Compost Bedded Pack Barn Design and Management

Dr. Jeffrey Bewley
CowFocused/Bovisync
Dr. Joseph Taraba
UK/CowFocused
COMPOST BEDDED PACK
BARN DESIGN AND
MANAGEMENT

NEW UK
COMPOST
BEDDED
PACK BARN
Joe Taraba, Marcia
Endres, Paul
Galama, Cows, and
Farmers Have
Made Me Think

Milk Yield
Increased by
1400 kg in 1
year

WORLDWIDE SOCIAL MEDIA PHENOMENA

Compost Bedded
Pack Barn Concept
Loose-housing with large, open resting area
Not your grandfather’s bedded pack barn!
Intensively managed compost process keeps cows
dry and clean
Risks for mismanagement higher than stall barns
More management/less labor than stall barns

INSUFFICIENT SLEEP CAN CAUSE
PROBLEMS
Sleep
Loss
Sympathetic
activation
Hypertension
Reduced
glucose
tolerance
Hormonal
changes
Increased
inflammation
Anxiety
Depression
Cardio-
vascular
disease
Obesity
Increased
Rate of
Infections
Diabetes
O’Hara 2012

WHY MEASURE SLEEP?
Important to cows well-being?
Potential benefits- improved immunity and
health?
Increasing evidence suggests a clear link with
the immune system and disease resistance
Most research related to dairy cow sleep is
based on measuring lying time (Cooper et al.,
2008, Fisher et al., 2002, Munksgaard and
Simonsen, 1996).

MEASURING SLEEP
Klefot, et al., Journal of Dairy Science, 2016, Volume 99 , Issue 10 , 8477 - 8485

PLAY AND
DONIMANCE
BEHAVIORS
SOCIAL
BEHAVIOR

PRODUCER CITED BENEFITS OF COMPOST
BEDDED PACK BARNS
Improved cow
comfort
(n = 28)
Improved cow
cleanliness (n = 14)
Low maintenance
(n = 11)
Good for heifers,
lame, fresh, problem,
and old cows
(n = 10)
Natural resting
position (no stalls)
(n = 9)
Improved feet and
legs
(n = 8)
Proximity to parlor
(compared to
pasture) (n = 8)
Decreased SCC
(n = 6)
Black et al., Journal of Dairy Science (2013): 96: 8060-8074

PRODUCER CITED BENEFITS OF
COMPOST BEDDED PACK BARNS
Increased heat
detection
(n = 6)
Ease of
manure
handling
(n = 3)
Increased dry
matter intake
(compared to
pasture) (n = 3)
Increased
production
(n = 3)
Increased
longevity
(n = 3)
Fewer leg and
teat injuries
(n = 2)
Minimizes time
standing on
concrete
(n = 2)

Advantages
•Excellent cow
comfort
•Low investment
•Good milk quality
•Manure handling
Disadvantages
•Sawdust availability
•Sawdust availability
•Higher variable costs
•Management ability
•Does not work well in
retrofits
•Building footprint
COMPOST BEDDED PACK

Culling rate before and after moving into
a CBP barn used as primary housing
Calculated using 12 months before move in and 6 to 12 months after move in

DHIA PRODUCTION AND SCC
1Before represents the 12 m before moving into the CBP
2Transition represents the 12 m after moving into the CBP
3After represents the 13 to 24 m after moving into the CBP
4Different subscripts within a row denote a significant difference (P < 0.05)
Changes in productive parameters for primary housing farms
before and after moving into a CBP
Parameter Before1 Transition2 After3
Daily milk production,
kg
29.3 ± 0.3a 30.1 ± 0.3ab 30.7 ± 0.3b
Rolling herd average, kg 8,937 ± 79a 9,194 ± 73b 9,403 ± 74b
SCC, cells/mL 411,230 ±
20,209a
305,410 ±
19,704b
275,510 ±
20,080b

BEDDING MATERIAL BACTERIA
Mastitis Pathogens Thrive in Optimal
Conditions for Compost Microbes

Coliforms
E. Coli
Staphylococci
Streptococci
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Correlations Among Bacteria and
Compost Temperature

COMPOST VS SAND
COMPARISON STUDY
 15 Kentucky farms
▪ 8 compost bedded pack
▪ 7 sand freestall
 On DHIA test
▪ Low SCC herds (yearly mean <
300,000 cells/mL)
Eckelkamp et al., Livestock Science, 2016,Volume 190 , 48 - 57

HYGIENE SCORE
2.19 2.26
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Barn type
Meanherdrearhygiene
score
Compost Bedded Pack Sand Freestall
P = 0.38

HIGH SCC PREVALENCE
21.79
19.43
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Barn type
Mastitisinfectionprevalence
(%ofherd>200,000cells/mL)
P = 0.43

CLINICAL MASTITIS
1.16 1.18
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Barn type
Farmerreportedclinical
mastitisincidence(%of
herdperweek)
P = 0.90

FREQUENCY OF ISOLATES FROM CLINICAL
MASTITIS CASES IN COMPOST BEDDED PACK
BARNS AND SAND FREESTALL BARNS (P = 0.03)
Pathogen Isolated
Compost bedded pack barns
Total # of cases = 212
Total #of isolates = 214
Mean (± SE) # of cows =
190 ± 146
Sand freestall barns
Total # of cases = 87
Total # of isolates = 88
Mean (± SE) # of cows =
65 ± 25
Percent of total Percent of total
CNS 7.9 4.5
Environmental streptococci 16.8 19.3
Escherichia coli 29.0 21.6
Klebsiella species 1.4 3.4
Staphylococcus aureus 5.1 6.8
Yeast species 3.3 3.4
Other gram-negative species 13.5 6.8
Other gram-positive species 3.7 9.1

SEVERITY SCORE FREQUENCY FROM CLINICAL
MASTITIS CASES IN COMPOST BEDDED PACK BARNS
AND SAND FREESTALL BARNS (P < 0.001)
Severity
score
Compost bedded pack barns
total cases = 212
mean (± SE) cows = 190 ± 146
Sand freestall barns
total cases = 87
mean (± SE) cows = 65 ± 25
Number of
cases
Percent of total
cases
Number of
cases
Percent of total
cases
1 147 69.3 33 37.9
2 60 28.3 36 41.4
3 5 2.4 18 20.7

YEARLY LSMEANS (± SE) BULK TANK SOMATIC
CELL COUNT FOR ALL HERDS ON DHIA TEST IN
KENTUCKY BY HOUSING TYPE
227,695
259,193 259,478 258,252 260,411
303,612 316,896
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
Compost &
Freestall
Compost Freestall Mixed Tiestall Bedded
pack
Pasture
Yearlymeanbulktanksomaticcellcount
(cells/mL)
Housing Type
ab ab bab baba
n = 14 n = 6
n = 36 n = 92 n = 12 n = 24n = 56

MISMANAGMENT=PROTOTHECA
DISASTER

HEAT STRESS IN COMPOST BARNS
▪ August 15 to September 23, 2016
▪ 3 groups of cows (23, 23, and 25)
▪ 3 treatments:
▪ Natural ventilation (N)
▪ Fans alone (F)
▪ Fans and sprinklers (FS)
Lee et al., 2018, in preparation

Start:
Aug
15
Finish:
Sept
23
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3
Washout 2Washout 1
1 3 5 97
Day 10 = Milk
Collection
Days 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 =
Behavioral Observation
and HR Monitors
1 3 5 9 1 3 7 9
Days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 =
and HR Monitors
Days 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 =
and HR Monitors
Day 10 = Milk
Collection
Day 10 = Milk
Collection
STUDY DESIGN
THI = 82.7 THI = 82.2 THI = 81.6

Treatment 1 – No fans and no
sprinklers
Headlocks without sprinklers
Treatment 2 – Fans Only
Headlocks without sprinklers
Headlocks with sprinklers
Treatment 3 – Fans plus
Sprinklers

ENERGY CORRECTED MILK BY
TREATMENT
28.4 27.9 28.5 30.3 32.4 32.2
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
N F FS N F FS
Energycorrectedmilk
(kg/d)
Energy corrected milk (kg/d) by treatment and parity
A
Natural
ventilation
Fans
Fans and
sprinklers
Primiparous Multiparous
A A A B B

LYING TIME BY TREATMENT
531
586 572
514
574 595
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
N F FS N F FS
Lyingtme(min/d)
Changes in lying time (min/d) by treatment
and parity
AB B AB A AB B

EATING TIME BY TREATMENT
206
246 264
155 175 184
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
N F FS N F FS
Eatingtime(min/d)
Changes in eating time (min/d) by treatment
and parity
A CC B B AB

RESPIRATION RATE BY TREATMENT
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
8/8/16 8/18/16 8/28/16 9/7/16 9/17/16 9/27/16
THI
Meanbreaths/min/day
Date
Mean THI
Natural
ventilation Fans Fans and sprinklers
P < 0.01

Average Minimum Maximum
All Barns
Barn cost $85,362 $10,900 $300,000
Cost/cow @ 100 sqft/cow $855 $215 $1,875
Barns with Attached Feed Bunk
Barn cost $103,729 $30,000 $300,000
Cost/cow @ 100 sqft/cow $1,051 $421 $1,876
Barns without Attached Feed Bunk
Barn cost $51,454 $10,900 $155,000
Cost/cow @ 100 sqft/cow $493 $196 $833
INVESTMENT COSTS

DAILY BEDDING COSTS
$0.00
$0.10
$0.20
$0.30
$0.40
$0.50
$0.60
$0.70
$0.80
$0.90
$1.00
Summer Winter
CostperCowperDay
Minimum = $0.01 Maximum = $1.44

http://www2.ca.uky.edu/afsdairy/DairyHousingInvestment

KEYS TO MANAGING A CBP BARN
Effective
Composting
Facility
Design
Adequate
Ventilation
Stocking
Density
Frequent
Stirring

PACK MANAGEMENT
0.5 to 0.6 m of bedding to start, may take 2-
4 semi-loads of sawdust
New bedding (5-20 cm) added when pack
starts looking moist
New bedding added every 1-8 weeks (more
when humid or wet and in winter)
Packs cleaned 1-2 times per year (fall &
spring)

QUICK FIX BY USING MORE BEDDING

Sweeps or Shovels Increase Mixing

Roto-tillers break up clumps of
bedding material

Uniform Bedding with Roto-Tiller

Steam is Good But Doesn’t
Mean Pack is Heating

Stirring in multiple directions or in circles increases
air infiltration and helps break up clumps

Too many posts within the barn can make pack
stirring difficult

Heavy Tractors Compact Bedding
Material

MANAGEMENT CHECKS
Temperature: 43 to 66° C or “just hot enough you
don’t want to touch it”
Moisture: 45 to 55% or can you form a ball
without too much water
Fluffiness: subjective (looking for give in bedding
as you walk across it)
Distribution of cows within barn
Dirty cows (next to last resort)
SCC or clinical mastitis (last resort)

Example of compost that is too
wet with insufficient
temperature.
Example of compost heating
well with high temperature
and dry material.
Example of compost that is too
dry with insufficient
temperature
Example of compost heating well with
high temperature and dry material.
Temperature Monitoring

High moisture, clumps, lack of
uniformity

Increase size or capacity
of the barn (n = 15)
Higher sidewalls and
improved ventilation
(n = 12)
Add a retaining wall
(n = 6)
Add Curtains
(n = 5)
More fans
(n = 5)
Larger ridge vent
(n = 5)
No posts in pack
(n = 4)
Change number or
location of waterers (n = 4)
Change location or size of
feed bunk (n = 4)
Length of overhang or
eaves (n = 3)
RECOMMENDED FACILITY CHANGES

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Site selection
Maximize natural ventilation (summer
winds)
Slightly elevated (minimize runoff)
Clay or concrete base
Modified freestall barn designs
Barn dimensions account for feed and
water space

 Think about summer and winter as different systems
 Build for number of cows milking in winter
 Consider milk production and cow size
 Start thinking about feed and water space early
 Packs must be stirred twice per day every day, no
exceptions
 0.6 to 0.75 meter retaining wall
BUILDING DESIGN: NEW
RECOMMENDATIONS

• The system is unforgiving
to overstocking
• Providing less than 9.2
square meters of resting
area per cow is a recipe
for disappointment
(Ideally 12 to 14 square
meters)
• The amount of moisture
deposited through urine
and manure is too much
to overcome

• High, open sidewalls like those depicted in the
pictures above maximize cross ventilation
• A minimum of 4.25 meters of opening should
remain between the top of the retaining wall and
the bottom of the barn eave

A concrete retaining wall provides separation
between the feed alley and the pack area (A)
which is helpful in managing pack moisture.
Additionally, on the outside of the barn (B),
the retaining wall keeps bedding material
within the barn

HIGH RETAINING WALL BLOCKS AIR
FROM ANIMALS
Changed Recommendation from 1.2 meters to 0.6 to 0.75 meters

Wide alleys (4.75 meters recommended) improve
cow flow, minimize chances for cow injuries, and
allow for easy access to feed and water

Eave overhangs can help minimize the amount of wind,
precipitation, and sunlight entering the barn. Overhangs
should be 1/3 of the eave height.

Properly
positioned fans
help cool cows
and dry
bedding
material

High volume low speed fans (HVLS) have been added to
many compost bedded pack barns. These fans distribute
air well across a wide area.

Bunching can be a
challenge without
proper
consideration of air
and light flow

High Volume, Low
Speed Fans
2 to 2.5 times
diameter
Panel/Axial Fans
8 to 10 times
diameter
RECOMMENDED FAN SPACING

Cold winds Curtains Can Help in Winter

No access to water or feed
from pack

Adequate water access is critical. Most compost bedded pack barn do not meet the
Restricted Water Access

Wide Entrances and Entrances on
Short End of Barn are Too Wet

POTENTIAL WIDE ENTRANCE
MODIFICATION

To minimize this effect, multiple, build narrow
entrances along the long side of the barn.
Entrances should be spaced every 15 meters.

WHY DON’T ALL PACKS WORK?
Barn design flaws
Stocking density (too many cows!)
Material used (straw, cedar)
Stirring frequency/depth
Inadequate/ineffective stirring
Starting pack in the winter
No curtains in winter

COMPOST BARN
LIMITS/QUESTIONS
▪Bedding availability and costs
▪Management level
▪Scalability
▪Heat tolerant bacteria
▪Environmental impact?

QUESTIONSJeffrey Bewley, PhD, PAS
jbewley@bovisync.com
jbewley@cowfocused.com
www.cowfocused.com

Compost Bedded Pack Barn Design and Management

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Compost Bedded Pack Barn Design and Management

Ähnlich wie Compost Bedded Pack Barn Design and Management (20)

Mehr von Jeffrey Bewley

Mehr von Jeffrey Bewley (15)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Compost Bedded Pack Barn Design and Management