts than in traditional tie or free stalloperations. 22Disadvantages:• Excellent pack management and pre-milking cow preparation procedures are required. 22• New Brunswick experiments showed that compost bedding had a higher bacterial count than more traditional beddings when lookingat Klebsiella, E. coli, and Staphloccoccal species.• New Brunswick research experience shows this bedding material should be avoided when dealing with streptococcal or Klebsiellamastitis on a herd basis.Guidelines for Use 22• The pack is sized to provide a minimum bedded pack area of 11.0 square meters (120 square feet) per cow. 69• The pack is stirred (aerated) at least two times each day to a producer recommended depth of 25 to 30 cm (10 to 12 inches).• Cows are bedded with fresh wood shavings or sawdust when the pack becomes wet enough to stick to the animals.• If you kneel on the pack and your knees get wet in 25 seconds then the pack is too wet. 69• Good ventilation is important for drying out the surface of the pack so that bacterial growth is slowed and the bedding material doesnot stick to the cows. 30• The pack can provide manure storage for 6 to 12 months.RECYCLED PAPERGeneral:• Although in-vitro studies have shown that recycled chopped newspaper supported lower bacterial growth than did many otherorganic materials commonly used as bedding, one on-farm study in 1990 found that it did not. 17• In spite of the difference between in-vitro and field studies bacterial counts in the bedding and on the teat skin indicated that recycledchopped newspaper can be used as acceptable alternative bedding for lactating dairy cows. 17Advantages:• Very absorbent• inexpensive, maybe easily accessible• practical for use with most manure management systemsDisadvantages:• Accessibility in New Brunswick may be currently reduced due to less paper recycling in the province.• Seemed to have little advantage in reducing exposure of teat ends to mastitis pathogens compared with use of other organicmaterials. 6121

Guidelines for Use:• For tiestalls it is recommended the back one third of the stall be completely cleaned daily with additional bedding added to a level ofat 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 asneeded.• During a mastitis outbreak or high risk time such as during the summer months, management steps should be intensified or beddingadditives considered.BEDDING TREATMENTS/ADDITIVES:General:Bedding treatments or chemical disinfectants, as they are sometimes referred to, are designed to be added to the bedding material to limitthe growth of bacterial populations associated with environmental mastitis. They accomplish this action by reducing the moisture levels ofthe bedding as well as attempting to alter the pH from the optimal level individual bacterial species prefer. One of the most commonbedding treatments is the addition of calcium powders such as calcium hydroxide (hydrated lime), calcium carbonate (agricultural lime) orcalcium sulfate (gypsum) to the bedding material or alternately the purchase of one of the commercial products available from farmsupply companies.Advantages:• Calcium hydroxide or hydrated lime is commonly used with wood based bedding materials and if properly used:o Elevates pH i.e. makes the bedding material more alkaline and reduces moisture content of the bedding which together act toinhibit bacterial growth. 16o Has been shown to reduce coliform and Klebsiella bacterial species.o adds lime to the soil• Calcium sulfate or gypsum can be used as a bedding treatment as it:o has a neutral pH thus carries less risk of producing skin irritation on the cow’s teats.o adds calcium sulfate to the soilDisadvantages:Bedding treatments varied in their effectiveness and the type of bacteria that they effectively reduce:• In one study which compared hydrated lime, a commercial acidic conditioner, coal fly ash and kiln-dried wood shavings as beddingtreatments on mattresses, only the bedding samples and teat swabs from the hydrated lime treatment showed reduced bacterial counts.Furthermore, coliforms and Klebsiella species were the only species that were significantly reduced. 25• Another study showed the persistence of the benefits of adding chemical disinfectants to organic bedding materials was relativelyshort. Specifically, the use of chemical disinfectants significantly reduced populations of bacteria for the first day only afterapplication in the bedding treated with conditioners and on the teat ends of cows housed in stalls. Subsequently on day 2 and day 6post application the antibacterial effects of disinfectants were greatly diminished, and mastitis pathogen populations were comparablebetween cows on treated bedding and those on untreated bedding. 16,20• Other studies have demonstrated the antibacterial effectiveness of disinfectants was related to the original pH of the bedding forexample. 20oalkaline products work best in products with a higher pH e.g. recycled manure with a pH of 6 than in kiln-dried sawdust witha pH of 4o acidic products work best in bedding with a lower pH e.g. kiln-dried sawdust with a pH of 4• Excessive levels of some additives such as lime can actually blister the skin on teats and cause irritation of the animal’s respiratorysystem.Guidelines for Use:• Gypsum or agricultural lime:It is recommended it be used at an initial rate of 0.50 kg (1.10 lbs) to 0.75 kg (1.65 lbs) per stall with a maintenanceapplication of 0.25 kg (0.55 lbs) per stall per day.• Hydrated lime:It is recommended to be used at an initial rate of 0.25 kg (0.55 lb) to 0.37 kg (0.8 lb) per stall with a maintenanceapplication of 0.125 kg (0.25 lb) per stall per day. Hydrated lime should be covered by fresh bedding whenever possible toavoid direct contact with teat skin.22

• Commercial productsImportant to follow manufacturers’ guidelines.STALL BASES:Tiestalls and freestalls can be outfitted with a number of commercial rubber or synthetic material bases that attempt to mimic the softsurface of pasture thus encouraging the cows to recline in a stall as much as they would under pasture conditions. Specifically these basesfunction to improve the level of cow comfort, increase the traction for cows rising and reclining, reduce injury to contact points such ashock and knee joints, while at the same time significantly reducing the amount of bedding required. However, the use of bedding isrecommended in conjunction with all these bases as it acts as a lubricant between the stall base material and the reclining cow. These stallbases come in a variety of designs based on the range of commercial manufacturers and materials used but all fall into either of twocategories, solid mats or filled mattresses. See reference section for contact information for specific manufacturers.(i) Cow stall mats:Cow stall mats are normally constructed of a 1.9 to 2.5 centimeter (¾ to 1 inch) thick industrial grade solid rubber or a multi-layeredvinyl. Given their solid nature they offer the least improvement for cow comfort over a concrete base covered with bedding. However,these mats do provide a non-abrasive, non-skid surface that adds traction for cows, is impervious to water, bacteria and mold, whileoffering low maintenance and reduced bedding requirements. Stall mats properly installed on a sloped surface facilitate drainage of fluidskeeping the cows drier. In addition, the mat offers a layer of insulation between the cold concrete stall base and the cow during wintertemperature conditions. Stall matting is available in an individual mat or a continuous roll configuration. Individual mats can be utilized intiestall barns with in-floor stall dividers with continuous mats lending themselves to installation in freestall barns with suspended loopstyle stall dividers. Individual mats come in a range of sizes to fit standard sized cow stalls with some manufactures offering custom sizedmats to fit non-standard sized stalls. The continuous roll design can cover a number of stalls with a single piece of matting reducing thenumber of seams. However, if an area of matting becomes damaged the individual mat configuration offers an easier repair via matreplacement whereas; the continuous mat requires a larger area to be replaced. Some vinyl mat manufacturers do not recommend the useof sand with their mats due to the abrasive action of the bedding on the softer vinyl product. The rubber mats are environmentally friendlyas they are generally made from recycled rubber.(ii) Cow mattresses:A cow mattress consists of an exterior envelope made of either synthetic materials or rubber, filled with an inner core of crumbled rubber,gel or water. In addition to the benefits of solid mats described above, mattresses tend to be much thicker than mats thus offeringadditional cow comfort. Mattress manufactures offer the individual and continuous design formats. Some manufacturers designmattresses for particular bedding materials such as sand. These manufacturers claim up to an 80% reduction in bedding used. Mattressesfilled with crumbled rubber often become firmer with time due to the compaction of the particle core. To overcome the compaction issuemanufacturers have moved to gel-mats where the core is made up of multiple compartments filled with a gel substance instead of acrumbled rubber. These mattresses are purported to remain softer for much longer periods as well as reducing pressure points on thecow’s contact points with the mattress. Alternately, dual chambered mattresses filled with water, commonly referred to as cow waterbeds,have become more popular in recent years due to low incidence of hock joint abrasion, minimal bedding needs and the prolonged life ofthe mattress. 67 One water filled chamber at the front of the mattress cushions the front of the cow while a rear chamber supports the rearweight of the animal. Producers report that cows take some time to get adjusted to waterbeds due to the nature of the water movementwithin the chambers. One research paper reported a dairy operation using cow waterbeds enjoyed lower cow culling rates than dairies thatused either rubber filled mattresses or sand. 67Regardless of what commercial product is chosen it is important that the stall surface over which the stall base is installed is adequatelysloped to the rear to facilitate drainage of fluids off the base material. It is also critical that the manufacturer’s specific mountinginstructions be followed when installing a specific stall base to capitalize on the benefits of the investment as well as to maximize thelongevity of the product. Finally, it is important to remember that these stall bases are not a substitute for adequate bedding managementas all require bedding and daily attention to ensure maximum cow comfort.23

Chapter 3Quality Livestock Bedding Products Research:1. “Researching Quality Livestock Bedding Products for NB Dairy Farms”Background:This project was initiated as a direct result of a critical shortage of bedding materials for dairy herds in Atlantic Canada in thefirst decade of 2000. In 2009, Milk 2020 in partnership with the Atlantic Veterinary College, designed and completed a research projectwith the sole objective of attempting to find alternate, local, reliable, inexpensive, non-disease promoting sources of bedding material forNew Brunswick dairy farmers. The project had two phases, with Phase I being an on-farm survey of New Brunswick dairy producers toexamine the variety of bedding materials used in the province followed by a global literature review. Phase II involved field testing ofvarious bedding materials in relation to the growth of mastitis associated bacteria. The on-farm component also involved laboratoryanalysis and simulation studies of different bedding materials used in the province. Collectively both phases researched links betweenindividual bedding types and on-farm milk quality, the risk of disease associated with each alternative, with particular emphasis onmastitis as well as cow comfort.Phase 1 - On-Farm Survey, Laboratory Analysis of New Brunswick Bedding Materials and GlobalLiterature Review:Component A - On-Farm Survey, Laboratory Analysis of New Brunswick Bedding Materials:To collect bedding and milk quality risk factor information from New Brunswick dairy farms, a questionnaire was circulated inSeptember 2009 to all 234 New Brunswick dairy producers. The survey collected information on general farm demographics, cowcleanliness and hygiene, disease incidence (emphasis on mastitis) and bedding use and management. By March 2010, 107 dairy operationsrepresenting almost 50% of dairy farms, had responded. A summary of the overall farm demographics and bedding usage is presented inTables 3 and 4, respectively.Table 3: Description of the herds completing New Brunswick bedding survey:DemographicsHerds Average # Std dev Min MaxLactating cows 107 86.3 63.5 14 375Dry cows 105 16.6 15.2 1 100Bred heifers 104 29.3 27.8 3 150Pasture usagePasture 62Total confinement 36Exercise yard only 9Housing (some herds have more than one type)Lactating cows Dry Cows Bred HeifersTiestall 47 Tiestall 36 Tiestall 31Freestall 67 Freestall 51 Freestall 61Bedded Pack 2 Bedded Pack 26 Bedded Pack 31Other 8 Other 26 Other 32Stall baseLactating cows Dry Cows Bred HeifersConcrete 14 Concrete 27 Concrete 29Mattress 56 Mattress 36 Mattress 27Rubber mat 30 Rubber mat 19 Rubber mat 25Clay 6 Clay 9 Clay 15Other 16 Other 32 Other 35Milking systemParlour (parallel, herring bone or similar) 64Flat parlour 2Tie stall with bucket milkers 0Tie stall with pipeline 38Other system 324

Table 4: Summary of bedding materials and conditioners used by herds completing the survey:Bedding typeLactating cows Dry Cows Bred HeifersStraw 29 Straw 31 Straw 24Sawdust 11 Sawdust 16 Sawdust 13Shavings 19 Shavings 16 Shavings 12Sand 11 Sand 10 Sand 7Peat 2 Peat 2 Peat 2Hay 4 Hay 6 Hay 9Lime 1 Lime 1 Lime 1Sawdust/Shavings 20 Sawdust/Shavings 13 Sawdust/Shavings 6Sawdust/Sand 1 Sawdust/Sand 0 Sawdust/Sand 0Sawdust/straw 4 Sawdust/straw 1 Sawdust/straw 0Hay/Straw 1 Hay/Straw 1 Hay/Straw 1Hay/shavings 1 Hay/shavings 1 Hay/shavings 0No bedding 3 No bedding 3 No bedding 10Peat/Shavings 3 Peat/Shavings 1 Peat/Shavings 0Lime/Sand 1 Lime/Sand 1 Lime/Sand 1Lime/Shavings 1 Lime/Shavings Lime/Shavings 0Pressed manure 1 Pressed manure 1 Pressed manure 1Shavings/Straw 2 Shavings/Straw 11Shavings/Sand 2Sawdust/Sand/Stra 2Sawdust/Shav/Stra 6Bedding conditionerLactating cows Dry Cows Bred HeifersHydrated lime 18 Hydrated lime 9 Hydrated lime 5Agricultural lime 22 Agricultural lime 14 Agricultural lime 7Gypsum 7 Gypsum 1 Gypsum 1Commercial 2 Commercial 1 Commercial 1Peat 1 Peat 0 Peat 0Other 1 Other 0 Other 0No conditioner 61 No conditioner 83 No conditioner 94Data from the questionnaire was merged using Dairy Farmers of New Brunswick herd identification, with milk quality data collected forregulatory purposes in the province. Specifically, weekly bulk tank somatic cell count (an indication of subclinical mastitis infection)and monthly Standard Plate Count (SPC) and Laboratory Pasteurization Count (LPC) data were available. Associations betweenbedding type, bedding management, and milking management with quality outcomes were assessed.Table 5 contains information on the responders and non-responders to the survey. The indices of milk quality (SPC, LPC and SCC) areexpressed both as raw averages and geometric means (because they are not normally distributed). In all cases, the survey responders hadsubstantially better milk quality (lower counts) than the non-responders. Table 6 illustrates the milk quality by barn type among theresponders. Free stall operators have slightly better bacteria counts (SPC and LPC) and substantially lower SCC compared to the tiestalloperators.Table 5: Milk quality among responders and non-responders to the mailout/telephone survey:Producer SPCSPC LPC LPC Raw SCC SCC RawResponse GeoMean Raw GeoMeanGeoMeanSurvey 3578 6597 80 108 200021 207204respondersNon- 5266 8066 136 215 240371 250621RespondersTotal 4509 7408 111 167 222283 23115825

Table 6: Milk quality parameters for tie and free stall herds among the 104 herds answering that question:Barntype Number SPCGeoMean LPCGeoMean SCCGeoMeanTiestall 38 3325 76 226943Freestall 61 3738 83 184107Other 5 3532 66 189557Table 7 contains a summary of milk quality by bedding type employed. Caution should be taken inferring a causal relationship,particularly because certain bedding types have very few farms represented. In general, it can be observed that farms using sand hadsuperior milk quality to those using straw and wood products, which were similar to each other.Table 7: Milk quality by bedding type used:Bedding type Number SPC GeoMean LPC GeoMean SCC GeoMeanStraw 29 3311 83 197945Sawdust/shavings 53 3599 73 199632Sand 9 2623 62 148938Lime+ 2 2124 65 220824Hay+ 4 4362 96 266737Peat+ 3 6708 48 249244Other/none 3 4967 185 221124Using data from Table 4, fresh unused bedding representing bedding types or combinations from 21 farms were sampled and cultured toassess bacterial burdens in unused bedding and to provide preliminary data on the performance of the different bedding materials undersimulated conditions. Specifically, bacterial analysis involved calculating the total number of bacteria (aerobic count), and the totalnumber of coliform bacteria. These total counts are important indicators of bacterial load and are often the only ones reported in theliterature. Beyond total counts, an evaluation was conducted for three important groups or species of bacteria associated with bedding andmastitis namely Streptococcus species, E. coli and Klebsiella species.Because non-bedding factors such as length of time bedding is in the stall, humidity on sample day, and stall usage may have a biginfluence on the outcome, a laboratory simulation in a more controlled environment was also conducted. Small qualities of each selectedbedding material were incubated with feces and urine and known quantities of the important mastitis pathogens Streptococcus uberis, E.coli and Klebsiella. Bacterial growth was evaluated in the bedding material at day 0, 2, 4 and 7 after inoculation. Only data for days 0, 2and 4 are shown because bacteria numbers declined after day 4, indicating a lack of nutrients which would not likely occur on the farmwhere organic bedding material is added periodically. Data from the laboratory simulation study are presented in Tables 8-10. In thesetables bacterial growth has been illustrated by a color code. Green represents a range of no growth to very limited growth which is theoptimal result. Yellow represents bacterial growth of an intermediate level, not yet to a level of concern. Orange represents a bacterialgrowth level of concern for environmental mastitis. Red represents bacterial growth of a dangerous level. From these data, clear trends inthe ability of various materials to support bacterial growth are observed.Table 8: Ability of various bedding types and combinations to support the growth of streptococci bacteriaover a 4 day incubation period:Type of BeddingMaterialNumber ofSamplesWood 10Straw 3Compost 3Hay 3Sand 2Silica 2Peat 1Peat wood 3Gypsum wood 3Gypsum straw 1Gypsum Paper 1Wood Ash 126Streptococcal SpeciesElapsed TimeDay 0 Day 2 Day 4

Data from Table 8 shows sand/silica and 100% peat are clearly superior for controlling Streptococcal species. Mixing peat with woodappears to diminish its effectiveness.Table 9: Ability of various bedding types and combinations to support the growth of Gram-negativebacteria over a 4 day incubation period:Type of BeddingMaterialNumberofSamplesWood 10Straw 3Compost 3Hay 3Sand 2Silica 2Peat 1Peat wood 3Gypsum wood 3Gypsum straw 1Gypsum Paper 1Wood Ash 1Gram-negative BacteriaElapsed TimeDay 0 Day 2 Day 4Data in Table 9 illustrates any bedding material that contains wood (100% or mixture) appears to promote the growth of Gram-negativebacteria. Composted (recycled) manure solids also appear to promote the growth of Gram-negative bacteria.Table 10: Ability of various bedding types and combinations to support the growth of Klebsiella bacteriaover a 4 day incubation period:Type of BeddingMaterialNumber ofSamplesWood 10Straw 3Compost 3Hay 3Sand 2Silica 2Peat 1Peat wood 3Gypsum wood 3Gypsum straw 1Gypsum Paper 1Wood Ash 1Klebsiella SpeciesElapsed TimeDay 0 Day 2 Day 4As shown in Table 10, patterns are a bit more difficult to observe in these data. Again in general terms anything with wood and compost isa potential problem. One of the sand samples had very high numbers which was unexpected based on the Gram-negative data.Conclusions from On-Farm Survey and associated Laboratory Analysis:In conclusion, the On-Farm Survey demonstrated herds in New Brunswick use a variety of traditional and non-conventional beddingsources. Based on the analysis of bedding data and laboratory parameters, there appears to be a relationship between the type of beddingused and herd milk quality.27

Analysis of the bacterial promotion capacity of various bedding types provides further evidence that inorganic bedding such as sand issuperior for milk quality promotion. However, not all farms have the infrastructure to handle sand-laden manure. Other novel beddingmaterials, in particular peat, appear to have good attributes and may provide alternatives to traditional bedding materials. Recycledmanure has gained favor in certain areas of the United States, particularly in the traditional dry lot dairy states. This bedding source hasrelatively low initial bacteria burden but as an organic source excellent management is required to minimize bacterial growth in stalls.From these laboratory experiments it appeared as though the preferred bedding type was dependant on what strain of bacteria was present.When dealing with Streptococcal species sand, silica, and peat performed best while wood, straw, compost and hay should be avoided.When present the bacteria are mainly gram-negative, then the optimal bedding types are straw, hay, sand, silica, and peat, while anythinginvolving wood should be avoided. Finally, when dealing with Klebsiella, the ideal bedding materials appear to be straw, hay, sand,silicone, and peat. Compost and bedding involving gypsum should be avoided if Klebsiella is prevalent.Furthermore the results of this preliminary research point to the need for a more complete assessment of selected bedding materials in afarm-based experimental model. Key indicators of success of the bedding material are containment of bacterial growth in the materialitself over time, low bacteria counts at the teat orifice and low new mastitis infection rates. Additionally, some measure of stall behavior(lying time) should be evaluated to assess cow comfort.Component B – Global Literature Review:This literature review, in addition to looking at the range of bedding materials used in dairy operations, concentrated on directlinks between individual bedding types and on-farm milk quality, the risk of disease associated with each alternative, with particularemphasis on mastitis as well as cow welfare. Over 200 articles were found with 41 being considered sufficiently original and scientificallysound to be examined in detail in support of the objectives of the research study. Because not all pertinent information might get publishedin a scientific article, 15 experts from North America and Europe where housing and bedding needs are similar, were consulted. Elevenexperts responded, yielding an additional four papers and two websites with bedding resources. Responding experts represented thefollowing countries Canada (2), United Kingdom (2), United States (3), Finland (2), Norway (1) and the Netherlands (1). Referencedetails of the 39 scientific papers used in the study are found in Chapter 6 of the Manual. The literature review unearthed some verypractical information which is summarized below.(i) Mastitis and Bacteria Counts:General comments originating from the literature review are captured in the paragraphs below whereas specific findings relatedto a specific bedding material are also described under the specific bedding material type as found in Chapter 2.It is commonly accepted that the higher the number of bacteria found in any particular bedding material the higher the risk ofenvironmental mastitis in dairy cows utilizing this bedding material. No bedding material, once exposed to dairy cows, remains free ofbacteria. Researchers have generally used the rule of thumb that bedding materials should be kept below a maximum bacterial count ofone million colony-forming units (cfu) per gram of bedding wet weight to reduce the chances of mastitis. This number is based on a studywhere there were no new cases of coliform mastitis when bedding counts were at or below this one million threshold, one summer, butthere were several new cases the following summer when bedding counts were above the one million cfu/g wet weight. 3 Some studiesshow a correlation between the number of bacteria in the bedding, and/or the number on the teat ends, and mastitis. 6The control of bacterial populations in organic materials often involves intensive management of stalls and bedding. 16 Klebsiellapneumonia commonly causes clinical mastitis in dairy cattle. Organic products such as sawdust and dried manure solids are considered toprovide optimal growing conditions for this organism. 27,18,36,13 Sawdust and straw were shown to have Klebsiella present in notablenumbers in the clean samples, even before the feces and urine were added to the samples and incubated. Environmental hygiene and theuse of inorganic bedding such as sand are recommended to control Klebsiella. This is born out in the New Brunswick research where itappeared as though sand did have lower numbers of Klebsiella bacteria than sawdust on days 0, 2, 4, and 7 of the simulation studies. Onthe other hand, sand can potentially carry high counts of Streptococcus species. 39,24 However, recent studies have shown that Klebsiellacan be shed in feces and the inorganic bedding can become a source of contamination for the rest of the herd. 27 Although sawdust andother wood based bedding materials are not ideal for controlling Klebsiella populations, sawdust has been shown to reduce the risk ofStreptococus uberis, compared to other beddings such as straw or peat. 36 However, the New Brunswick simulation studies indicated thatthere were higher rates of Streptococcal bacteria in wood based bedding than in peat based bedding, on days 0, 2, 4, and 7. Straw beddingsupported the growth of Streptococcal bacteria more readily than either peat or wood based bedding. When peat and wood werecombined, it appeared as though the beneficial aspects of both bedding types were lost, and the combination appeared to readily supportthe growth of Streptococcal species.High bacterial counts in bedding are influenced by factors more complex than the type of bedding used. 40 Bacterial counts havebeen shown to differ among bedding materials and seasons of the year. 18 Studies have also shown that cleaning the stalls often, results in28

lower somatic cell and bacterial counts. 21,9 In addition to availability, cost, cow comfort, and manure handling, producers should alsoconsider the ability of a bedding material to promote growth of environmental mastitis pathogens when selecting a bedding material. 13Therefore, it is important to know what mastitis causing pathogens are present on the farm in order to determine which bedding typeswould be best suited for it.Studies have shown that organic bedding materials had significantly higher moisture content and thus supported the growth ofenvironmental bacteria better than inorganic materials. 18,21,10 Once inoculated, factors that can influence the ability of bacteria to multiplyin bedding include ambient temperature, moisture/humidity, bedding management (e.g., frequent removal and replacement ofcontaminated bedding), and the presence of sufficient amounts of the required nutrients. These nutrients could be introduced throughcontamination of the bedding with organic materials such as feces or milk. 7 Alternately, the bedding material itself may already haveinherent physical, biochemical, or nutritional properties that could sustain or promote bacterial growth. 13 In the New Brunswicksimulation studies many of the bedding options showed an increase in mastitis causing bacterial loads from days 0 to 2, and again fromdays 2 to 4, indicating that when bedding is left in the stall for a number of days, the bacterial numbers increase.A correlation between mastitis infections and the number of mastitis pathogens on the teat end has been proven. Therefore,management practices that reduce exposure of mastitis pathogens to the teat end should result in reduced rates of new mastitis infections.Bedding materials are considered as the primary sources of environmental pathogens during the inter-milking periods. 18,13 It is significantto note that even though the number and type of bacteria in bedding are related to the microbial load on the teat end, trials demonstrating arelationship between bacterial counts in bedding and rates of mastitis infections reported varying results. Some trials did not find anassociation between the number of bacteria in bedding and the rate of new mastitis infections. 18,32 Other trials found that populations ofbacteria in bedding materials have been associated with an increase in contaminated teat ends by environmental bacteria and an increasedincidence of mastitis infections. 12,2 One researcher reported that greater than one million colony-forming units of Streptococcus uberis, pergram of bedding material, possibly resulted in an increased incidence of environmental mastitis. 2 Udder hygiene scores have beensignificantly associated with the prevalence of mastitis infections. In one study, cows with udder hygiene scores of 3 and 4 were 1.5 timesmore likely to have major pathogens isolated from milk samples compared with cows with hygiene scores of 1 and 2. 31Bacterial counts in bedding differ among seasons of the year and material type. Environmental bacteria counts on teat ends aregreatest during summer and fall, which coincided with the highest rates of clinical mastitis during that time of year. 18 Organic beddingmaterials contain significantly higher bacterial counts than inorganic materials. Organic materials such as straw, corn fodder, and sawdustoften contain greater than one million cfu/g of coliform bacteria when used as bedding. Bacteria counts also differ within organicbeddings types. Wood products, such as sawdust and shavings, often contain the greatest number of coliform bacteria and have beenfound to be heavily contaminated with Klebsiella species. Sawdust and wood shavings continue to be popular choices as bedding despiteevidence that outbreaks of coliform mastitis within a herd are commonly attributed to contaminated bedding. 16Studies suggest that use of inorganic bedding such as sand decreases teat end exposure to environmental mastitis pathogens. Useof inorganic bedding materials appears to be most advantageous during summer and fall when gram-negative bacterial populations weregreatest in bedding for lactating cows. 18 Under New Brunswick conditions sand appeared to be a good bedding choice for decreasing thegrowth of all three types of mastitis causing bacteria. It did not readily support the growth of gram-negative bacteria like wood based andcompost bedding did.A study comparing concentration levels of E. coli 0157:H7, (the bacteria associated with food-borne illnesses such as undercookedhamburgers) in sawdust and sand, found that concentrations of E. coli were higher in the sawdust bedding. Farm managementpractices and bedding type may reduce the prevalence of food-borne pathogens in a herd and consequently enhance food safety. 26 TheNew Brunswick study indicated that peat, silica, and straw have similar outcomes as sand in terms of E. coli growth, while beddingmaterials combined with gypsum more readily supported the growth of gram-negative bacteria.Housing type may also have an effect on which pathogens are present. A recent study showed that tiestall barns have higherincidences of Staphylococcus aureaus, Streptococcus uberis and coagulase negative staphlococcus, whereas freestalls have higherincidences of Klebsiella and E. coli. 29(ii) Bedding treatments:Bacterial populations can peak on teat ends in as little as 12 hours and in bedding in as little as 24 hours. 25 Thereforemanagement practices that reduce microbial loads in bedding should reduce teat end exposure and in turn the incidence of mastitisinfections caused by environmental bacteria. 16 For instance, in the New Brunswick study the bacterial populations increased steadily fromdays 0 to 4, then showed a slight decline toward day 7 for all three mastitis causing bacteria. This illustrates if the bedding is allowed tosit in a stall it will harbour a greater bacterial population up to a certain length of time.In order to control bacterial populations in bedding a common practice on many farms that use wood products for bedding is toadd hydrated lime to the stalls. The added lime elevates the pH i.e. makes the bedding material more alkaline, and reduces the moisture29

content of the bedding which together act to inhibit bacterial growth. 16 However, bedding treatments varied in their effectiveness and thetype of bacteria that they effectively reduced. In one study which compared hydrated lime, a commercial acidic conditioner, coal fly ashand kiln-dried wood shavings as bedding treatments on mattresses, only the bedding samples and teat swabs from the hydrated limetreatment showed reduced bacterial counts. Furthermore, coliforms and Klebsiella species were the only species that were significantlyreduced. 25 The New Brunswick simulation experiments indicated that wood ash also reduced the growth of Klebsiella, E.coli, andStreptococcal species.Another study showed the persistence of the benefits of adding chemical disinfectants to organic bedding materials was relativelyshort. Specifically, the use of chemical disinfectants significantly reduced populations of bacteria for only the first day after application inbedding treated with conditioners and on the teat ends of cows housed in stalls. Subsequently on day 2 and day 6 post application theantibacterial effects of disinfectants were greatly diminished, and mastitis pathogen populations were comparable between treated cowsand bedding and untreated controls. 16,20 Other studies have demonstrated the antibacterial effectiveness of disinfectants was related to theoriginal pH of the bedding. 20 For example, in one study, alkaline-based products controlled bacterial populations more effectively inrecycled manure with an approximate pH of 6.0 than in kiln-dried sawdust with a lower pH of around 4.0. Conversely another analysisdemonstrated an acidic product was more effective in kiln-dried sawdust than in recycled manure. 19 Finally, a third study illustrated theuse of an alkaline conditioner on recycled manure bedding resulted in reduced bacterial counts 2 days after application. On sawdustbedding, the same alkaline conditioner did not alter bacterial populations. An acidic conditioner did reduce bacterial populations insawdust up to 2 days after application. After 2 days, the antibacterial activity of both conditioners deteriorated in both bedding types. 20(iii) Alternative bedding types:(a) Compost:Producer experience with well-managed compost barns in Minnesota has generally been positive. Cows are relatively clean, verycomfortable, have fewer lameness problems, and in some cases had lower somatic cell counts after moving to a compost barn from tiestallor freestall barns. However, excellent pack management and pre-milking cow procedures are required. With excellent managementpractices, cows on a compost pack will have SCC and mastitis prevalence comparable to traditional bedding types. 22 In compost barnssmall wood chips or sawdust are used because they encourage the rapid growth of bacteria. The rapid growth increases the temperature ofthe compost pack enough to sufficiently inactivate the growth of pathogens. Good ventilation is important for drying out the surface of thepack so that bacterial growth is slowed and the bedding does not stick to the cows. 30 However, in contrast, the New Brunswick experimentshowed that compost bedding also had a higher bacterial count than more traditional beddings when looking at Klebsiella, E. coli, andStaphylococcus species.(b) Recycled newspaper:Recycled newspaper is an inexpensive, organic bedding material that is practical for use with most manure management systems.Although in-vitro studies have shown that recycled chopped newspaper supported lower bacterial growth than did many other organicmaterials commonly used as bedding, one on-farm study found that it did not. 17 In spite of the difference between in-vitro and fieldstudies, bacterial counts in the bedding and on the teat skin under field conditions indicated that recycled chopped newspaper can be usedas an acceptable alternative bedding for lactating dairy cows. However, the use of recycled newspaper seemed to have little advantage inreducing exposure of teat ends to mastitis pathogens compared with use of other organic materials.(c) Peat Bedding:A recent study examined lying and standing behavior, hock lesions, cleanliness, hygiene at the lying area, milk production, feedconsumption and the growth of Staphylococcus aureus in peat bedding. 1 The behavioral study found that it took significantly less time tolie down on the peat than on straw. Hock lesions decreased 40% after four weeks using peat with the tuber calcis lesions decreasing 50%. A cleanliness study on legs, udder and flank demonstrated these parts of the animal significantly improved on cows bedded with peat.In the analysis of the hygiene in the lying area, straw had significantly lower number of aerobic bacteria compared to peat litter. Theanalysis for Staphylococcus aureus showed this disease organism had higher growth rates in straw compared with sawdust and peat litter.The New Brunswick experiment showed mixed results in this area when looking at gram-negative bacteria. At day 2, 4 and 7 the bacterialgrowth rate for peat was lower than both straw and wood based bedding. It appears as though anything with a wood base is not good whendealing with gram-negative bacteria. Different bacterial concentrations were used in the analysis, with corresponding subclinical mastitisand acute clinical mastitis. After six hours incubation no bacterial growth was seen on peat or sawdust, but after 24 hours a high growthrate was shown on both. Straw had a high growth rate already after only six hours. It also had a high number of bacteria from thebeginning while peat and sawdust had no bacteria from the start. Analysis of Staphylococcus aureus showed that the dirty beddingmaterial should be replaced within six hours in order to decrease the risk of infection. The results from feed intake in the dairy cowsshowed that the cows possibly consumed peat litter at the start of the experiment. No significant differences were seen in the analysis ofmilk production.30

In a study in Finland a group of farms who had started using peat litter because it was difficult to buy straw or sawdust wereexamined. During the study period several farmers quit using peat as bedding, with two farmers indicating seroius problems with peatgathering in their milking equipment while others reported bales that froze in the winter while others could not justify the high price ofpeat. The farmers did see positive health improvements in their cows including better claw health, an absence of hock lesions, lesspneumonia and cleaner animals. All the farmers were very satisfied with peat litter in their manure handling systems as well as its abilityto absorb liquids. On the negative side, peat litter was found to be dusty and it became very dark when wet. The farmers also hadconcerns regarding the consistency and water content in peat litter.(iv) Cow Health and Comfort:Several papers reviewed demonstrated that cow comfort i.e. the laying surface provided and cow health are interrelated. In onestudy management factors related to hygiene were significantly associated with an increased rate of clinical mastitis. 15 Another studydemonstrated failure to provide clean, dry housing conditions increases the risk of environmental mastitis infections, which may result inhigher bulk tank somatic cell counts. 38 Other studies confirmed cow comfort and hygiene have a substantial impact on milk quality. 23,14Cows prefer laying surfaces with more bedding, as they spend more time lying down in well-bedded stalls than in those withlittle or no bedding. 11,33,34 Once a well-bedded surface is provided, it must then be properly maintained. It has been shown that lying timeon sand bedding declined by approximately 10 minutes per day for every 1 cm of reduction in the depth of sand. 11,8 Subsequent to adecline in bedding quantity, dry matter content also decreases rapidly resulting in increased bacterial counts in the bedding and on theteats. It has also been reported that cows preferred bedding that contained less moisture. 11 The risk of interdigital dermatitis alsoincreases with decreasing amounts of bedding. 4 Cows housed in deep-bedded sand stalls have a lower prevalence of lameness than cowshoused on mattresses with little or no bedding. 5In order to reduce straw input, soft stall mats are used increasingly instead of straw bedding in freestall systems for dairy cows.It has been shown that there is no difference in lying behavior for stalls bedded with straw versus soft mats. However, leg injuries (hairloss, wounds, scabs) increase when cows are kept on soft mats. 37 Furthermore, stalls bedded with sand produced cows that were cleanerand with less hock lesions and claw diseases than cows bedded on straw. 28Phase II – Field testing of various bedding materials in relation to the growth of mastitis associated bacteria:Introduction:The primary objective of Phase II of the project was to measure, under field conditions, the ability of various bedding materialsto promote the growth of mastitis associated bacteria. Five bedding materials were chosen based on previous research and industrypriorities. These materials included peat, wood shavings, sand, straw and recycled manure solids. Secondary objectives includedmeasuring teat end bacteria counts on cows exposed to each material, new mastitis infection rates and cow comfort for the candidatebedding materials.To judge the ability of the bedding materials to promote bacterial growth, bacterial counts were made on each of the individualbedding materials on days 0 (start of period) and days 2, 4 and 14. Specifying the bedding materials were cultures for Streptococcal, gramnegativeand Klebsiella species, all of which are important causes of mastitis. The level of presence of bacteria at teat ends and theincidence of new mastitis infections were determined by culturing teat ends and quarter milk samples, respectively, at time intervals overthe 28 day study. The comfort experienced by cows with each of the bedding materials was judged by the lying time exhibited byindividual animals, as measured by electronic accelerometers fitted to them. These devices differentiated between standing versus lyingcontinuously during extended periods of the trial.Data collection was carried out at the Atlantic Dairy and Forage Institute, in Fredericton Junction New Brunswick, during a fivemonth period in late winter and spring 2010. Twenty-five cows were used with five cows being exposed to each bedding material duringeach 28 day time period. Bedding types and cows were randomly allocated after each 28 day cycle, until all cows had been exposed toeach bedding material. All stalls were fitted with a bedding keeper and dividers to keep bedding in the stalls and prevent excessive transferbetween stalls.For straw, shavings, peat and recycled manure, stalls were bedded with approximately five centimeters (two inches) of material. Each daytechnicians removed the bedding from the back 1/3 of the stalls and added a measured amount of replacement. Technicians were free topick dirty areas from the bedding during the day. In these cases they did not add new bedding, but rather pulled back replacementbedding from other areas of the stall. For sand, a two inch depth of sand was used, with technicians grooming the sand at the back onethird of the stall and adding 10-15 kg of fresh sand per day.Laboratory analysis was conducted at the Atlantic Veterinary College. For bedding bacteria counts, samples were collected ondays 0 (start of period) and days 2, 4 and 14.31

Study Results:(i) Bedding Bacterial Counts:Statistical analysis of the bacterial number data proved to be difficult because of its unusual distribution i.e. not distributed in abell shaped curve when graphed. To overcome this problem the data was analyzed using a Mann-Whitney Rank Sum which looks at theorder or rank of each bedding count number rather than its true value. The test compares each bedding type with the next bedding type inrank and tells if they are statistically different. It is a very conservative method i.e. if differences are found with this method, then you canbe very confident they are real. Alternatively, it is not very powerful i.e. when differences are not found they may in fact exist, but themethod is not sensitive enough to detect them.Tables 11-14 show the individual rank comparisons for each bedding type for each of the three bacterial species cultured. Whilethese ranks tell whether the samples are truly different, they do not tell anything about the size of the differences. For these tables lettersin the same horizontal row that are different indicate that the bedding material supported statistically more bacterial growth than theprevious one in the row. For example a bedding material with a ranking of A supported less growth of a bacterial species than a materialranked B, C or D. In each table bedding materials are listed from left to right based on their tendency to support bacterial growth, withthose on the left supporting the least bacterial growth while those on the far supporting the greatest bacterial growth.Table 11: Bedding count ranks for growth of primarily Streptococci for the five bedding materials on days2, 4 and 14:Peat Wood Straw Sand ManureDay 2 A B BC CD DDay 4 A B C C CDay 14 A B C C CTable 11 Interpretation: Peat supported the lowest bacterial growth at all time periods. Wood was next lowest at all time periods. Strawwas always higher than peat and was higher than wood at day 4 and 14, but not statistically different on day 2. Sand was higher than woodfor Streptococcals at day 2, but was not higher than straw at any time period. Manure was the same as straw and sand on days 4 and 14,but higher than straw (but not sand) at day 2.Table 12: Bedding count ranks for growth of gram-negative bacteria for the five bedding materials on days2, 4 and 14:Peat Wood Sand Straw ManureDay 2 A A B C DDay 4 A A A B CDay 14 A A A B CTable 12 Interpretation: Peat and wood supported the lowest bacterial growth at all time periods. Sand was higher than peat and woodonly on day 2 of collection. Straw was always higher than the three lower rank bedding types and manure was always higher than straw.Table 13: Bedding count ranks for growth of primarily Klebsiella for the five bedding materials on days 2, 4and 14:Peat Wood Sand Straw ManureDay 2 A AB B C DDay 4 A AB B C DDay 14 A A B C DTable 13 Interpretation: Peat and wood supported the lowest bacterial growth at all time periods. Sand was higher than peat for all timeperiods but not statistically higher than wood on days 2 and 4. Straw was always higher than the three lower ranked bedding types andmanure was always higher than straw.In summary for all three bacteria types, peat clearly supported the lowest amounts of bacterial growth. Wood and sand weregenerally intermediate in their support of bacterial growth, with straw and manure clearly supporting a very high number of bacteria of allspecies. The magnitude of the bacterial count differences is biologically important. Meaning, there is a great difference in the capacity ofthe bedding materials to support bacterial growth above important risk thresholds established in the scientific literature. These differencescan be visualized graphically in detail in Tables 8-10. In this study peat was clearly an excellent bedding for retarding bacterial growth.32

The result is most unexpected for sand as it was expected to be the gold standard material. Sand’s poor performance may be related to thefact that these were modified tie stalls and only approximately two inches of sand depth was provided. This may not have been enoughdepth to allow liquids to drain through. Additionally, sand was managed differently than the other bedding materials. For the four organicbedding materials (peat, wood, straw and manure) the back one third of the stall was completely cleaned out daily as per industryrecommendations. On the other hand, for the sand-bedded stalls, the rear third of the bedding in the stall was not removed. Rather, as isgeneral practice, the sand was only groomed in the back one third i.e. only the gross contamination was removed and a "topping up" of thesand was done. This is not typical of sand management procedures in deep pack freestalls where most of the previous research has beenconducted. Given that sand’s performance was inferior to peat and wood under the conditions of this study, these results need to beverified for deep bedded freestall sand herds.(ii) Teat end swabs:Like the bedding bacterial count data the statistical analysis of the teat swabs data used the Mann-Whitney Rank Sum method,which looked at the order or rank of each teat bacteria count number rather than its true value. Again this test compares teat bacterianumbers for cows on one bedding type, with the next bedding type in rank, and tells if they are statistically different. In the overallassessment, teat bacteria count differences were only observed at day 4 not at days 14 or 28. Table 14 summarizes the significant bacteriacount differences at day 4 for each bacteria type.Table 14: Teat end bacteria count ranks for growth for Streptococcal, Gram-negative and Klebsiella on dayfour of the trial.Wood Peat Sand Straw ManureStreptococcal A A B B BGram A AB BC CD BCNeagaiveKlebsiella A A A AB BTable 14 Interpretation: Wood and peat supported the lowest Streptococcal teat bacteria numbers versus, the other three bedding typeswhich were not different from each other. For gram-negative bacteria, wood was lowest but it was not significantly different from peat.Peat was next lowest. It was significantly lower than straw but not significantly lower than sand or manure. Straw was numerically highestbut not significantly higher than manure or sand. For Klebsiella type bacteria, wood, peat and sand were lowest and were significantly lessthan manure. Straw was intermediate, with values not significantly different than either wood or peat or sand on the low end, or recycledmanure at the high end. Overall the trends in the teat bacteria count data, were very similar to the bedding count data with peat and woodgenerally superior and manure and straw inferior.(iii) Quarter milk samples:Table 15 shows the frequency of bacteria isolation by species from each quarter at any time during the study.Table 15: Culture results for 1481 quarter milk samples from 25 cows collected every 14 days during the 5month trial period.Species of BacteriaNumber of IsolatesNegative (no bacteria grown) 1071Staphylococcus aureus 37E. coli 1Streptococcus sp 9Streptococcus dysgalactiae 1Corynebacterium sp 7Fungal 3Streptococcus uberis 0Klebsiella 0Staphylococcus hyicus 1Coagulase Negative Staphylococci 251Other Gram-positive Bacteria (Bacillus) 95Non aureus coagulase positive 2Contaminated 46Total 148133

For a quarter to be at risk of developing a new mastitis infection on a particular bedding material, it must have been free of infection at theprevious sampling time. The number of new mastitis infections (negative previous and positive on test day) by species is listed in Table16. Note, a quarter can be infected with more than one new bacterial infection (up to two different species per mastitis infection).Table 16: Number of new mastitis infections by species during the five month trial period:SpeciesNumber of isolatesStaphylococcus aureus 2E. coli 1Streptococcus sp 5Streptococcus dysgalactiae 0Corynebacterium sp 4Fungal 1Streptococcus uberis 0Klebsiella 0Staphylococcus hyicus 0Coagulase Negative Staphylococci 38Other Gram-positive Bacteria (Bacillus) 12Non aureus coagulase positive 1Table 17 lists the number of new mastitis infections by bedding type. Data were analyzed using the statistical tool Analysis of Variance.Note that the totals in the Table are different for each type because of contaminated quarters or 19 samples went missing during the entireperiod. There was a significant overall influence of bedding type on the risk of a new mastitis infection. In Table 17 numbers withdiffering superscripts are significantly different. Peat had the lowest risk of new mastitis infections and straw had the highest. The otherthree bedding types fell in the middle. There was a significant difference between peat and straw, but not among the other three beddingsand either peat or straw, once the analysis was corrected for the multiple comparisons.Table 17: New mastitis infections by bedding type for five bedding materials used on 25 cows during 5, 28-day study periods:Manure Peat Sand Straw WoodNo New Mastitis 280 287 272 259 286InfectionsNew Mastitis7 ab 4 a 9 ab 22 bc 9 abInfectionsTotal 287 291 281 281 295Most of the new mastitis infections seen were "minor infections", typically coagulase negative Staphylococcal and Bacillus (other Grampositive)species. Additionally, numbers of animals per treatment group was small and the period of risk observation short. As a result,care should be taken in interpreting these data.(iv) Cow comfort:Lying times were quite good for all bedding materials with an overall average of 13.3 hours (798.4 minutes). The average ranged from13.5 hours (812 minutes) for peat to 12.9 hours (772 minutes) for sand. Table18 shows summary statistics for lying times. All times are inminutes. There were not significant differences in lying times among the five bedding types.Table 18: Summary statistics for lying times for the five different bedding types evaluated:Bedding type Average Standard Median Minimum MaximumDeviationManure 808.9 149.3 832.3 478.0 1071.2Peat 812.8 162.7 863.1 394.8 1074.8Sand 772.9 170.7 731.3 467.8 1163.0Straw 805.0 171.2 845.2 475.9 1111.2Wood 791.6 161.7 769.5 381.8 1158.334

Figure 1 shows a box and whisker plot of the lying data. The central "box" represents the middle 50% of the observations. That is,anything above the top edge of the box in the highest 25% and anything below the bottom edge of the box is the lowest 25% ofobservations. The dots represent outliers (data points that are unexpectedly different from the rest or the data set) and the whiskersrepresent the maximum and minimum values (excluding those outliers). The line through the box is the 50th percentile or median – 50%of the values were greater than this number and 50% were less.Figure 1 Box and whisker plot of lying times for the 5 different bedding types evaluated:In conclusion, overall lying times were good for all bedding types. The novel beddings (peat and manure solids) numerically had thelongest lying times, although these were not statistically different than the others. Numerically sand had the shortest mean and (by a largermargin) median lying time.Overall Study Conclusions:The clearest evidence for discerning between the bedding materials came from the bacteria count data. In that data there was a very clearadvantage to peat and wood product bedding over manure solids and straw. In that dataset, sand was intermediate for almost all bacteriatypes. Sand has been well studied in freestalls and typically yields low bacteria counts. The unexpectedly high counts from sand in thisstudy may be due to sand source or the management methods used for sand, which are not typical of freestalls.• Results for teat swab data and new mastitis infections were similar to the bedding bacteria count data, although the differences wereless clear statistically. Peat and wood generally were superior and straw and manure solids inferior.• With respect to cow comfort, all beddings appeared to result in acceptable lying times and there were no statistical differences amongthem. Numerically, peat had the longest lying time and sand had the shortest.• Overall peat performed extremely well. Further evaluation is necessary to determine if the handling characteristics of peat make it aviable option for New Brunswick dairy farmers.35

Chapter 4On-farm Adaptive Bedding and Manure Management ResearchOver the past several years a number of dairy farm operations in New Brunswick have undertaken adaptive research projects on theirindividual farms, to try and improve cow comfort as well bedding and manure management The objective of this chapter is to report firsthand on the results of this research. These research projects were funded by individual dairy producers in partnership with theCanada/New Brunswick Growing Forward, Enabling Agriculture Research and Innovation Program (EARI) or the Canada/NewBrunswick Agriculture Futures Initiative (Agri-Flexibility) Agriculture Profitability Enhancement Component.(A) STALL MATTRESSES/WATERBEDS/MATS1. Cow Bedding Mattresses - Frank VanderLann:Frank and Julie VanderLaan operate a freestall dairy operation in excess of 100 cows. Originally their freestalls had concrete floors whichwere covered by five to six inches of sawdust to keep cows comfortable and dry. Recognizing the advantages of improving cow comfort,and driven by the need to reduce the volume of costly sawdust bedding, the VanderLaan’s opted to move to a mattress type stall base.After discussions with experienced producers they installed the Dairy Ulti-Mat TM which is a relatively new cow mattress and uniquelynew to New Brunswick. The three inch thick model was chosen over the two inch model to maximize cow comfort. Also the Ulti-Mat TMmattress cover was judged to be superior to competitor covers in both in durability and water resistance. One hundred and twenty Ulti-Mats, costing approximately $35,000, were purchased from Sussex Farm Supplies, the local dealer for Superior Mat and Comfort Inc., theCanadian distributor for Ulti-Mat TM . This Ulti-Mat TM mattress is manufactured by Zartman Farms-Cow Comfort Systems Inc. in Ephrata,Pennsylvania, USA.Since installation in August 2011, cow acceptance of the Ulti-Mat TM has been tremendous. Cows get up and down very easy on this stallsurface, as it provides excellent footing. After only five months of use it is obvious that the hock condition of individual animals is muchbetter on average, with a significant reduction in hock puffiness as well a reduced number of cows showing hair loss over the hock joints.Since installation, savings on bedding has been minimal. The labour required to clean the stalls is significantly less as the stall surface isvery easy to clean while the labour to add bedding to the stalls is similar to pre-installation or perhaps a little easier.Since mattress installation, the monthly Somatic Cell Count (SCC) average has varied between 100,000 and 160,000, down from theprevious year’s values of 230,000 to 300,000. Many things can contribute to SCC averages but it is worthwhile to note the mattresseswere installed during the summer months which tend to have the highest SCCs values of the year. Post-installation milk production levelsare not significantly different from pre-installation levels. This lack of production improvement could be the result of the poor foragequality, as experienced by many New Brunswick dairy farms during 2011.Stalls have appeared a little wetter than expected perhaps due to a number of factors. First, the fact the cover is waterproof preventsliquids on the surface from readily soaking away and second the stall mattress cover formed a small ridge at the back of the stall in severalspots which prevented adequate drainage of surface fluids. Finally, the producer noted that the piece of wood, installed at the rear of thestall to secure the mattress cover may need to be reduced in size from the dealer recommended two by two stud to a one inch thick board,one to three inches wide.Overall based on the VanderLaan’s experience, New Brunswick tiestall and freestall dairy farm operators should consider Ulti-Mat TM asone excellent option if they are contemplating moving to mattresses for their stalls.Well bedded stallCows using Ulti-Mats36

2. Dual Chamber Waterbeds – Joeg and Karl von Waldow:Joeg and Karl von Waldow built a new 375 freestall dairy barn in the winter/spring of 2011. In completing their new facility one ofthe major decisions was what to use for bedding and cow comfort. In their previous barn they had utilized earthen based stalls incombination with dried manure solids for bedding and had experienced little or no hock swelling or abraded hock areas. Paramount intheir minds was to continue remaining free of stall induced hock damage. Pasture mats were considered but an examination of these matsrevealed they were hard and those producers that had used them indicated this inflexibility increased with time. After examining waterbeds they were confident that these beds presented the best option for maintaining cow comfort in their new facility. The waterbeds wereroughly the same cost as any brand of pasture mat plus they were judged to have a greater degree of comfort than regular mats and camewith a 10 year guarantee. Three hundred and seventy five Dual Chamber, 48 inch wide, waterbeds, including installation hardware, werepurchased from MDS and Waterbeds, RR3 Charlottetown PEI, at a total cost of $104,000 representing an approximate investment of $250per stall. The waterbed mattresses were manufactured by Advanced Comfort Technology, Inc. Reedsburg, Wisconsin, USA. They alsopurchased a manure press to make their dried manure solids. (see page 39 for further discussion of this piece of equipment)Aided by the continued use of dried manure solids for bedding, the cattle adapted easily to the waterbeds in the new dairy barn.After six months in the new facility the von Waldows report that the dried manure solids, in combination with the waterbeds, have workedwell as they do not see a single cow with swollen hocks. Operators report cows stay drier than on the earthen stalls in their previous barnand the waterbed equipped stalls are much less work to maintain. Since every cow now has a place to lie down, their lying time hasincreased significantly, which will help with over all herd health. Cost of the mattresses and the manure press was approximately$225,000. Yearly bedding costs, using traditional methods for this size of facility, would be in the range of $75,000. Maintenance andoperating costs for the press and the mattresses is estimated to be $5000 per year making the financial payback for the waterbedmattresses and a manure press just over three years. Initial health and milk quality records are very encouraging, with herd Somatic CellCounts being under 200,000, which is below the provincial average of 240,000. As well, cow health is excellent and the herd cull rate hasdecreased. Cow production, health and cow comfort including hock abrasions etc. will continue to be tracked and evaluated using Valactaand veterinary herd health records.The von Waldows invite any producers who are interested in seeing the waterbeds in use to simply contact them as they will bemost pleased to arrange a tour of their new dairy barn.3. Home Made Pack Mat – Pascobac Holsteins - Hugh O’Neil:In early 2012, Pascobac Holsteins, owned by Hugh O’Neil, was in the process of building a new dairy barn facility due to the loss oftheir previous structure from fire. In building their new facility they wanted to reduce bedding costs while improving cow comfort. Theydecided on sand as their bedding material as it is considered the gold standard for bedding materials. However, it is well known that sandbrings with it a number of challenges. It can be difficult to transfer to the manure storage facility, inflicts excessive wear on equipment,accumulates in the manure storage facility requiring removal by an excavator and can be a costly bedding material if it has to be hauledlong distances from the supplier.To reduce the amount of sand bedding required in a modern dairy operation, Dr. Nigel Cook at the University of Wisconsin hasdeveloped a concept that would reduce the sand requirements by up to 50% per stall. Instead of simply covering the standard rubbercrumbfilled mattresses with organic bedding, he suggests that these crumb-filled mattresses can be mounted in the stall several inchesbelow the curb and then covered with up to four–five inches of sand. This configuration has several advantages, including it will maintainthe cow comfort of a normal sand-bedded stall, it will provide a level of flexibility under the sand thus preventing or reducing the hardbuildup of a sand-manure mixture that occasionally occurs in sand stalls, and finally it can reduce the required amount of sand by up to50%. A 1995 Michigan State Bulletin estimated sand usage on most dairy farms to be between 15-25 kgs per stall per day. A 50%reduction in the sand used could result in a $50-70 saving per stall per year on sand purchase as well as a further saving in storage andspreading costs.In addition to using Dr. Cook’s design configuration, the O’Neils decided to construct on-site, using components available in theprovince, a stall mat system that mimics the commercially available Pack Mat TM product. A rubber product was purchased from TireRecycling of Atlantic Canada Corporation (TRACC) in Chipman and a canvas-like material used in the pulp and paper mills was acquiredto form the homemade pack mats. TRACC had several rubber products available and the one chosen consists of long strings of rubber thatwere collected off the tires after manufacture. It is called spaghetti rubber which provides a visualization of its form (see photo on page39). This material had been used previously to enhance the comfort of older Pasture Mats and was impressive with respect to itssponginess. The stall base was composed of compacted subsoil which was graded to approximately ten inches below the level of the rearcurb. One half of the canvas covering material was laid out on the surface of the compacted subsoil and then covered by six to seveninches of the spaghetti rubber product. The remaining half canvas covering was then pulled up over the rubber and attached at the front ofthe stall to form the mat. It was anticipated that the rubber would compress to approximately four to five inches leaving space for anotherfour to five inches of sand bringing the finished surface of the sand to the level of the rear curb.37

The cost to purchase the commercial Pack Mat TM system for O’Neils’ new barn would have exceeded $20,000. The on-siteconstruction was completed for approximately $8000. It was hoped this design configuration would greatly reduce sand usage and thusthe costs of purchasing sand while still maximizing cow comfort. Reduced quantities of sand would also allow natural gravity flow of thesand-laden manure from the barn to the manure lagoon on this farm further reducing the costs associated with manure transfer and lagoonemptying.The quantity of sand used since installation of the mat/sand configuration has averaged 20 kgs per stall per day, which approximatesthe normal amount of sand traditionally required in a sand-bedded dairy operation. This level of sand usage was disappointing andrepresents little or no reduction in sand usage. To try and determine the reason for this, the sand was removed from the rear of severalstalls to examine the rubber mattress below. The rubber was found to have compressed more than expected leaving the canvas coveringsix to seven inches below the curb instead of the intended four to five inches. The mattress remained spongy but the weight of the sandhad compressed it more than what was anticipated.In conclusion, the outcome of the home made pack mat has been disappointing. With the depth of sand the average sand usage of20kg per day makes sense. While the rubber has not worked as planned, two options could be used to rectify the problem. The first optionwould be to use more spaghetti rubber to offset the excessive compression by the sand. A second option would be to choose anotherrubber product that TRACC has available, such as rubber chips, which would not be compressed to the same degree as the spaghettiproduct. The covering seems to have stood up well and can be reused. The idea is to reduce the depth of sand but maintain cow comfort. Ifthis can be achieved and sand usage is reduced to approximately 10 kgs of sand per stall per day, the savings to the farm would be in therange of $6,000 per year.Spaghetti RubberSand-bedded stalls over homemade Pack MatsSand removed, surface of homemade mat38

Depth of Pack Mat surfaceDepth of rear curb(B) BEDDING MAKING and HANDLING:1. Agri-Press Technology Manure System and Bedding Maker - Joeg and Karl von Waldow:Joeg and Karl von Waldow built a new 375 freestall dairy barn in the winter/spring of 2011. In their previous barn they had utilizedearthen based stalls in combination with dried manure solids for bedding and had experienced little or no hock swelling or abraded hockareas. Paramount in their minds was to continue remaining free of stall induced hock damage. They considered sand as an alternativebedding to their previous experience with dried manure solids. In the end, they decided to continue with the dried manure solids but toinstall a manure press to dewater their raw cow manure. In addition, as previously discussed they also purchased dual chamber water bedsfor stall bases for their cows.Specifically they installed an Agri-Press Model E TM manure press manufactured by Press Technology and Manufacturing Inc. Springfield,Ohio. The press produces a dry manure solid that can be easily used for bedding. The press is designed to ensure a high captureefficiency, so that the majority of the manure is found in the dry solids stack and not in the water filtrate. The price range is easilyaffordable when compared to purchasing bedding off the farm. The press was purchased for $38,000 with an additional $70,000 spent onadditional pumps and a holding tank. Costs of the mattresses and the manure press were approximately $225,000. Yearly bedding costs,using traditional methods for this size of facility would be in the range of $75,000. Maintenance and operating costs for the press and themattresses is estimated to be $5000 per year making the financial payback for the waterbed mattresses and a bedding press just over threeyears.The manure press technology has worked extremely well. In the opinion of the van Waldows the manure press was one of the bestinvestments they made for their new facility. The bedding press continues to be one of the things that most producers inquire about whenthey visit the new van Waldow facility.2. Bedding Trailer Sand Shooter – Lawrence's Dairy Farm Ltd:When Lawrence's Dairy Farm Ltd., decided to build a new 200 cow dairy barn they decided to use sand as their choice of beddingbased on the mastitis control and cow comfort advantages it offered. With the choice to go to sand, options on how to fill the stalls withthe sand were considered keeping in mind what was the most cost effective and time efficient method to accomplish this task on a routinebasis.To date, farmers using sand bedding normally use one of two methods to fill stalls: (a) a skid-steer mounted sand shooter or (b) askid-steer with a bucket. However, these units are usually small, holding only between 2/3 and 1 cubic yard of material. As the number ofstalls to be bedded increases, a larger trailer mounted unit, with a capacity of 7.5-9 cubic yards, offers an advantage in both cost andlabour efficiency. In addition, the equipment needed to fill and haul the trailer mounted units are typically found on 200 cow dairy farms,thus no additional equipment is neededBedding levels with any stall type is very important to cow comfort. In sand-bedded stalls, the bed surface is critical to the cows'placement in the stall. A stall that is not bedded often enough will see the bedding surface fall below the curb level and cause the cow tolay further forward. The result is a loss of comfort for the cow and the probability of dirtier stalls. Bedding stalls more frequentlymaintains the proper bedding height and angle which gives the best result. Any method that is simple, quick, and effective will have agreater chance of being done regularly. In this case, a trailer mounted sand shooter accomplishes all three, with a bedding time of 2.5 manhours, the chances that this job gets done routinely, is greater than the two previous methods mentioned.39

A trailer mounted sand shooter, model (W3350) manufactured by Mensch Manufacturing of Hastings, Michigan, USA, waspurchased for $30,250 from Triaro Farms Inc. of Arthur, Ontario. The unit can hold up to nine yards of sand when it is heaped and it canevenly distribute this load to the stalls in 2.5 minutes or less. The oscillating conveyor prevents bridging of the sand with the unit havingthe ability to fill stalls on either side. The cross conveyer, that shoots sand into the stalls, can be controlled by speed and angle to evenlydisburse sand across the stall surface.In evaluating the project an on-farm time motion study was done on the process of bedding of the stalls; this was compared to asimilar time motion study on another sand-bedded barn using a skid-steer mounted sand shooter and estimated for 200 stalls using a skidsteerwith a bucket. At Lawrence’s Dairy Farm ltd., the bedding process routinely involved two 95 horsepower tractors. Sometimes a 175horsepower loader tractor is used which allows for quicker loading. Using an industry standard of 25 cents per hour per horsepower asrental fee, the cost of tractor requirement was calculated. Using these two tractors and the trailer mounted sand shooter, it took exactly 45minutes to bed 120 stalls. Two people were required to complete this process, one to fill the trailer mounted sand shooter and one to movethe cows and prepare the stalls. It was felt that this time could be even further reduced once everyone was more familiar with the process.A second sand-bedded farm with a skid-steer mounted sand shooter was similarly evaluated. It was a 200 stall barn and an industrystandard of $200.00/day for the rental of a skid-steer was used to calculate costs. It took a single person almost exactly four hours to bedthe 200 stalls. The Lawrence's are only currently using 120 stalls but the new barn has the capacity of 200 stalls. The data collected at theLawrence's barn will be extrapolated to estimate the time and costs required to bed 200 stalls and then those numbers will be compared tothe 200 stall barn that used the skid-steer mounted sand shooter.A third large sand-bedded barn was also investigated. On this farm, stalls were bedded with a skid-steer using only a bucket. Each bucketload would carry enough sand for two stalls and the sand was carefully shaken into the stalls, to try to evenly distribute the sand over thestalls. It took on average 2 minutes per stall to load the stall or approximately 400 minutes (6.67 hours) to bed 200 stalls.The capital cost of the trailer mounted sand shooter was $30,250.00. In discussions, with the manufacturer, the lifetime of this unit whenused to bed a 1000 stalls or more is greater than 10 years. It is very conservative to think that it will last only 10 years at the LawrenceDairy Farm, highly probable that it will last 15 years and realistically more likely it will still be working in 20 years. Of course, there willbe maintenance but that is true of whatever method is used. For comparison purposes no maintenance costs were considered in thesecalculations because for the trailer mounted sand shooter it would only be a guess at this time. The 45 minutes for two people to bed 120stalls at the Lawrence dairy was extrapolated to 200 stalls and the result was 2.5 man hours. The skid-steer mounted sand shooter took 4man hours to bed 200 stalls and the skid-steer and bucket was estimated to require 6.67 man hours to bed 200 stalls. A labour cost of$12.50/hour was used to estimate labour in all three scenarios. As previously mentioned, a rental fee of $0.25 per horsepowerper hour for the two tractors was used as well as a skid-steer rental fee of $200 per day. The rental day was based on a 10 hour day.Tables 19-21 compare the fixed capital costs, variable costs and total costs for bedding stalls with sand using the trailer-mounted sandshooter, a skid-steer equipped with a side shooter and a skid-steer with only a bucket attached on the three farms studied.Table 19: Fixed Equipment Costs for bedding stalls on the three farms studied:Fixed Equipment CostsUnit Cost 10 Yr. 15 Yr. 20 Yr.Trailer mounted side shooter $30,250.00 $3,025.00 $2,016.67 $1,512.50Skid-steer side shooter 7,000.00 $700.00 $466.67 $350.00Skid-steer with bucket $3,000.00 $300.00 $200.00 $150.0040

Table 20: Variable Equipment Costs for bedding stalls on the three farms studied:Variable CostsTractor skid-steerrentalTotal Labour Labour Labour Weekly Yearlylabour (hrs) cost at cost per cost per$12.50/hr week yearTrailer mounted side 2.5 $12.50 $31.25 $1,625.00 $33.75 $1,755.00shooterSkid steer side 4.0 $12.50 $50.00 $2,600.00 $80.00 $4,160.00shooterSkid steer with 6.67 $12.50 $100.50 $5,202.60 $133.40 $6,936.80bucketTable 21: Total Costs for bedding stalls on the three farms studied:Total Yearly Costs10 Yr. 15 Yr. 20 Yr.Trailer mounted side shooter $6,405.00 $5396.67 $4,892.5Skid-steer side shooter $7,460.00 $7,226.67 $7,110.00Skid-steer with bucket $12,439.40 $12,339.40 $12,289.40In conclusion, the trailer-mounted sand shooter demonstrated several advantages. While its initial cost is significantly higher, theability to quickly and effectively deliver the sand bedding to stalls results in time efficiency and overall labour saving. This advantagebecomes greater as the number of stalls and/or the distance to the bedding pile increases. The convenience helps ensure that this veryimportant job will be done on a regular, timely basis. With all costs considered, this project illustrates that the trailer-mounted sandshooter is the most cost effective method to deliver sand bedding to stalls in dairy barns. For these reasons dairy farmers who utilize sandbedding should consider this technology. As farm units increase in size the advantages outlined in this report become even more selfevident.Filling the Sand ShooterFilling the stalls41

(C) MANURE HANDLING1. Sand Manure Auger – Waddy and Colpitts - David Waddy:Waddy and Colpitts built a new freestall barn in 2010/2011 and decided to go with sand as bedding material given the advantages itoffers in mastitis control, cow comfort and economics. However, as previously mentioned, sand comes with its own challenges inparticular the transfer, storage, and spreading of sand-laden manure. The traditional means of accomplishing these handling tasks withorganic bedding have generally failed when used with sand-laden manure. In an attempt to solve the challenge of transferring thesand-laden manure from the alley scrapers to the manure transfer pump Waddy and Colpitts became aware of the Horizontal ManureAuger Conveyance System as manufactured by McLanahan Corporation, Agricultural Systems, Pennsylvania, USA. This augersystem is unique in the dairy industry in that it offers a method to transport manure at the collection cross gutter at the center or end ofa barn to the manure transfer pump. The auger is of hardened steel and is positioned in a trough specifically designed for this purposeso that there is no contact between the flighting and the concrete. The McLanahan Horizontal Manure Auger Conveyance Systemuses a 10 HP motor versus a 2-3 HP motor on the traditional barn cleaner system. By its design, the manure auger should have amuch longer life with minimal maintenance required. For the Waddy and Colpitts installation the auger system was purchased andinstalled for $40,000.After the installation of the manure collection system the timing of the alley scrapers, manure auger and manure transfer pumpcomponents had to be synchronized. The alley scrapers were set to run every two hours. Due to the small volume above and belowthe manure auger it had to be timed to run approximately four minutes per hour to handle the alley scrapers input. The manuretransfer pump was equipped with a float valve to run as necessary, as the collection hopper was filled by the manure auger. A smallchange was made to the manure auger pulley. Due to the fact that some straw is used in a bedded pack area for cows that are soon tocalve or have just calved, the pulley size was changed on the manure auger to increase the torque. This slowed the auger speed byabout 5O% but reduced the risk of jamming from the straw bedding. As well the reduced auger speed better matched the manuredelivery volume to the manure pump’s capacity.The McLanahan Horizontal Manure Auger Conveyance System has worked well since installed and shown itself to be an effectiveand low maintenance way to transport manure from the cross collection gutter to a system to transfer manure to storage. The initialcost of the manure auger is similar to a barn cleaner system and the energy used is similar though a larger sized motor is required.The big advantages of this system are the little or no labor required on a day to day basis, reduced yearly maintenance and a longerlife of components. The only recommendation related to this auger system, based on Waddy and Colpitts’ experience, would be tomount the manure auger much lower than the alley scrapers which would have provided more volume for the auger and more roomfor the proper installation of both systems. Overall, the McLanahan Horizontal Manure Auger Conveyance System is one of the mosteconomical and reliable system to transport manure in a dairy barn using sand as bedding. However, other components of the manurehandling system at Waddy and Colpitts’ facility did not function as well as the auger system. The specifics of these problems arediscussed in detail in Chapter 5.View of manure cross gutter and augerMcLanahan Horizontal Manure Auger42

Cross-gutter collection alley2. Sand and Manure Handling System (Pump and Cross Gutter Shuttle) - Annavale Farms – Danny Clain:As mentioned previously the transfer of sand-laden manure from dairy barns to holding facilities has been problematic, particularly whenusing equipment designed to handle manure composed of organic bedding. This project involved Annavale Farms using a TEAMCOManure Push System to push sand-laden manure into a lagoon. This system transports the sand-laden manure by means of a holding tank,a transfer pipe and air pressure. The manure from the dairy barn is transferred into a holding tank that is then pressurized. Oncepressurized, a gate valve is then opened in the holding tank and the air pressure pushes the manure through the transfer pipe into thestorage. The advantages of this system include a minimum of moving parts as well as the ability to push manure up to 400 feet (asindicated in the manufacturer’s literature) which is well within the normal range of distances between the barn and the lagoon for mostdairy farms in New Brunswick. This is the first time a system of this type has been used to transport sand-laden-manure in the province.This dairy operation also incorporated a Jamesway Gutter Cat Scraper to transfer manure scraped into a cross gutter to the holdingchamber of the TEAMCO Manure Push System.The TEAMCO Manure Push System and the Jamesway Gutter Cat Scraper were purchased and installed by Eastern AgriServices Ltd. in the fall of 2011. These units were installed in a new section of the dairy barn that was added to the existing free stall andparlour with the new 66 foot section being constructed so that the 45 stalls could be bedded with sand. This was a change from the olderfacility where the stalls were bedded with sawdust and shavings. The new section of the barn was also designed with more sidewallcurtain area, better lighting, larger stalls and more bunk space.During the first year of operation the TEAMCO Manure Push System and Jamesway Gutter Cat Scraper have worked flawlesslyrequiring no modifications since installation. The transfer of sand-laden manure has been easy and efficient. The time required to removethe manure from the alleys in the new barn is similar to the time requirement in the old section. With only about one-third of the herdhoused in the new barn it is difficult to evaluate production level increases and animal health improvements due to the sand. However,what the operators have detected is that the new barn attracts a particular group of animals which seems to be mainly heifers and theyprefer the new barn over the older facility. The stalls in this new section are usually filled first and have a maximum amount of animals inthe alley area. Without individual cow information it is hard to evaluate whether this group of animals is benefiting more than the herd asa whole from being on sand bedding but what can be observed is that the animal laying time in this area is long and probably better onaverage than in the old barn. The hocks on the cows that commonly lay on the sand are better than the cows that commonly lay on themattresses. Overall Somatic Cell Counts are lower for the herd this year than for the herd last year when similar months are compared. In2011, the Somatic Cell Count for Annavale Farms averaged 252,500 and for the same period in 2012 was decreased to 195,833. Thisshows the advantage of sand bedding and for many producers the summer of 2012 has been more challenging than the previous summerwith respect to Somatic Cell Counts.In conclusion, the TEAMCO Manure Push System has shown itself to be an efficient and effective way to transfer sand-laden dairymanure to a lagoon. Thus this technology system provides another option for dairy producers who are contemplating moving to sandbedding. In particular, the ability of this system to transfer manure up to 400 feet and to change direction to avoid underground obstacleswill be attractive to larger freestall barns using sand-laden manure where the pit is a significant distance away from the dairy barn. Finally,the cows are telling the owners that they enjoy this area and at some point this barn design should replace the older section!43

TEAMCO Manure Push SystemJamesway Gutter Cat ScraperNew barn with sand beddingNew barn with sand beddingLagoon February 2012TEAMCO system pushing manure3. Manure Pit with Sand-lane/Manure Discharge – Lonsview Farm Ltd. - Daryl and Eric Walker:In using sand as bedding one of the main disadvantages that farmers in New Brunswick have encountered is the difficulty to transportsand-laden manure to storage and then remove the sand-laden manure from the storage for spreading onto the fields. Traditionallybedding such as sawdust or straw has been pumped to a manure storage where it can be easily agitated and pumped on to conventionalmanure spreaders. In most instances this type of system has failed when used with sand-laden manure. The pump discharge lines haveclogged, there is extreme wear on the manure pumps and/or the sand was not able to be agitated and removed from the manure lagoon.One of the simplest options to transport sand-laden manure to the manure storage is to use a sand-lane where gravity moves the sandladenmanure to the storage lagoon. These systems have not been used on New Brunswick dairy operations but have been shown to beeffective on several Ontario farms. They bring with them the added economic advantages that mechanical equipment is not required to bepurchased or maintained.44

An expansion of Lonsview Farm Ltd. required an increase in manure storage capacity as well as several changes to the storage to improveits function. These required changes provided an opportunity to convert their manure handling and storage facilities to a sand-basedbedding system. The conversion to sand bedding required a mechanism to transport the sand-laden manure from the barn to the adjacentlagoon. It was proposed to add a sand-lane onto the end of the barn that would allow the sand-laden manure to flow by gravity from thebarn into the manure lagoon. The lagoon already had a down ramp which would facilitate the removal of the solid portion of the slurry.A sand-lane was constructed that was basically an extension of the lagoon that ran the entire width of the barn. The sand-lane measuredapproximately 12 feet wide to accommodate a skid-steer should the need ever arise to clean it out. The floor of the sand-lane was levelwith the floor of the lagoon. The roof of the sand-lane was made up of reinforced concrete which had a ten inch slot built into it to allowthe sand-laden manure to fall into the cavity below. In addition, a floating bridge was installed at the exterior wall of the barn/lagoonwhere the sand-lane entered the manure storage. This bridge rested on the surface of the manure in the lagoon, sealing the sand-lane in thebarn from outside weather conditions and effectively maintained the barn temperature in the sand-lane. The sand-laden manure wasscraped into the sand-lane and flowed by gravity to the lagoon.The sand-lane/manure discharge system installed at Lonsview Farm has proven to be highly successful in providing an energy efficient,maintenance free method for handling sand-laden manure. Throughout the year the manure in the sand-lane maintained a level equivalentto the level of the lagoon. Even in the coldest part of the year, the level inside the barn and outside the barn remained the same. Thesurface of the lagoon was liquid with the sand on the bottom of the lagoon, but the sand-laden manure was evenly distributed across thesand-lane and the lagoon bottom surface. In fact, the sand/manure depth was consistent throughout the lagoon, even at the farthest cornersfrom the outlet of the barn. The sand-lane/manure discharge system has a great advantage in that it uses only gravity to transport manureto the lagoon. Therefore it is extremely energy efficient and with minimal maintenance costs as compared to any other mechanical systemcurrently being used.Additional benefits of the conversion to sand bedding are also apparent. Bedding supply has been become more secure as two localsuppliers are close by to provide the bedding material. The farm's Somatic Cell Counts over the past year has decreased from the 200,000range to running less than 100,000 during the hot summer months of 2011. There has been less mastitis, less culling and cow comfort hasimproved to the point where cows are producing two liters a day more than they were the previous year. Overall bedding costs have beenlower than 2010. There has been a decrease in the amount of labour for the scraping of the alley with sand-laden manure versus that withorganic bedding.In using a sand-lane to transport manure to the lagoon the limiting factor is the distance of the lagoon from the barn. From this adaptiveresearch trial it appears the sand-laden manure will travel to storage in the 30-50 foot range and possibly farther. The critical parameterswill be to minimize sand and manure separation. If the sand-manure mixture is maintained, there is a greater chance of sand beingtransported farther from the barn outlet. At this time, it would appear that two of the key factors in maintaining the sand manure mixwould be the size of the sand particles and the limiting of adding extra water to the mixture. Lonsview Farm Ltd. used mostly sand with asmaller particle size. Secondly, all system wash water and parlour wash down water was diverted directly to the lagoon and did not mixwith the manure. With all the benefits of sand and the benefits of this technology to transport the sand-laden manure to the lagoon, it ishighly recommended for consideration by all new free stall barns. The only major modification that would be suggested is the installationof a section of slatted floor over the slot in the sand-lane discharge system. This would allow the option of moving cattle over the sandlane.Sand-lane/manure dischargeSand-lane/manure discharge45

Lagoon manure storage with floating bridgeLagoon with liquids removedLoader and spreader4. 100 HP Electric Lagoon Pump – Waddy and Colpitts - David Waddy:The objective of this project was to evaluate an electric lagoon pump as a way to reduce power consumption and improve efficiency in theagitation and transportation of manure from the storage lagoon to the liquid manure spreader. While agitation pumps that also moveliquid manure are common, they are almost exclusively powered by the PTO of a tractor. The issues that this creates include the cost ofthe tractor with regards to its capital and maintenance costs, fuel costs as well as requiring another tractor unit at a very busy time.Unfortunately, this large power requirement will be unused on most farms for the rest of the year. An electric motor powered pump hasthe advantage of reducing the need for a tractor as well as reducing total energy costs. This was the first time such a unit was used in NewBrunswick for loading a liquid manure spreader, although electric pumps have been used for many years to transport liquid manure fromthe barn to the lagoon.The unit that was chosen was a 16 foot vertical electric pump with a 100 HP three phase electric motor. Such a large electric motorrequires three phase power and while three phase power is available to most farms in New Brunswick it is utilized by very few. Whenyou compare the power consumption of this unit versus a traditional tractor driven pumping system there is a significant savings inenergy. What makes this unit attractive is that this electric pump is not an entirely new unit but it has been marketed up to this time forthe sole purpose of agitation. Using the same unit to pump sand-laden manure a very short distance into a liquid manure spreader has notbeen done but this unit is designed so that it has that capability. An additional challenge for pumping liquid manure on this farm was thefact that the stalls are bedded with sand. The abrasive and increased density of sand-laden manure was an excellent test of this unit.Specifically a Jamesway 20 inch Vertical Electric Pump was purchased from the local dealer, Eastern Agri Services Ltd. No modificationhad to be made to the unit. It was permanently mounted in the lagoon, adjacent to the electrical supply panel. This permanent placementproved to be adequate but a larger lagoon, or lagoon that had a harder crust, might require two pumps or the ability to move a single pumpto multiple locations to get adequate agitation.The power requirements were as expected and no issues were encountered. The 100 HP electric pump was adequate for both agitationand pumping, resulting in fast loading of the liquid manure tank. When the tank was in place to be filled, the driver got out of the tractor46

and manually started the loading action. It has been considered that this process could be activated from the tractor cab, and that is still apossibility but to date it has not been acted on. The unit was working constantly, agitating when it was not pumping. The switch fromagitation to pumping was done by a manual lever and so the operator had to get down from the tractor to start the loading process.The pump was installed and used over a nine-month period prior to evaluation. The unit proved to quickly and efficiently load the liquidmanure tank and provide the energy savings that were originally expected. In fact the original estimate of capital costs and fuelrequirements for the conventional tractor pumping unit were underestimated and therefore the economic advantage of this unit is muchgreater than the original estimates. If an automatic starting system was added it would enable the operator to activate the loading from thetractor seat, which result in a further labour efficiency.Some of the limitations that became apparent were the need for three phase power which as previously mentioned is available for manydairy farmers but at this point only used by a small percentage, probably less than 10%. A second limitation would occur for largerlagoons where there would be a need for multiple pumps or the ability to move a single pump around the perimeter of the lagoon. This iseasily achieved with the tractor powered unit and could also be achieved with the electric pump as long as there were multiple mountingsites and a long enough power supply cord from the panel. The biggest issue that occurred was the obvious and quick wear on severalparts of the pump. While the supplier was confident that this unit could handle sand-laden manure, and even added an anti-sand buildupkit, it was shown that sand-laden manure caused very quick failure on some working parts of the pump (see last two pictures below). Theannual maintenance cost is not yet well established and whether this limits the life of the unit cannot be determined at this time. Manurewithout sand would not create this kind of wear problem and thus the electric pump would probably give many years of trouble freeservice with all of the benefits as previously stated.In conclusion, the results of this project would indicate that this unit is a superior way to pump liquid dairy manure, but because of thewear it is not recommended for sand-laden manure. It is also felt that the parts that are showing the most wear might have a longer life ifthey were to be made of a different material. For dairy farms using organic bedding such as shavings, sawdust or straw, the benefits ofenergy saving, speed and ease of filling a liquid manure tank are significant.Pump being mounted in lagoonPump mounted in lagoonPump loading liquid manure tankPump motor and electrical panel47

Pump agitating lagoonThe arrows indicate wear spotsWear due to sand-laden manure48

Chapter 5Future Bedding and Manure Management Research Needs:(i) Bedding Material Performance:• Results of preliminary research in New Brunswick relating to mastitis incidence with different bedding materials needs to be followedup with a whole-farm experimental model that evaluates the performance of selected bedding materials using the following keyperformance indicators.o The ability of the bedding material to control bacterial growth within itself over time;o The capacity to lower bacterial counts at the teat opening;o The capability of reducing the number of new mastitis infections within the herd.• Sand is considered by many as the gold standard for bedding materials. However, results of New Brunswick field research, using atiestall model to evaluate bacterial growth in selected bedding materials, demonstrated that sand’s performance was inferior to peatand wood materials. These performance results need to be verified in loose housing dairy herds using deep bedded freestalls.• In the preliminary research in New Brunswick peat performed extremely well. Further evaluation is necessary to determine if thehandling characteristics of peat make it a viable option for New Brunswick dairy farmers.• Need to conduct research to determine the optimal frequency of replenishing bedding in deeply bedded freestalls. Generally, therecommendations for replenishing organic bedding in freestalls are the same as those for tiestalls. However, the daily or every twoday application of fresh bedding is not very common in freestalls. Furthermore, there is a slightly greater risk of contamination ofbedding in freestalls because the bedding gets seeded with manure from the cows’ hooves due to the normal movement in and out ofthe stall. The risk is perhaps greatest during the summer months with higher ambient temperatures. It is known that SCC countsconsistently rise in the summer to fall period and drop back down again in winter. The information that is needed is a full 12 monthmonitoring of bedding bacterial growth. This needs to be completed on various bedding types, where bedding types remain consistentfor the 12 months at each farm if at all possible.(ii) Management of Sand-laden Manure:Some New Brunswick dairy farms who have attempted to use manure handling equipment designed for organic bedding materials tohandle sand-laden manure have experienced a number of problems. Additional adaptive research would be useful in the following specificareas:• On-farm experience in New Brunswick has demonstrated that mechanical equipment such as alley scrapers etc. used to transportsand-laden manure suffer accelerated wear. Metallurgic investigations would be valuable in determining approaches that willlengthen the life of metal components in equipment used for handling sand-laden manure.• Initial on-farm experience in New Brunswick which combined a traditional alley scraper with the McLanahan Horizontal ManureAuger Conveyance System in the cross gutter worked reasonably well. However, more adaptive research is required to explore waysof improving the efficiency of this combination of equipment. For example, mounting the manure auger much lower in the crossgutter below the level of the alley scrapers would have provided more volume for the auger and more room for the proper installationof both systems.• Manure pumps and their associated transfer pipes installed using standard recommendations for pumping dairy manure using organicbedding have not performed well with sand-laden manure. Problems such as recurring plugging of the transfer pipe have beencommon. Recommendations for pump sizing as well as transfer pipe diameters need further refining. In addition, pressurized air toblowout the line on a daily basis, has been used successfully on several farms that have also encountered the problem of plugging.Further adaptive research would be valuable in refining the engineering specifications for this form of pneumatic assist.• Traditionally the manure transfer pipe, between the manure pump and the lagoon, has been placed horizontally below ground andenters the lagoon from below the lagoon’s floor surface. In the opinion of engineers this configuration has contributed to plugging ofthe transfer pipe. Further research would be very valuable in determining the best location for the entry point for the transfer pipe.Suggestions such as locating the entry point on the lagoon’s sidewall, low enough so that the pipe outlet is covered by the time freezeup occurs needs to be further investigated.• In contrast to the experience of mechanical transfer to the lagoon the use of a gravity driven sand-lane on one farm demonstrated thatthis method can work very well where the lagoon was adjacent to the barn and manure transport distances were in the 30-50 foot49

ange. Further adaptive research is needed to explore if gravity driven sand-lanes are capable of transferring manure to storagesfurther distant from the barn taking into account such factors as manure separation, the optimum size of sand particles and volumerestrictions on added waste water.(iii) Other:• Additional research would be useful to further evaluate materials not routinely used now for bedding, for example hay.• Additional research on manure presses and drums as used on Ontario farms would be beneficial.• Additional research involving technologies such as Bobman Protekta TM to clean stalls, as well new types of slat cleaners could beuseful to dairy producers.• Additional research involving equipment or technologies that can improve on traditional bedding materials would be advatageous.• Additional research that would measure cow preference for different types of bedding could potentially improve milk production ondairy operations.50

Chapter 6ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:(A) Scientific Articles reviewed as part of Literature Search and referenced throughout Manual:1. Andersson, K. 2007. Peat litter to Swedish Dairy Cows. Dept. animal Nutrition and Management, SLU.2. Bramley, A. J. 1982. Sources of Streptococcus uberis in the dairy herd. I. Isolation from bovine feces and from straw bedding ofcattle. J. Dairy Res. 49:369.3. Bramely, A. J., Neave, F.K. 1975. Studies on the control of coliform mastitis in dairy cows. British Veterinary Journal. 131(2):160-1694. Capion, N., DVM, S.M. Thamsborg, DVM, PhD, and C. Enevoldsen, DVM, PhD. 2008. The Veterinary Record. 163:80-85.5. Cook, N.B., T.B. Bennett, and K.V. Nordlund. 2004. Effect of Free Stall Surface on Daily Activity Patterns in Dairy Cows withRelevance to Lameness Prevalence. J. Dairy Sci. 87:2912-2922.6. Cornell Waste Management Institute. “Using Manure Solids as Bedding”. December 2006. Accessed Nov 30, 2009..7. Dodd, F. H., T. M. Higgs, and A. J. Bramley. 1984. Cubicle management and coliform mastitis. Vet. Rec. 114:522–523.8. Drissler, M., M. Gaworski, C.B. Tucker, and D.M. Weary. 2005. Free Stall Maintenance: Effects on Lying Behavior of Dairy Cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 88:2281-2387.9. Elmoslemany, A.M., G.P. Keefe, I.R. Dohoo, and B.M. Jayarao. 2009. Risk Factors for bacteriological quality of bulk tank milk inPrince Edward Island dairy herds. Part 1: Overall risk factors. J. Dairy Sci. 92:2634-2643.10. Ferguson, J.D., G. Azzaro, M. Gambina, and G.Licitra. 2007. Prevalence of Mastitis Pathogens in Ragusa, Sicily, from 2000-2006. J.Dairy Sci. 90:5798-5813.11. Fregonesi, J.A., D.M. Veira, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, and D.M. Weary. 2007. Effects of Bedding Quality on Lying Behavior ofDairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90:5468-5472.12. Gabler. M.T., M.S. Jeffrey, K. Reneau, DVM, R.J. Farnsworth, DVM. 2001. Comparison of number of Streptococcus uberiscalculated on a volume or weigh basis in sand and sawdust bedding. J. Vet. Research. 62: 171-173.13. Godden, S., R. Bey, K. Lorch, R. Farnsworth, and P. Rapnicki. 2008. Ability of Organic and Inorganic Bedding Materials to PromoteGrowth of Environmental Bacteria. J. Dairy Sci. 91:151-159.14. Green, M.J., A.J. Bradley, G.F. Medley, and W.J. Browne. 2008. Cow, Farm, and Herd Management Factors During the Dry PeriodAssociated with Raised Somatic Cell Counts in Early Lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 91:1403-1415.15. Green, M.J., A.J. Bradley, G.F. Medley, and W.J. Browne. 2007. Cow, Farm, and Management Factors During the Dry Period thatDetermine the Rate of Clinical Mastitis After Calving. J. Dairy Sci. 90:3764-3776.16. Hogan, J.S. and K.L. Smith. 1997. Bacteria Counts in Sawdust Bedding. J. Dairy Sci. 80: 1600-1605.17. Hogan, J.S., K.L. Smith, K.H., D.A. Todhunter, P.S. Schoenberger. 1990. Bacterial counts Associated with Recycled NewspaperBedding. J. Dairy Sci. 73:17556-1761.18. Hogan, J.S., K.L. Smith, K.H., Hoblet, D.A. Todhunter, P.S. Schoenberger, W.D. Huesten, D.E. Pritchard, G.L. Bowman, L.E.Heider, B.L. Brockett, and H.R. Conrad. 1989. Bacterial Counts in Bedding Material Used on Nine Commercial Dairies. J. Dairy Sci.72:250-258.19. Hogan, J.S., S.L. Wolf, and C.S. Petersson-Wolfe. 2007. Bacterial Counts in Organic Material Used as Frestall Bedding FollowingTreatment with a Commercial Conditioner. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1058-1062.51

20. Hogan, J.S., V.L. Bogacz, L.M. Thompson, S. Romig, P.S. Schoenberger, W.P. Weiss, K.L. Smith. 1999. Bacterial CountsAssociated with Sawdust and Recycled Manure Bedding Treated with Commercial Conditioners. J. Dairy Sci. 82:1690-1695.21. Hutton, C.T., L.K. Fox, and D.D. Hancock. 1990. Mastitis Control Practices: Differences Between Herds with High and Low MilkSomatic Cell Counts. J. Dairy Sci. 73:1135-1143.22. Janni, K.A., M.I. Endres, J.K. Reneau, W.W. Schoper. 2007. Compost Dairy Barn Layout and Management Recommendations.Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 23:97-102.23. Köster, G., B.A. Tenhagen, and W. Heuwieser. 2007. Factors Associated with High Milk Test Day Somatic Cell Counts in LargeDairy Herds in Brandenburg. 1: Housing Conditions. J. Vet. Med. 53:134-139 .24. Kristula, M.A., W. Rogers, J.S. Hogan, and M. Sabo. 2005. Comparison of Bacteria Populations in Clean and Recycled Sand Usedfor Bedding in Dairy Facilities. J. Dairy Sci. 88:4317-4325.25. Kristula, M.A., Z. Dou, J.D. Toth, B.I. Smith, N. Harvey, and M. Sabo. 2008. Evaluation of Frestall Mattress Bedding Treatments toReduce Mastitis Bacterial Growth. J. Dairy Sci. 91:1885-1892.26. LeJeune, J.T. and M.D. Kauffman. 2004. Effect of Sand and Sawdust Bedding Materials on the Fecal Prevalence of Escherichia coliO157:H7 in Dairy Cows. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 71:326-330.27. Munoz, M.A., C. Ahlström, B.J. Rauch, and R.N. Zadoks. 2006. Fecal Shedding of Klebsiella pneumonia by Dairy Cows. J. DairySci. 89:3425-3430.28. Norring, M., E. Manninen, A.M. de Passille, J. Rushen, L.Munksgaard, and H. Saloniemi. 2008. Effects of Sand and Straw Beddingon the Lying Behavior, Cleanliness, and Hoof and Hock Injuries or Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 91:570-576.29. Olde Riekerink, R.G.M., H.W. Barkema, D.F. Kelton, and D.T. Scholl. 2008. Incidence Rate of Clinical Mastitis on Canadian DairyFarms. J. Dairy Sci. 91:1366-1377.30. Reneau, J. 2004. Bugs, bedding and composting bedded-pack barn. University of Minnesota . Dept. of Animal Science.31. Schreiner, D.A. and P.L. Ruegg. 2003. Relationship Between Udder and Leg Hygeine Scores and Subclinical Mastitis. J. Dairy Sci.86:3460-3465.32. Schukken, Y.H., F.J. Grommers, D. van De Geer, H.N. Erb, and A. Brand. 1991. Risk Factors for Clinical Mastitis in Herds with aLow Bulk Milk Somatic Cell Count. 2. Risk Factors for Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. J. Dairy Sci. 74: 826-832.33. Tucker, C.B. and D.M. Weary. 2004. Bedding on GEO-textile Mattresses: How Much in Needed to Improve Cow Comfort? J. DairySci. 87:2889-2895.34. Tucker, C.B. and D.M. Weary, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, and K.A. Beauchemin. 2009. Cow comfort in tie-stalls: Increased depth ofshavings or straw bedding increases lying time. J. Dairy Sci. 92:2684-2690.35. Unknown. “Dairy Cattle in Mississippi: Frestall Bedding Material”. Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station.November 2009. Accessed Nov 30, 2009.< http://msucares.com/livestock/dairy/bedding.html>36. Unnerstad, H.E., A. Lendberg, K. Persson Walker, T. Ekman, K. Artursson, M. Nilsson-Öst, and B. Bengtsson. 2009. MicrobialAetiology of Acute Clinical Mastitis and Agent-Specific Risk Factors. Vet. Microbiology. 137:90-97.37. Wechsler, B., J. Schaub, K. Friedli, and R. Hauser. 2000. Behavior and leg injuries in dairy cows kept in cubicle systems with strawbedding or soft lying mats. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 69:189-197.38. Wenz, J.R., S.M. Jensen, J.E. Lombard, B.A. Wagner, and R.P. Dinsmore. 2007. Herd Management Practices and Their Associationwith Bulk Tank Somatic Cell Count on United States Dairy Operations. J. Dairy Sci. 90:3652-3659.39. Zdanowicz, M. 2002. Sand and Sawdust Bedding Affect Populatons of Coliforms, Klebsiella Spp. And Streptococcus Spp. On TeatEnds of Dairy Cows Housed in Frestalls. University of British Columbia.40. Zehner, M.M., R.J. Farnsworth, R.D. Appleman, K. Larntz, and J.A. Springer. 1986. Growth of Environmental Mastitis Pathogens inVarious Bedding Materials. J. Dairy Sci. 69:1932-1941.52

(B) List of websites where additional useful resources can be found dealing with topics such as:oooBedding and manure managementManuals, fact sheets, etc.Bedding and manure handling equipment manufacturersSome of these websites are also referenced in the Manual41. http://www.dairylogix.com/AlternativeBeddingOptions.pdf - This is a site where one can access a slide presentation composed of 87slides generated by dairy specialist Jack Rotenburg. The presentation explains the advantages of sand bedding, how to use it as well asmanage manure made from sand bedding.42. http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/useofDMS.pdf - This is an excellent fact sheet for information on the use of dried manure solids asbedding for dairy cows.43. http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/farmwaste.htm#dairybedding – This is an excellent source of information on the use of dried manure solidson dairy farms.44. http://www.zartmanfarms.com/ult_mat.htm - Dairy Ulti-Mat manufacturer’s website. Also provides some additional scientificinformation on the connections between cow comfort and milk production. Contact information Zartman Farms, 820 Hilltop Road,Ephrata, PA 17522, United States, (717) 733-1050.45. Cow Comfort and the Effects on Productivity and Profitability, John Brouillette, Suny Morrisville and Nancy Spanski, Area DairySpecialists, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Edited by: Stephen E. Hadcock, Extension Educator.46. http://www.advancedcomforttechnology.com – Manufacturer’s website for dual chamber waterbeds as used in van Waldow’s dairyfacility.47. http://www.promatinc.com/index.php - Manufacturer’s website (Promat Inc.) for commercial stall mats sold under the trade namesPasture Mat®, Pack Mat and Poly Pillow.48. http://www.presstechnology.com – Press Technology and Manufacturing Inc.’s website, who manufacture the Agri-Press Model E TMmanure press that was installed in van Waldow’s dairy facility.49. http://www.menschmfg.com - Mensch Manufacturing’s website, who build trailer mounted sand shooters as employed on Laurence’sDairy Farm.50. http://www.mclanahan.com – McLanahan Corporation’s website, who manufacture the Horizontal Manure Auger Conveyance Systemas installed at Waddy and Colpitts dairy operation. This company is at the forefront of technological developments in the handling andtransfer of sand-laden manure. As well, it also developed the first sand manure separator system that removed sand from dairy manureprior to the storage of the manure. Also included in its product line are several machines to deliver fresh sand bedding to stalls.51. Rulquin, H., and J.P. Caudal. 1992. Effects of lying or standing on mammary blood flow and heart rate of dairy cows. Ann. Zootech.(Paris) 41:101. This is a scientific paper that provides additional information on the impact of cows lying down on increased blood flow tothe udder.52. Metcalfe, J.A., S.J. Roberts, and J.D. Sutton. 1992. Variations in blood flow to and from the bovine mammary gland measured usingtransit time ultrasound and dye dilution. Res. Vet. Sci. 53:59-63. This is a scientific paper that provides additional information on theimpact of cows lying down on increased blood flow to the udder.53. Cow Comfort and Health, Dr. Nigel B. Cook, University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, Wisconsin,USA.54. Time Budgets for Dairy Cows: How Does Cow Comfort Influence Health, Reproduction and Productivity? Nigel B Cook, Dip.ECBHM MRCVS, University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, WI 53706, nbcook@wisc.edu. This is afact sheet published in the area of cow comfort.55. Cow Comfort and the Effects on Productivity and Profitability- Published in Hudson Valley Agricultural Newsletter, John Brouillette,SUNY Morrisville, Nancy Spanski, Cornell Cooperative Education Extension, edited by Stephen E. Hadcock, Extension Educator.53

56. http://ohioline.osu.edu/b604/pdf/b604.pdf- This website provides an excellent manual available from Ohio State University on manuremanagement systems for dairy operations.57. Albright, J.L. 1963. Dairy Cattle Housing with Emphasis on Economics, Sanitation, Health and Production. J. Dairy Sci., 48:1273-1281.58. http://www.umaine.edu/livestock/Publications/Paper%20Fiber%20Bedding%20Report.docAdams, A., D. Marcinkowski. 2007. Provides information on the use of paper fiber by-products for bedding dairy cattle.59. http://web2.msue.msu.edu/bulletins2/product/storing-handling-sandladen-dairy-manure-470.cfm - Stowell, R.R. and W.G. Bicket.Storing and Handling Sand-Laden Dairy Manure: A Description of Manageable Practices on Midwest Farms, Agricultural EngineeringDepartment, Michigan State University. This resource provides an in depth discussion on how to handle sand-laden manure in a storagefacilities, the equipment required as well as how best to design manure storages to accommodate sand-laden manure. Order hard copyfrom quoting SKU number E256160. http://www.gnb.ca/0078/minerals/PDF/Peat_industry_map-e.pdf - This is a website providing access to a map produced by Provinceof New Brunswick indicating locations of peat bogs in eastern New Brunswick as of 2012. Map is available from the New BrunswickDepartment of Natural Resources at the website below.61. http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/0127.html - Newsprint Bedding for Dairy Cattle, Ohio State University Fact Sheet, Joe Hogan, K. LarrySmith, Sereana Howard, Joe E. Heimlich.62. http://www.cowmatscanada.com - This is the website of a Canadian company, Treadall Inc, that manufactures cattle flooring productsincluding cow stall mats, cow mattresses, aisle way, breezeway and parlour matting.63. http://www.canarm.com/agricultural/pdf/dcowmats.pdf - This is the website of a Canadian company, Canarm BSM Agri-Products,which is a Canadian manufacturer of vinyl cow mats64. http://www.cozycow.ca - This is the website of a Canadian company, Cozy Cow Mattresses Canadian manufacturer of rubber cowmats and cow mattresses.65. http://www.promatinc.com/index.php - This is the website of a Canadian company Promat which is a Canadian manufacturer of cowmattresses including gel filled mattresses.66. http://www.advancedcomforttechnology.com - This is the website of a United States company Advanced Comfort Technology whichis manufacturer of cow waterbeds.67. Fulwider, W.K. and T. Grandin, D.J. Garrick, T.E. Engle, W.D. Lamm, N.L. Dalsted, B.E. Rollin. 2007. Influence of Freestall Base onTarsal Joint Lesions and Hygiene in Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90:3559-3566. This is a scientific paper that provides additionalinformation on the impact of the freestall base on tarsal joint lesions and hygiene.68. http://www.teamco.ca - of a Canadian company Teamco that manufactures pressurized manure push systems that utilize compressedair.69. Code of Practice: For the Care and Handling of Dairy Cattle, Dairy Farmers of Canada and the National Farm Animal Care Council,2009, 10. Available from http://www.dairygoodness.ca70. http://www.ngsagri.com - This is the website for the manufacturer of Mayo cow mats which are waterproof, easy to install and comewith a 10 year warranty71. http://www.superiorattachments.com - This is the website for a manufacturer who produces sand bedding management tools designedto be attached to a skid-steer. Products include the SANDMAN TM and SANDMAN LP TM , designed to aerate, slope and groom stalls, theMAT-O-MATE TM designed to sweep stall mattresses and the BEDDING EXTRACTOR TM designed to remove soiled bedding.72. http://www.daritech.com - This is the website for a manufacturer who carries a full line of manure handling equipment that includesmanure pumps, alley scrapers and sand/manure separators, etc.73. http://www.stalldry.com - This is the website for a Canadian manufacturer of bedding additives made from diatomaceous earth,mined in Kamloops, BC. They also produce feed additives containing calcium bentonite.54

APPENDICES:Appendix 1 – The Peat Industry of New Brunswick, Canada 2012 6055

Glossary:Accelerometers: These are devices attached to cows that are capable of differentiating when the cow is standing versus lying down.These devices capture the data in an electronic format that can be later analyzed to compare lying time of cows under a wide range ofdiffering conditions.Aerobic count: The number of aerobic bacteria in a specimen. An aerobic organism or aerobe is an organism that can survive and growin an environment where oxygen is present. In contrast an anaerobic bacterium is an organism that cannot grow in an environment whereoxygen is present.Analysis of Variance: In statistics, analysis of variance abbreviated, ANOVA, is a collection of statistical models, and their associatedprocedures, in which the observed variance in a particular variable is partitioned into components attributable to different sources ofvariation.Coagulase-negative staphylococcus species: A species of staphylococcus bacteria that is not Staphylococcus aureus. Staphylococcus is atype of Gram-positive bacteria which includes several species that can cause a wide variety of infections in animals through either toxinproduction or invasion. Coagulase is a protein enzyme produced by several microorganisms that enables the conversion of fibrinogen tofibrin. In the laboratory, coagulase is used to distinguish between different types of Staphylococcus bacteria. Given that Staphylococcusaureus is coagulase-positive, any bacteria that is coagulase negativity indicates it is not Staphylococcus aureus. Staphylococcusepidermidis, is one of the common coagulase-negative staphylococcus species, and can be found on the skin of animals.Coal fly ash: Coal fly ash is one of the residues generated in the burning of coal in furnaces, for example in coal-fired power plants.Coliforms: This is the abbreviation for multiple types of coliform bacteria. Coliform bacteria can be the cause of mastitis in cows andother animals. The term generally includes E. coli, Klebsiella species and Enterobacter species of bacteria as well as other types. They aredefined as rod-shaped Gram-negative non-spore forming bacteria which can ferment lactose with the production of acid and gas whenincubated at 35-37°C. Coliforms can be found in the aquatic environment, in soil and on vegetation; they are universally present in largenumbers in the feces of warm-blooded animals. They are a commonly used bacterial indicator of sanitary quality of foods and water.Coliform mastitis: This is a very serious form of environmental mastitis in dairy cows caused by the Escherichia coli bacterium. Themastitis is characterized by swelling and severe inflammation of the udder, thin yellow watery milk containing small flakes. The deathrate is high or the affected quarter is lost.Colony forming units: A term used in microbiology to indicate an estimate of viable number of bacteria in a specimen. The term iscommonly abbreviated to cfu.Composted manure solids: The product derived from the composting of dried manure solids.Contagious: Generally refers to a disease in animals or humans that is easily transmitted to other individuals.Corynebacterium sp: A type of Gram-positive bacteria belonging to the family of organisms referred to as Corynebacteriaceae.Corynebacterium bovis is a specific type of Corynebacterium bacteria that can cause mastitis in dairy cows.Dehydrated manure: Refers to raw manure from which the majority of liquids have been removed. Dehydrated manure is also referredto as dried manure solids.Dewater: Refers to a process which removes the water from a substance, a synonym for dehydrate.Dried manure solids: Refers to raw manure from which the majority of liquids have been removed. Dried manure solids is also referredto as dehydrated manure.E. coli: The abbreviated name of the bacterium Escherichia coli. Escherichia coli are normal bacteria which are commonly found in theintestinal tracts of animals. Some strains of the bacteria can cause serious disease such as coliform mastitis in dairy cows. See coliformmastitis.Geometric mean: The geometric mean, in mathematics, is a type of mean or average which indicates the central tendency or typical valueof a set of numbers.Gram-negative bacteria: Bacteria are either gram-positive or gram-negative. Gram-negative bacteria are a type of bacteria that do notretain crystal violet dye in the Gram staining protocol and instead take up the counterstain (safranin or fuchsine) and appear red or pink57

under the microscope. The Gram staining test itself is useful in classifying the two distinct types of bacteria. In contrast, Gram-positivebacteria will retain the crystal violet dye and appear violet under the microscope.Gram-positive bacteria: Bacteria are either gram-positive or gram-negative. Gram-positive bacteria are those that are stained dark blueor violet by Gram staining and appear blue or violet under the microscope. The Gram staining test itself is useful in classifying the twodistinct types of bacteria. In contrast, Gram-negative bacteria do not retain the crystal violet stain.Klebsiella species: Klebsiella refers to a type of bacteria that is gram-negative and is part of the coliform group of bacteria normally foundin the intestinal tract of animals. Often found in wood products such as sawdust and shavings. They can produce severe mastitis in dairycows.Klebsiella pnemoniae: A specific type of Klebsiella bacteria that can cause severe mastitis in dairy cows.Infectious: Generally refers to a disease in animals or humans that is caused by the presence and growth of pathogenic biological agentssuch as viruses, fungi or bacteria.Inorganic: Pertaining to substances that are of inanimate, of a non biological, non living origin. Inorganic compounds lack carbon andhydrogen atoms and are produced by geological processes. In contrast, organic substances are derived from living sources and containcarbon and hydrogen.Interdigital dermatitis: Interdigital dermatitis in cattle is a disease caused by the anaerobic bacterium Dichelobacter nodosus. Interdigitaldermatitis is different to footrot in cattle and both conditions may occur concurrently.In-vitro: Refers to experiments carried on outside the confines of an animal’s or organism’s body. They are commonly referred to as "testtube experiments". In contrast, in-vivo experiments are conducted within living organisms in their normal, intact state.Laboratory Pasteurization Count (LPC): A laboratory test in which the number of bacteria remaining viable in a raw milk sample arecounted after that sample is subjected to laboratory pasteurization, i.e. heated to a temperature of 60 degrees centigrade for 30 minutes.The count is generally expressed as the number of bacteria per milliliter.Mann-Whitney Rank Sum: In statistics, is a non-parametric statistical hypothesis test for assessing whether one of two samples ofindependent observations tends to have larger values than the other.Manure press technology: Any technology which separates the liquid and solid components of raw manure by means of pressure appliedto the raw manure.Non aureus coagulase positive: This term refers to a special type of coagulase positive bacteria that is not Staphylococcus aureus.Organic: Pertaining to substances arising from living organisms and containing carbon and hydrogen. In contrast, inorganic substancesderived from non-living sources contain no carbon or hydrogen and originate from geological processes.Other Gram-positive Bacteria (Bacillus): A type of gram-positive bacteria that, with the exception of Bacillus anthracis and Bacilluscereus, do not generally produce disease in animals. Bacillus cereus can occasionally cause mastitis in dairy cows.pH: Refers to a term used in chemistry to determine if a substance is acidic or alkaline. Specifically pH is the measure of the activity ofhydrogen ions in any substance. Pure water has a pH very close to 7 or neutral at 25°C. Substances with a pH less than 7 are said to beacidic and solutions with a pH greater than 7 are basic or alkaline.Pressed manure solids: The term pressed manure solids refers to the solid portion of manure after the liquid components have beenremoved by the application of pressure to the raw manure. In the case of cow manure, pressure is generally applied through the use of ascrew press.Recycled manure solids: The term recycled manure solids refers to manure solids that have been recycled for use as bedding for dairycows. The recycling process generally involves removing the majority of the liquid components from the raw cow manure by either amechanical separator or by applying pressure to the raw manure. Recycling may also involve composting of the raw manure solids to killpotential disease causing microorganisms in the raw product.Sand-laden manure: Animal manure mixed with sand, the result of using sand as a bedding material for example in dairy barns.Sand-lane: A non-mechanical concrete trough to transport sand-laden manure to another site, for example to a storage lagoon.58

Sand shooter: A mechanical device to distribute (shoot) sand into a site that is difficult to access, such as a cow stall.Simulation studies: Studies carried out under laboratory conditions that attempt to mimic field conditions.Somatic Cell Count (SCC): Commonly refers to the concentration of somatic cells within the milk and can be used to determine the levelof mastitis in a cow’s udder in an individual animal. Herd levels of mastitis can be determined by counting the number of somatic cells ina sample of milk from the bulk tank. The predominant somatic cells in the cow’s milk are white blood cells which increase in numberwhen the cow’s quarter is infected with bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus, a cause of mastitis. The SCC is reported as cells permilliliter (ml).Standard Plate Count (SPC): means the determination of the number of viable bacteria per milliliter (ml) of raw milk.Staphylococcus aureus: A type of gram-positive bacteria belonging to the genus staphylococci that is a common cause of disease inanimals, in particular mastitis in cattle.Staphylococcus hyicus: A type of gram-positive bacteria belonging to the genus staphylococci that is a common cause of disease inanimals, in particular skin diseases in pigs.Streptococcus agalactiae: A type of gram-positive bacteria belonging to the genus Streptococci that is a common cause of mastitis incattle.Streptococcus uberis: A type of gram-positive bacteria belonging to the genus Streptococci that is a common cause of mastitis in cattle.Streptococcus dysgalactiae: A type of gram positive bacteria belonging to the genus Streptococci that is a common cause of mastitis incattle.Subclinical mastitis: A very mild mastitis that produces no visible changes in the milk.Teat end bacteria counts: The number of bacteria on the ends of cow’s teats. This value can be used to measure the level of bacteria inthe cow’s environment.Tuber calcis: The point of the hock that serves as the attachment for the gastrocnemius tendon. It is also called tuber calcaneus.Trueperella pyogenes: A type of gram-positive bacteria belonging to the genus Trueperella that can cause abscesses and mastitis in cattle.This bacterium was previously referred to Arcanobacterium pyogenes and before that Corynebacterium pyogenes.59

Index:Accelerometers … 31Aerobic count … 26Agricultural lime … 22Analysis of Variance … 34Animal health … 10Bedding additives, treatments … 10, 22, 29, 30Calcium powders … 22Chemical disinfectants … 22, 30Coagulase-negative staphylococcus species … 10, 29, 33, 34Coal fly ash … 22, 30Coliform bacteria … 14, 22, 26, 29, 30Coliform mastitis … 14, 29Colony forming units … 12, 28Compost systems … 21, 30Composted manure solids … 20, 28Contagious … 10Corynebacterium sp … 33.34Cow comfort … 10, 15, 16, 31, 34, 35, 39Cow mattresses … 23, 30, 36Cow stall mats … 23, 31, 36Dehydrated manure … 32, 33, 41Dewater … 7, 41Dried manure solids … 7, 20, 32, 33, 37, 41E. coli … 10, 14, 21, 29, 30, 33, 34Economics … 9, 14, 15, 17, 19Environmental mastitis … 10, 14, 16, 28, 29Geometric mean … 25Global literature review … 28Gram-negative bacteria … 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Hay … 18, 28Hydrated lime … 22Ideal bedding material … 6, 12Johnes disease … 20Klebsiella pneumonia … 12, 28Klebsiella species, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Infectious … 10Inorganic bedding … 6, 10, 12, 28, 29Interdigital dermatitis … 10In-vitro … 21, 30Laboratory Pasteurization Count (LPC) … 25Lameness … 10Mann-Whitney Rank Sum … 32, 33Manure management … 11, 42, 43Manure press technology … 7, 41Mastitis … 10, 28, 29, 30Non aureus coagulase positive … 33, 34Organic bedding … 6, 10, 12, 28, 29Other Gram-positive Bacteria (Bacillus) … 33, 34Peat moss … 7, 19, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34pH … 6, 10, 19, 22, 29, 30Pressed manure solids … 7, 31, 32, 33, 35, 41Recycled manure solids … 7, 31, 32, 33, 35, 41Recycled paper … 21, 30Sand … 7, 16-17, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39-41, 42, 44-46, 46-47Sand-laden manure … 6, 38, 43, 44-46, 46-47, 49-50Sand-lane … 8, 44-46Sand shooter … 8, 39-41Sawdust … 14, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 3560

Shavings … 14, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Simulation studies … 24, 26Somatic Cell Count(s) (SCC) … 10, 16, 21, 25, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 43, 45Standard Plate Count (SPC) … 25Stall bases … 23Staphylococcal species … 21, 30Staphylococcus aureus … 10, 15, 29, 30, 33, 34Staphylococcus hyicus … 33, 34Straw …7, 15, 16, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,35Streptococcal species … 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Streptococcus agalactiae … 10Streptococcus dysgalactiae … 10, 33, 34Streptococcus uberis … 10, 14, 28, 29, 33, 34Subclinical mastitis … 25, 30Teat end bacterial counts … 7, 31, 33, 59tuber calcis … 30Waterbeds … 37Trueperella pyogenes … 1061