A review: Floor/bedding material, key factor addressing welfare and performance of dairy animals

Introduction

With the increase in world's global population that may reaches up to 9 billion by 2050 (FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, 2007) [24] , the demand for livestock products as a food will also be increased (Tona, 2018) [61] . Thus, it will exert a tremendous pressure on the dairy sector to fulfil this demand (Britt et al., 2018) [6] . To, compete with this situation, the improvement in livestock management systems is of utmost importance. It is a common saying that "there are four pillars of livestock management i.e. breeding, feeding, housing, health/disease management. The improvement in production cannot be expected if the management in any of these four pillars is inadequate (Kumari et al., 2020; Choudhary et al., 2025) [39,15] . For long term profitability and longevity, the animal production systems are becoming highly mechanized but due consideration should also be given for health performance and welfare issues of an animal, which can be improved by providing adequate comfort through housing management of dairy animals. Thus, this topic deals with the housing management in general and bedding/flooring management in particular, it's types, their peculiar characteristics and effect on productive, reproductive, profitability and longevity of dairy animals. The bedding material used should have certain ideal characteristic viz. inertness (should not readily reacts with the animal's body/housing equipments and environment), comfort (with minimum stress), have adequate moisture content (neither too high to favour microbial growth nor too low to spread with air), clean and facilitates easy cleaning and should have adequate particle size (with lesser chances for microbial contamination) (Choudhary et al., 2025) [15] . However, the choice of bedding materials by livestock owners depends upon economics, availability, type of climate, stage of animal, renewing frequency and waste management systems. The different types of materials can be used for the purpose of bedding which may be organic (straw, hay, wooden shavings, crop residues, news papers, wood chips, saw dust and composed manures) or inorganic (sand, limestone, gypsum, etc.). Similarly, dairy farmers prefer different floor types viz. stones, bricks, concrete, rubber mats/mattress according to their own status (Ferraz et al., 2020) [25] . [7] . 2. Wooden Shavings: They are by-products from wood www.extensionjournal.com and timber industry with optimum moisture content of 11.7%. It has high moisture absorption rate (24 hrs.) of 540.2% along with high evaporation rate (12 hrs.) of 75.4%. The emission of ammonia occurs @ 13.52 mg/m 2 with emission rate-1.63 mg/m 2 /h. The wooden shavings do not tend to cling to teat skin and support slower growth of bacteria. However, some woods, like cherry, can be toxic to the animals (Ahn et al., 2016) [1] . Moreover, it poses various health issues, on using shaves of woods that are chemically treated (Choudhary et al., 2025; Embury, 2022) [15,20] . [1] . However, it was found to provide more warmth to the animals during winter season as compared to rubber mat and composed material used fir bedding (Dimov et al., 2017; Chopra et al., 2021) [19,14] . 4. Compost/Dried manure solids: They are renewable source of bedding material with high content of moisture (average of 64-73%) in the unused dried manure solids bedding. The level of fine particles (< less than 2 mm size) ranged from 31 to 74%. It is useful in dry environment, as, on moisture, it acts as an excellent medium for bacterial growth, thus posing greater chances for udder infections (Wallace, 2007) [69] . 5. Recycled manure solids: These are the by-products of methane digesters/biogas slurry. It is having high moisture level (About 70%), thus acts as an excellent medium for bacterial growth. However, such type of bedding material is mostly used in temperate regions, where it provides adequate heat to the animals (Wallace, 2007) [69] . 6. Sand: It is economical and easy available material.

Peculiar characteristics of different bedding/

Crop residues like

Being inert in nature and due to its inorganic nature, it does not support the growth of microorganisms. As long as the sand is kept dry (from urine, milk leakage or the elements on open sided barns) it will remain non-compactable. However, it is non-absorbent with quick evaporation time, hence, even on getting wet, the moisture gets reduces quickly. Since, it provides insulation to the animals, thus, reducing the heat stress (Sahu et al., 2018) [52] . The loose texture and non-cohesive particles are seemingly lubricant under pressure; this eases the impact on the cow's hard contact points and reduces hock lesions and hair loss (Stowell & Inglis, 2000) [59] . Preference tests have also been used to show that cows actively prefer sand to other bedding types (Tucker et al., 2003) [63] . However, the manure handling is the biggest challenge in sand bedded barns. Flush barns with sand require at least 2 to 2.5% slope to keep heavy sand moving in the flush liquid. Generally, a trench is incorporated at bottom of the holding area to separate the sand from manure. 7. Limestone: It is a natural, inert material which allows porosity for liquids to drain evenly. It is relatively costlier and due to its chemical nature, it has potential to dry-out and damage teat and udder skin. However, it effectively controls the level of microbial contamination. The limestone (crushed) having 10 mesh screening size is the optimum base material for livestock stall and is often used sparingly with other bedding materials. (Anonymous, 2019) [3] . 8. Cow stall mats: They are generally constructed of a 1.9 to 2.5 centimetre thick and is made up of thick industrial grade solid rubber or a multi-layered vinyl. It is impervious to water, bacteria and mould and being solid provides comfort like concrete floor, however, offers a non-abrasive, non-skid surface that adds traction for cows. At the time of winter, it acts as an insulating layer between the animal's body and cold concrete base of stall (Kour, 2017) [37] . 9. Geotextile/Rubber Cow mattress: They have waterproof exteriors made of either synthetic materials or rubber, inner core filled with a variety of materials including rubber crumbs, polyethylene foam, gel and water. The incidences causing abrasion of hock joint is meagre with these mattresses. Commonly, it is installed in rows, attached to one another, and is available in various sizes to fulfil the requirement of typical stall sizes (Endres, 2012) [21] . 10. Concrete: The concrete flooring is relatively expensive and provides harder surfaces to the animal. It is having low moisture (<2%) content and absorption with high rate of evaporation. The compressive strength of concrete floor is high and such floor becomes slippery on wetting, however, the manure management is easier in such floor (Telezhenko et al., 2009) [60] .

Cow comfort and performance of dairy cows

The comfort level of cow can either be assessed by its lying behaviour (Stone et al., 2017 and Munksgaard et al. 2020) [58, 43] . Out of a day, dairy cow prefers lying/resting as compared to other behaviours i.e. about 12-14 hours (50% of total daily time budget) is essential for adequate health and performances (Gupta et al., 2016). Moreover, the systems of feeding employed by the owner, also alters the duration of lying viz. 8 hours/day in pasture feeding (Sepulveda-Varas et al., 2014) [55] , while 12.5 hours/day in case of stall feeding (Charlton et al., 2014) [12] . Similarly, the adequate lying duration for a lactating cow is about 11 hours/day in case of free stall systems (Von Keyserlingk et al., 2012) [68] , however, a lying duration of 10.9 hours to 11.5 hours/day was suggested by Philips and Rind (2001), for different types of housing systems. The lying behaviour varies with certain management factors viz. Social ranking, system of housing, design and material of lying area, stocking density, time, duration and period of milking. The season also markedly affects the duration of milking as the lying duration is higher in winter season as compared to summer (Steensels et al., 2012) [57] . It is well known fact that for making 1 volume of milk, about 500 volume of blood is required, thus the increased duration of laying, increases the supply of blood to the udder (Metcalf et al., 1992) [42] , up to 24-28% as compared to standing i.e. [5,36] , thus, affecting the growth of calves, onset of puberty, calving weight, growth of mammary tissues, milk production and postpartum anestrous in cows (Funston et al., 2010; Allen et al., 2012) [27,2] .

Bedding/floor materials and comfort of dairy cows

The quality of bedding material provided to the animals can also be evaluated by the number of lying bouts (Manninen et al., 2002) [41] . The comfort level of cow is more on soft bedding as compared to harder and cows prefers to lie on soft beds (Tucker and Weary, 2004; Fregonesi et al., 2007) [62, 26] . Moreover, the duration of feeding is also higher in former as compared to later (Tucker et al., 2006) [64] . The cow comfort index (CCI%) is the proportion of cows lying down comfortably in stalls, when assessed in crossbred cows in concrete floor and with sand as bedding material, during two different seasons i.e. winter and hot-humid season, it was observed that cows were in more comfort in sand as bedding material as compared to concrete (Winter, 87.55% vs 81.88%; Summer, 95.42% vs71.67%). Moreover, the milk yield is also higher in case of former as compared to concrete floor (Joshi, 2014) [34] . Similar observation was also observed by Haley et al. (2001) [28] in H.F. cows, where lying duration is more in rubber mattress as compared to concrete floor (51.0% vs 43.4%) with less standing time (11.04 h vs 12.87 h). However, some found that neither rubber mat nor sand alone affects the milk quality and quantity, but their combination shows better performance as compared to concrete alone, concrete with brick paving, concrete with sand (Upadhyay et al., 2015) [67] .

In general, most of the researchers had observed lesser lying and greater standing times when dairy cattle are housed on hard surfaces like concrete (Haley et al., 2000; O'Connell and Meaney, 1997; Rushen et al., 2001) [29,46,51] . However, when concrete floor is covered with some soft bedding material, the duration of lying is almost similar to that of rubber mats (Wechsler et al., 2000; Manninen et al., 2002) [70, 41] . Many authors found that bedding with straw is more comfortable than rubber mattress flooring (Madke et al., 2010) [40] with greater duration of feeding, rumination and resting. Moreover, in unheated buildings during winter season, straw bedding increases thermal insulation in cow stalls (Tuyttens, 2005) [66] . However, dairy cow prefers plenty of straw with concrete floor and small amount of straw with rubber mats both in winter and summer season as compared to sand beddings (Manninen et al., 2002) [41] . In a preference test, Tucker et al. (2004) [62] observed 7.5 kg straw is preferred by dairy cows as compared to less quantity of straw. Similarly, Calamari et al. (2009) [8] observed that a lactating cow prefers to spend about 44.1% of lying time as compared to other bedding materials and concluded sand as best lying surface as compared to other bedding materials. However, Norring et al. (2010) [44] concluded rubber mat as best material in comparison to concrete stalls (73 vs 18 observations/day) and sand (50 vs 40 observations/day). But, at the time of calving, sand bedding is more preferable than concrete and rubber mats (Campler et al., 2011) [9] . Sand has been considered as "gold standard" bedding material because it is economical, improves cleanliness, does not supports bacterial growth, have uniform size, non-absorbent in nature and provides good traction to cows, thus better leg health (Espejo et al., 2006; Norring et al., 2008) [23,45] . In Nilli Ravi buffalo, the lying and milk yield is highet when sand is used as bedding material in comparison concrete alone and with paddy straw (Raza et al., 1998) [49] . Besides the type, depth of bedding material is also one of the factors for cow's comfort. Laying surfaces which are deep bedded provides more comfort than shallow bedded for lame cows (Jensen et al., 2015) [32] . The sand bedding with minimum depth of 25 cm is found to be suitable for many researchers (Buli et al., 2010; Cook, 2010) [7,17] . Similarly, size of bedding material also influences the dairy cow performances viz. Small particle size of saw dust is associated with greater incidences of Klebsiella mastitis, moreover, the bacterial count is lowest in sand surface having size of 25 mm (Buli et al., 2010) [7] . Uneven small or large size causes discomfort to animals, either by causing leg injuries or by sticking to the teat ends. Increasing the depth of bedding material increases the cost of bedding, however, simultaneously, it also increases the comfort level of dairy cows. It has been observed that lying time increases by 13 minutes and 3 minutes by adding each extra kilogram of straw and wooden shavings respectively (Tucker et al., 2009) [65] . Similarly, the requirement of straw is more with concrete floor as compared to rubber mattress for improvising the duration of lying (Jensen et al., 1988) [33] .

Bedding/floor materials and reproductive performance of dairy cows

The reproductive performances of dairy cattle largely depend on type of flooring material, with lameness being one of the most common reasons, along with other stressors such as, reduction in duration of lying (Caraviello et al., 2006; Fregonesi et al., 2007) [10., 26] , reduced feed intake (Schefers et al., 2010) [53] , thus lowering the BCS. [13] .

Lameness

The lameness has a direct negative effect on profitability of a dairy farm (Cha et al., (2010) [11] , Peake et al., 2011) [47] , as it directly affects the milk yield and reproductive performance of dairy cows. The effect of lameness associated with reduced milk yield, premature culling, and increased calving to first service time, fertility problems and huge economic loss etc. Many factors like genetics, stage and parity of lactation and body weight are related to lameness but environment and bedding quality are the most important factor for lameness. The important floor characteristics like quality, friction, shape and cushion also affects the limb health. Incidence of lameness on dairies varies according to housing type, time of year, and stall surface. Prolonged standing on concrete is a major predisposing factor for lameness (Singh et al., 1999). The hardness of floor results in lameness problem due to damage of white line damage and horn lesion (Choudhary et al., 2025) [15] . Among dairy animals, the incidences of injury due to slipping was higher in fully slatted concrete floors as compared to perforated floor or perforated floor with rubber mattress (Cozzi et al., 2013) [18] . Similarly, the problems associated with sole haemorrhages are less in rubber flooring and highest in concrete floors (Haufe et al., 2012) [30] . The of claw have negative impact on production and reproduction of animal (Enting et al., 1997) [22] .

Conclusion

In conclusion, bedding materials has potential impact on the important economic traits in dairy animals. Sand is the best bedding material according to the different previous research finding, which is not only comfortable, but being inorganic nature, also permits lowest contamination of various microbial agents. It results in lower SSC and it is helpful to reduce the productive and reproductive problems. Since, bedding of sand aids more cushion, support and traction, thereby reducing the problems associated with lameness. In many experiments, rubber flooring is also better for reproductive performance and mounting behaviour. The lameness imparts the negative effects on profitability of a dairy farm. An ideal bedding material should be comfortable, dry, clean, absorbent, cost effective and inert. Other different types of floor can also be used only after essential modifications. Good management can eliminate the disadvantage whereas bad management can override the advantageous of bedding materials.

References

1. Ahn GC, Jang SS, Kwak HJ, Lee SR, Oh YK, Park KK. Characteristics of rice hulls, sawdust, wood shavings and mixture sawdust and wood shavings, and their usefulness according to the pen location for Hanwoo cattle. Asian Aust J Anim Sci. 2016;29:599-605.
2. Allen CC, Alves BR, Li X, Tedeschi LO, Zhou H, Paschal JC, et al. Gene expression in the arcuate nucleus of heifers is affected by controlled intake of high-and low-concentrate diets. J Anim Sci. 2012;90:2222-32.
3. Anonymous. Using Limestone for Stall Bedding: What You Need to Know. Baker Lime. 2019. https://bit.ly/2RSXgFh. Accessed June 6, 2019.
4. Black RA, Taraba JL, Day GB, Damasceno FA, Bewley JM. Compost bedded pack dairy barn management, performance, and producer satisfaction. J Dairy Sci. 2011;96(12):8060-74.
5. Bova TL, Chiavaccini L, Cline GF, Hart CG, Matheny K, Muth AM, et al. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology. 2014;12:58.
6. Britt JH, Cushman RA, Dechow CD, Dobson H, Humblot P, Hutjens MF, et al. Learning from the future-A vision for dairy farms and cows in 2067. J Dairy Sci. 2018;101(5):3722-41.
7. Buli TA, Elwes S, Geerets J, Schildmeijer P. Sand: A review of its use in housed dairy cows. 2010. https://bit.ly/2RSeL8x.
8. Calamari L, Calegari F, Stefanini L. Effect of different free stall surfaces on behavioural, productive and metabolic parameters in dairy cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2009;120:9-17.
9. Campler M, Munksgaard L, Jensen MB, Weary DM, Von-Keyserlingk MAG. Short communication: Flooring preferences of dairy cows at calving. J Dairy Sci. 2011;97(2):892-6.
10. Caraviello DZ, Weigel KA, Craven M, Gianola D, Cook NB, Nordlund KV, et al. Analysis of reproductive performance of lactating cows on large dairy farms using machine learning algorithms. J Dairy Sci. 2006;89:4703-22.
11. Cha E, Hert JA, Bar D, Grohn YT. The cost of different types of lameness in dairy cows calculated by dynamic programming. Prev Vet Med. 2010;97:1-8.
12. Charlton GL, Haley DB, Rushen J, De Passille AM. Stocking density, milking duration, and lying times of lactating cows on Canadian freestall dairy farms. J Dairy Sci. 2014;97:2694-700.
13. Cheong SH, Nydam DV, Galvao KN, Crosier BM, Gilbetr RO. Cow-level and herd-level risk factors for subclinical endometritis in lactating Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci. 2011;94(2):762-70.
14. Chopra D, Sahu S, Bidhan D, Chharang D, Pal A, Singh M, et al. A review on effect of different bedding materials on growth, microclimatic variability and physiological indices of animals. Pharma Innov J. 2021;SP-10(1):94-7.
15. Choudhary K, Hina AW, Gupta A, Rintor DS. Optimizing livestock welfare and productivity: a comprehensive review of bedding material impacts. Plant Arch. 2025;25(1):1947-54.
16. Cook NB, Nordlund KV. The influence of the environment on dairy cow behavior, claw health and herd lameness dynamics. Vet J. 2009;179:360-9.
17. Cook NB. Troubleshooting and evaluating cow comfort and free stall design on dairy operations. University of Wisconsin-Madison; 2010.
18. Cozzi G, Tessitore E, Contiero B, Ricci R, Gottardo F, Brscic M. Veterinary Journal. 2013;197(2):2115.
19. Dimov D, Gergovska Z, Marino I, Miteva Ch. Effect of stall surface temperature and bedding type on comfort indices in dairy cow. Sylwan. 2017;161(8).
20. Embury IS. Alternative Litter Materials for Poultry. 2004. https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/000
21. Endres MI. Bedding options for dairy cows. Adv Dairy Technol. 2012;24:361-9.
22. Enting H, Kooij D, Dijkhuizen AA, Huirne RBM, Noordhuizen-Stassen EN. Economic losses due to clinical lameness in dairy cattle. Livest Prod Sci. 1997;49:259-67.
23. Espejo LA, Endres MI, Salfer JA. Prevalence of lameness in high-producing Holstein cows housed in free stall barns in Minnesota. J Dairy Sci. www.extensionjournal.com 2006;89:3052-8.
24. FAO. Commission on genetic resources for food and agriculture. In: The state of the world's animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. FAO; 2007. p. 1412.
25. Ferraz PFP, Ferraz GAES, Leso L, Klopčič M, Barbari M, Rossi G. Properties of conventional and alternative bedding materials for dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2020;103:8661-74.
26. Fregonesi JA, Tucker CB, Weary DM. Overstocking reduces lying time in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2007;90:3349-54.
27. Funston RN, Martin JL, Adams DC, Larson DM. Winter grazing system and supplementation of beef cows during late gestation influence heifer progeny. J Anim Sci. 2010;88:4094-101.
28. Haley DB, de Passille AM, Rushen J. Assessing cow comfort: Effects of two floor types and two tie stall designs on the behaviour of lactating dairy cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2001;71:105-17.
29. Haley DB, Rushen J, de Passille AM. Behavioural indicators of cow comfort: Activity and resting behaviour of dairy cows in two types of housing. Can J Anim Sci. 2000;80:257-63.
30. Haufe HC, Gygax L, Wechsler B, Stauffacher M, Friedli K. Influence of floor surface and access to pasture on claw health in dairy cows kept in cubicle housing systems. Prev Vet Med. 2012;105:85-92.
31. Ito T, Aoki N, Tsuchiya A, Kaneko S, Akiyama K, Uetake K, et al. Detection of stress hormone in the milk for animal welfare using qcm method. J Sens. 2017:1-7.
32. Jensen MB, Herskin MS, Thomsen PT, Forkman B, Houe H. Preferences of lame cows for type of surface and level of social contact in hospital pens. J Dairy Sci. 2015;98(7):4552-9.
33. Jensen P, Rece´n B, Ekesbo I. Preference of loose housed dairy cows for two different cubicle floor coverings. Sweden J Agric Res. 1988;18:141-6.
34. Joshi RK. Studies on performance and behaviour of crossbred cows housed under an improved loose housed system [M.V.Sc. Thesis]. NDRI; 2014.
35. Karslioglu KN, Askin G, Mehmet K. Effects of stall type and bedding materials on lameness and hygiene score and effect of lameness on some reproductive problems in dairy cattle. J Appl Anim Res. 2011;39(4):334-8.
36. Kashyap K, Pathak R, Santra A, Singh N, Mishra OP, Parmar MS, et al. Impact of bedding material on behavioural pattern of Osmanabadi goat kids. Indian J Anim Sci. 2024;94(1):50-4.
37. Kour S. Bedding options for Dairy cattle. J Sci Achievements. 2017;2(5):43-5.
38. Kumar GS, Showkat B, Shine A, Lone KP, Anshuman SAK, Kumar N. Impact of floor type and bedding materials on udder health, reproductive performance and lameness in dairy animals: A Review. Int J Agric Sci. 2016;8(51):2364-8.
39. Kumari T, Bhakat C, Singh AK. Adoption of management practices by the farmers to control subclinical mastitis in dairy animals. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2020;8(2):924-7.
40. Madke PK, Lathwal SS, Kumar Y, Kaushik V. The effect of floor system on the performance, cleanliness, carcass composition and meat quality of housed finishing beef cattle. Livest Prod Sci. 2010;69(1):33-42.
41. Manninen E, de Passille AM, Rushen J, Norring M, Saloniemi H. Preferences of dairy cows kept in unheated buildings for different kind of cubicle flooring. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2002;75:281-92.
42. Metcalf JA, Roberts SJ, Sutton JD. Variations in blood flow to and from the bovine mammary gland measured using transit time ultrasound and dye dilution. Res Vet Sci. 1992;53:59-63.
43. Munksgaard L, Weisbjerg MR, Henriksen JCS, Løvendahl P. Changes to steps, lying, and eating behavior during lactation in Jersey and Holstein cows and the relationship to feed intake, yield, and weight. J Dairy Sci. 2020;103:4643-53.
44. Norring M, Manninen E, de Passille AM, Rushen J, Saloniemi H. Preferences of dairy cows for three stall surface materials with small amounts of bedding. J Dairy Sci. 2010;93:70-4.
45. Norring M, Manninen E, de Passille AM, Rushen J, Munksgaard L, Saloniemi H. Effects of sand and straw bedding on the lying behavior, cleanliness and hoof and hock injuries of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2008;91:570-6.
46. O'Connell JM, Meaney WJ. Comparison of shredded newspaper and sawdust as bedding for dairy cows: Behavioural, clinical and economic parameters. Irish Vet J. 1997;50:167-70.
47. Peake KA, Biggs AM, Argo CM, Smith RF, Christley RM, Routly JE, et al. Effects of lameness, subclinical mastitis and loss of body condition on the reproductive performance of dairy cows. Vet Rec. 2011. doi:10.1136/vr.c6180.
48. Phillips CJC, Rind MI. The effects on production and behaviour of mixing uniparous and multiparous cows. J Dairy Sci. 2001;84:2424-9.
49. Raza HS, Ahmad S, Anwar M, Khan LM. Effect of types of bedding on udder and hoof health and behaviour in Nilli ravi buffaloes. Buffalo Bull. 1998;17(1):14-8.
50. Rulquin H, Caudal JP. Effects of lying or standing on mammary blood flow and heart rate in dairy cows. Ann Zootech. 1992;41:101.
51. Rushen J, de Passille AM, Haley D, Manninen E, Saloniemi H. Using behavioral indicators and injury scores to assess the effect of stall flooring on cow comfort. In: Livestock Environment VI, Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium. 2001. p. 716-23.
52. Sahu D, Mandal D, Bhakat C, Chatterjee A, Mandal A, Mondal M. Effects of Roof Ceiling and Sand Flooring on Microclimate of Shed and Physiological Indices of Crossbred Jersey Cows. Int J Livest Res. 2018;8(4):272-80.
53. Schefers JM, Weigel KA, Rawson CL, Zwald NR, Cook NB. Management practices associated with conception rate and service rate of lactating Holstein cows in large, commercial dairy herds. J Dairy Sci. 2010;93:1459-67.
54. Sejrsen K, Huber JT, Tucker HA. Influence of amount fed on hormone concentrations and their relationship to mammary growth in heifers. J Dairy Sci. 1983;66:84555. www.extensionjournal.com
55. Sepulveda-Varas P, Weary DM, Von Keyserlingk MAG. Lying behaviour and post partum health status in grazing dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2014;97:6334-43.
56. Singh SS, Ward WR, Lautenbach K, Murray RD. Behaviour of lame and normal dairy cows in cubicles and in a straw yard. Vet Rec. 1993;133:204-8.
57. Steensels M, Bahr C, Berckmans D, Ilan H, Antler A, Maltz E. Lying patterns of high producing healthy dairy cows after calving in commercial herds as affected by age, environmental conditions and production. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2012;136:88-95.
58. Stone AE, Jones BW, Becker CA, Bewley JM. Influence of breed, milk yield, and temperaturehumidity index on dairy cow lying time, neck activity, reticulorumen temperature, and rumination behavior. J Dairy Sci. 2017;100:2395-403.
59. Stowell RR, Inglis S. Sand for Bedding. In: Proceedings from dairy housing and equipment systems: Managing and planning for profitability. Natural Resource, Agriculture and Engineering Service; 2000. p. 226-34.
60. Telezhenko E, Bergsten C, Magnusson M, Nilsson C. Effect of different flooring systems on claw conformation of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2009;92(6):2625-33.
61. Tona GO. Current and future improvements in livestock nutrition and feed resources. Anim Husb Nutr. 2018. doi:10.5772/intechopen.69938.
62. Tucker CB, Weary DM. Bedding on geotextile mattresses: How much is needed to improve cow comfort? J Dairy Sci. 2004;87:2889-95.
63. Tucker CB, Weary DM, Fraser D. Effects of three types of freestall surfaces on preferences and stall usage by dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2003;86:521-9.
64. Tucker CB, Weary DM, de Passillé AM, Campbell B, Rushen J. Flooring in front of the feed bunk affects feeding behavior and use of freestalls by dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2006;89:2065-71.
65. Tucker CB, Weary DM, Von-Keyserlingk MAG, Beauchemin KA. Cow comfort in tie-stalls: Increased depth of shavings or straw bedding increases lying time. J Dairy Sci. 2009;92:2684-90.
66. Tuyttens FAM. The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: A review. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2005;92:261-82.
67. Upadhyay D, Singh M, Patel BHM, Gaur GK, Verma MR, Bharti P, et al. Association of flooring materials with milk yield and its composition in crossbred cows. J Anim Res. 2015;5(1):75-9.
68. Von-Keyserlingk MA, Barrientos G, Ito AK, Galo E, Weary DM. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for highproducing Holstein dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2012;95:7399-408.
69. Wallace RL. Bedding choices: Mastitis control and cow comfort. 2007. https://bit.ly/328wAoM.
70. Wechsler B, Schaub J, Friedli K, Hauser R. Behaviour and leg injuries in dairy cows kept in cubicle systems with straw bedding or soft lying mats. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2000;69:189-97.