Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T15:48:24.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Out-wintering pads for finishing beef cattle: animal production and welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

M. C. Hickey ,
P. French  and
J. Grant
M. C. Hickey*
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
P. French
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
J. Grant
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Kinsealy Research Centre, Malahide Road, Dublin 17, Ireland
*
†E-mail:mchickey@grange.teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the performance and well being of animals accommodated outdoors over the winter period on out-wintering pads (OWPs), relative to animals housed indoors in conventional slatted floor sheds. One hundred and twenty-six steers were assigned at random to one of seven treatments. The first six treatments were accommodated on OWPs. These six treatments were arranged in a three (6, 12 and 18 m2 per head space allowance) by two (wind sheltered or exposed) factorial design. A seventh treatment group (control) was housed indoors in a slatted-floor shed at a space allowance of 3 m2 per head. All animals were offered silage ad libitum and 5 kg concentrate per day. All animals were slaughtered at the end of the 151 day experiment. Animal production and indices (climatic energy demand (CED), behaviour, cleanliness, hoof condition and immune function) of animal welfare were evaluated. There was no significant effect of stocking density outdoors or sheltering on live-weight gain, carcass gain, fat score, fat score per 100 kg carcass, kidney plus channel fat (KCF) as a proportion of carcass, carcass conformation score, killing-out proportion, food intake or food efficiency. Relative to animals housed indoors on slats, animals accommodated outdoors on OWPs had higher daily live-weight gain (F < 0·001), carcass gain (F < 0·05), and food intake (F < 0·05). However, animals on the OWPs had less KCF per kg carcass and lower fat scores per 100 kg carcass. There was no effect of shelter on the CED of animals out-wintered, which was higher (P < 0·001) than their counterparts wintered indoors on slats. Animals housed on slats were cleaner than animals housed at 6 or 12 m2 per head (F < 0·05) but not 18 m2per head. There was no effect of treatment on physiological measures. Animals confined on the OWP with or without shelter, had a greater number of lying bouts per 24 h (F < 0·076), had a greater synchronized lying frequency (F < 0·082) and displayed less hesitation prior to lying when compared with animals housed on slats. Indoor animals had more white line disease (F < 0·01) and under-run (F < 0·001) on their front hoof, when compared with outdoor animals. Animals accommodated outdoors at 18 m2per head had more (F < 0·05) claw erosion while the indoor animals had a greater (F < 0·001) degree of under-run present on their hind hoof. There was no evidence to suggest that out-wintering compromised animal welfare. Further studies are required to determine the reason for the increased carcass growth and leanness of the cattle on the OWPs.

Keywords

animal welfarebeef cattleout-winteringproduction.
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 75 , Issue 3 , December 2002 , pp. 447 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arkin, H., Kimmel, E., Berman, A. and Broday, D. 1991. Heat transfer properties of dry and wet furs of dairy cows. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 34: 2550–2558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission of the European Communities. 1982. European Communities’ beef carcass classification regulations. Council regulations 1358/80, 1208/81, 1202/82. Commission regulations 2930/81, 563/82, 1557/82. CEC, Brussels.Google Scholar
Department of Agriculture, Food and Development. 1998. Clean livestock policy. In Abbatoirs Act Regulations 1992, modified in 1998. Department of Agriculture, Food and Development, Ireland.Google Scholar
European Communities (Marketing of Feedstuff) Regulations. 1984. Statutory Instruments S. I. no. 200 of 1984. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
Fisher, A. D., Crowe, M. A., O’Kiely, P. and Enright, W. J. 1997. Growth behaviour, adrenal and immune responses of finishing beef steers housed on slatted floors at 1·5, 2·0, 2·5 or 3·0 m2 space allowance. Livestock Production Science 51: 245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, H. W., Christopherson, R. J. and Young, B. A. 1979. Effects of cold temperature and winter conditions on some aspects of behaviour of feedlot cattle. Applied Animal Ethology 5: 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, M. -C., Earley, B. and Fisher, A. D. 2000. The effect of floor type and space allowance on the welfare of finishing steers. Beef production series no. 28, Teagasc, Ireland.Google Scholar
Higgins, K. P. and Dodd, A. 1989. A model of the bioclimatic value of shelter to beef cattle. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 42: 149 – 164.Google Scholar
Itoh, F., Obara, Y., Fuse, H., Rose, M. T., Osaka, I. and Takahashi, H. 1997. Effects of cold exposure on responses of plasma insulin, glucagon and metabolites in heifers. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 78: 31–44.Google Scholar
Jones, C. G. and Bruce. J. M. 1985. Shelter studies using thermal models of cattle. Progress in Biometeorology 2: 83–98.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G. 1998. Concentrates for beef production. In Quality assured animal feed. Nutribio Conference, October, 1998.Google Scholar
Lowe, D. E., Steen, R. W. J. and Beattie, V. E. 2000. An assessment of lameness in finishing beef cattle accommodated on different floor types over the winter months. Proceedings of the 26th meeting of the Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association, pp. 151–152.Google Scholar
Lowe, D. E., Steen, R. W. J., Beattie, V. E. and Moss, B. W. 1999. The effect of housing system on the behaviour, welfare and performance of beef cattle. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1999, p. 53.Google Scholar
McCarrick, R. B. and Drennan, M. J. 1972. Effects of winter environment on growth of young beef cattle. Animal Production 14: 97–105.Google Scholar
Murphy, P. A., Hannan, J. and Monaghan, M. 1987. A survey of lameness in beef cattle housed on slats and on straw. In Cattle housing systems, lameness and behaviour (ed. Wierenga, H. K. and Peterse, D. J.), pp. 67–72. Martinus Nijhof, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1996. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, seventh revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Nielsen, L. H., Mogensen, L., Krohn, C., Hindhede, J. and Sorensen, J. T. 1997. Resting and social behaviour of dairy heifers housed in slatted floor pens with different sized bedded lying areas. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 307–316.Google Scholar
Raven, E. T. 1985. Cattle foot care and claw trimming. Farming Press Limited, Suffolk.Google Scholar
Redbo, I., Mossberg, I., Ehrlemark, A. and Ståhl-Högberg, M. 1996. Keeping growing cattle outside during winter: behaviour, production and climatic demand. Animal Science 62: 35–41.Google Scholar
Ruis-Heutinck, L.F, Smits, M. C. J., Smits, A. C. and Heeres, J. J. 2000. Effects of floor type and floor area on behaviour and carpal joint lesions in beef bulls. Proceedings of sessions of the EAAP commission on animal management and health, pp. 29–36.Google Scholar
Scott, S. L. and Christopherson, R. J. 1993. The effect of cold adaptation on kinetics of insulin and growth hormone in heifers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 73: 33–47.Google Scholar
Smits, A. C., Plomp, M., Goedegebuure, S. A. and Smits, M. C. J. 1994. Behaviour and health of bulls on concrete and rubber topped slatted floors. Proceedings of 45th annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1988. SAS/STAT user’s guide (release 6·03). SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. and Terry, R. A. 1963. A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 17: 104–111.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1963. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. III. A rapid method for the determination of fibre and lignin. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 46: 829–835.Google Scholar
Wagner, D. G. 1988. Effects of cold stress on cattle performance and management factors to reduce cold stress and improve performance. The Bovine Practitioner 23: 88–93.Google Scholar
Weary, D. M. and Taszkun, I. 2000. Physiology and management of hock lesions and free-stall design. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 1767–1772.Google Scholar
Young, B. A. 1981. Cold stress as it affects animal production. Journal of Animal Science 52: 154–163.Google Scholar