The place selected by the animals for lying and standing was investigated by direct observation. On each farm, on two days, the behaviour of 10 focus animals was recorded during the periods from 10:30 to 12:30 hrs and from 14:00 to 16:00 hrs, in 5-minute intervals. It was noted whether and where the animals were lying―on the edge (near the outside wall, near the inside wall), in the centre or outside of the lying area. The places found for standing at the particular time was also documented.

The cleanliness of the animals was assessed using the model devised by Faye and Barnouin [9] on all of the animals in the herd. With this model, the animals are assessed on five areas of the body (zones) with five scores (0 = no dirt to 2 = totally dirty or covered with thick plaques of dirt):

Zone 1: Area between the base of the tail, the ischial tuberosity and the area of the suspensory apparatus of udder;

Zone 2: Udder viewed from behind;

Zone 3: Lower hind leg (area of the tarsus to the dewclaw);

Zone 4: Udder viewed from the side;

Zone 5: Upper hind leg (excluding the tarsus).

The integument alterations were also assessed with all of the animals in the herd, using the system devised by Ekesbo [10] . The assessment was limited to the carpus, tarsus and the tarsal joint. The examination included hairless patches, dry scabs and open wounds (according to size) and swellings.

In this project the animals were assessed according to a model developed by Winckler and Willen [11] , in which the degree of lameness was classified according to five scores (values):

Score 1: Normal gait;

Score 2: Uneven gait;

Score 3: Short striding gait with one limb;

Score 4: Short striding gait with more than one limb or strong reluctance to bear weight on one limb;

Score 5: Does not support on one limb or strong reluctance to put weight on limb in two or more limbs.

Before being assessed, the cows were locked in the feeding rack and then released individually and assessed while walking in the feeding alley.

The data were analyzed with Microsoft Excel and the statistics software packages R and Statgraphics Centurion.

The proportions of cows standing and lying show that, in addition to the differences between morning and afternoon, the great differences are mainly between farms (Table 1). Within the present temperature range it was not possible to observe any connection between the temperature and the proportion of cows lying. Even at higher temperatures no avoidance of the lying areas could be discerned. Furthermore, the lying area was very seldom used for standing and only by a few animals. Regarding the location selected for lying, there were no differences between morning and afternoon (Figure 1). Here the differences between farms were much greater, too. The choice of lying locations and the overall lying behaviour were greatly influenced by the structural arrangement and the shape of the lying area (long and narrow to short and wide). The open construction with good ventilation in all farms allowed for a good stable climate even in high temperatures. Zähner [13] was able to show in investigations that cows prefer open lying areas in summer and more protected areas in winter.

Table 2 summarizes the results on cleanliness of the animal. The mean value across all zones was 0.44. The most dirty area of the body was zone 3 (lower hind leg) with an average score of 0.80; the least dirtiness was in zone 4 (udder seen from the side) with an average score of 0.19. As shown in Figure 2, the cleanliness of the animals in compost barns is comparable with other housing systems [14] [15] . Hörning [16] found an average dirtiness of 0.40 (54 farms) in cubicle housing systems, 0.59 (30 farms) in deep-litter systems and 0.77 (29 farms) in sloped-floor systems, but stressed the high levels of variation within one system.

The animals in the compost barn display a good level of cleanliness. The greater degree of dirtiness in the area of the lower leg is probably incurred mostly in the feeding alleys. The very low level of dirtiness on the udder is a positive observation with regard to udder health, because a dirty udder is in particular connected with

a high risk of infection with pathogens [17] . Influences specific to individual farms, such as stocking density, as well as the management of the compost barn for instance the frequency of providing fresh bedding and dung removal (compost removal), bedding material and amount of bedding as well as the “consistency” of the animals’ faeces should be taken into account when interpreting the dirtiness of the animals.

In the farms with compost barns investigated, there were only slight integument alterations in the animals (n = 135). Hairless patches < 2 cm appear on average in 9.6% of all cows (Max.: 25.9%; Min.: 2.2%). Hairless patches > 2 cm could be seen on average in 2.2% of all cows (Max.: 12.6%; Min.: 0%). Dry scabs < 2 cm appear on average in 0.7% of all cows (Max.: 4.4%; Min.: 0%). There was swelling on only one cow and no open wounds could be detected. Comparing the proportion of animals with an intact hair coat (no integument alteration) on the joints with values from other housing systems gives the image shown in Table 3. The extent of various integument alterations in different housing systems (p < 0.001) is shown in Figure 3.

In the compost barn an average of 82.6% of all of the animals displayed an intact hair coat (no integument alteration) on the joints. According to the aforementioned authors, this is a value that is comparable with a cubicle housing system with straw-manure mattress (86.2%). The investigation performed by Barberg et al. [1] on animal welfare in compost barns in Minnesota (USA) there were alterations to the tarsus in 25% of the animals (n = 796). In that case, 24% of the animals had hairless patches and the remaining 1% of the animals had swellings. No alterations were found in seven out of twelve herds.

If we consider all of the cows observed (n = 138), 42.0% display a score of 1; 31.9% a score of 2; 16.7% a score of 3; 6.5% a score of 4 and 2.2% a score of 5 (Figure 4). In further analysis, to have a better overview and be able to compare the values with the data in the literature, scores 3 + 4 + 5 were classed together as “lame” and 1 + 2 as “not lame” (Table 4). In all of the cows observed (n = 138), 73.9% could be classified as “not lame” and 25.4% as “lame”. These are compared with values from lameness assessments that were performed using exactly the same methodology in ten cubicle housing systems in Styria [20] . In all of the cows observed in that case (n = 175), 54.3% could be classified as “not lame” and 45.7% as “lame”. Figure 4 shows the degree of lameness found on farms with cubicle housing systems.

If we compare the results of the assessment on the five compost barn farms and the ten farms with cubicle

housing systems, significant differences appear in the number of lame cows (p < 0.001). While on the compost barn farms only around 25% of all cows were classed as “lame”, on the cubicle-housing system farms around 46% fell into that category. Continuing investigations to analyze other influencing factors (e.g. feeding, claw trimming) and to increase the sample should be sought. Investigations by other authors on Austrian farms with cubicle housing systems showed a proportion of 31% lame animals (sample size = 30 farms [21] ) and 36% lame animals (sample size = 80 farms [22] ). In the investigation performed by Barberg et al. [1] in compost barns in Minnesota (USA), 7.8% of the animals (n = 793) displayed clinical lameness using the five-stage system established by Sprecher et al. [23] . There were no lame cows to be found in two out of twelve herds.