Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-rnpqb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T21:58:43.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determination of static space requirements for finishing bulls based on image analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

N Volkmann ,
J Stracke ,
SL Rauterberg ,
B Spindler  and
N Kemper
N Volkmann*
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany
J Stracke
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany
SL Rauterberg
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, Dörnbergstraße 25/27, 29223 Celle, Germany
B Spindler
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany
N Kemper
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany
*
* Contact for correspondence: nina.volkmann@tiho-hannover.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In Europe, conventional housing systems for finishing bulls (Bos taurus) tend to consist of group pens with a high stocking density. Up until now there have been no regulations in place defining bulls’ space requirements, even although insufficient space allowance is considered to impair animal welfare. Our study aimed to measure the surface area that finishing bulls occupy in standing and lying positions. We observed 46 bulls on a German fattening farm. The animals from one pen were assigned to one of three weight classes (W1: < 450 kg; W2:450-649 kg; W3: ≥ 650 kg), and two pens of each weight class were examined. For image recordings, a camera trap was installed above the pens. To analyse the covered surface, the recorded images (n = 242) were edited. Furthermore, the observed lying postures were differentiated in terms of lying position and stretched-out legs. On average, the areas covered by the bulls increased with class of bodyweight. A finishing bull covered up to 1.21 m2 in a standing position and up to 1.57 m2 in a lying position, the most space being needed in an outstretched position. The calculated values provide information only about the surface a finishing bull covered in different positions in the pen. In practice, additional dynamic and social space must be taken into account for recommendations on space requirements, in order to ensure adequate inter-individual distances, social interaction and characteristic behaviours to improve animal welfare.

Keywords

animal welfarefinishing bullslying positionspace requirementstanding positionstatic space
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , August 2021 , pp. 307 - 314
Copyright
© 2021 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Arndt, H, Volkmann, N, Spindler, B, Hartung, J and Kemper, N 2019 Do pigs have adequate space in animal transportation vehicles?—Planimetric measurement of the floor area covered by finishing pigs in various body positions. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 5: 330. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00330CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosilevac, JM, Nou, X, Osborn, MS, Allen, DM and Koohmaraie, M 2005 Development and evaluation of an online hide decontamination procedure for use in a commercial beef processing plant. Journal of Food Protection 68(2): 265–272. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-68.2.265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boxberger, J 1982 Wichtige Verhaltensparameter von Kühen als Grundlage zur Verbesserung der Haltungseinrichtung. Habil: Weihenstephan, Freising, Germany. [Title translation: Important behavioural parameters of cows as a basis for improving the housing system]Google Scholar
Broom, D and Fraser, F 2007 Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Fourth Edition. CABI: Wallingford, Oxon, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845932879.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, CJ, Fair, S, English, AM, Urh, C, Sauerwein, H, Crowe, MA, Lonergan, P and Kenny, DA 2018 Plane of nutrition before and after 6 months of age in Holstein-Friesian bulls II: Effects on metabolic and reproductive endocrinology and identification of phys-iological markers of puberty and sexual maturation. Journal of Dairy Science 101(4): 3460–3475. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, DLM, Makagon, MM, Swanson, JC and Siegford, JM 2016 Litter use by laying hens in a commercial aviary: dust bathing and piling. Poultry Science 95(1): 164–175. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceballos, A, Sanderson, D, Rushen, D and Weary, DM 2004 Improving stall design: Use of 3-D kinematics to measure space use by dairy cows when lying down. Journal of Dairy Science 87(7): 2042–2050. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)70022-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dirksen, N, Gygax, L, Traulsen, I, Wechsler, B and Burla, JB 2020 Body size in relation to cubicle dimensions affects lying behavior and joint lesions in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 103(10): 9407–9417. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-16464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekesbo, I and Gunnarsson, S 2018 Farm Animal Behaviour: Characteristics for Assessment of Health and Welfare, Second Edition. CABI Wallingford Oxfordshire UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781786391391.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Council 1998 Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming pur-pose. Offical Journal L221: 23-27Google Scholar
Faull, WB, Hughes, JW, Clarkson, MJ, Downham, DY, Manson, FJ, Merritt, JB, Murray, RD, Russell, WB, Sutherst, JE and Ward, WR 1996 Epidemiology of lameness in dairy cattle: the influence of cubicles and indoor and outdoor walking surfaces. The Veterinary Record 139(6): 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.139.6.130CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, AD, Crowe, MA, Prendiville, DJ and Enright, WJ 1997 Indoor space allowance: effects on growth, behaviour, adrenal and immune responses of finishing beef heifers. Animal Science 64(1): 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135772980001554XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fjeldaas, T, Nafstad, O, Fredriksen, B, Ringdal, G and Sogstad, A 2007 Claw and limb disorders in 12 Norwegian beef-cow herds. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 49: 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-49-24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giersberg, MF, Kemper, N and Fels, M 2015 Planimetric mea-surement of floor space covered by fattening rabbits and breeding does in different body positions and weight classes. Livestock Science 177: 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.04.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giersberg, MF, Kemper, N, Hartung, J, Schrader, L and Spindler, B 2017 Determination of body width in brown and white layer pullets by image analyses. British Poultry Science 58(3): 230–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2017.1293230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottardo, F, Ricc, R, Fregolent, G, Ravarotto, L and Cozzi, G 2003 Welfare and meat quality of beef cattle housed on two types of floors with the same space allowance. Italian Journal of Animal Science 2(S1): 243–253. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2003.243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin T and North American Meat Institute (NAMI) 2019 Recommended animal handling guidelines and audit guide: A sys-tematic approach to animal welfare. NAMI: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Graunke, K, Telezhenko, E, Hessle, A, Bergsten, C and Loberg, J 2011 Does rubber flooring improve welfare and pro-duction in growing bulls in fully slatted floor pens? Animal Welfare 20: 173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, S, Earley, B and Crowe, MA 2007 Pituitary, adrenal, immune and performance responses of mature Holstein × Friesian bulls housed on slatted floors at various space allowances. The Veterinary Journal 173(3): 594–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2006.02.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gygax, L, Mayer, C, Westerath, HS, Friedli, K and Wechsler, B 2007a On-farm assessment of the lying behaviour of finishing bulls kept in housing systems with different floor qualities. Animal Welfare 16(2): 205–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gygax, L, Siegwart, R and Wechsler, B 2007b Effects of space allowance on the behaviour and cleanliness of finishing bulls kept in pens with fully slatted rubber coated flooring. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107(1-2): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.09.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, AF 2020 SPSS, SAS, And Mplus Macros and Code. http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.htmlGoogle Scholar
Hayes, AF and Krippendorff, K 2007 Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures 1(1): 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzog, K, Boyens, B and Petermann, S 2019 Niedersächsische Tierschutzleitlinie für die Mastrinderhaltung. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 132(11-12): 497–503. https://doi.org/10.2376/0005-9366-18093. [Title translation: Animals welfare guideline for animal husbandry of fattening bulls and suckler cows in Lower Saxony]Google Scholar
Kline, HC, Edwards-Callaway, LN and Grandin, T 2019 Field observation: Pen stocking capacities for overnight lairage of finished steers and heifers at a commercial slaughter facility. Applied Animal Science 35(1): 130–133. https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2018-01799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, JR and Koch, GG 1977 The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1): 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LAVES 2018 Tierschutzleitlinie für die Mastrinderhaltung. Lower Saxony State Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety. https://www.laves.niedersachsen.de/download/139604/Tierschutzl eitlinie_fuer_die_Mastrinderhaltung.pdf. [Title translation: Animal welfare guidelines for animal husbandry of fattening bulls]Google Scholar
Magrin, L, Gottardo, F, Contiero, B, Brscic, M and Cozzi, G 2019 Time of occurrence and prevalence of severe lameness in fattening Charolais bulls: Impact of type of floor and space allowance within type of floor. Livestock Science 221: 86–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2019.01.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, RM, Foster, M and Daigle, CL 2020 A scoping review: The impact of housing systems and environmental features on beef cattle welfare. Animals 10(4): 565. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040565CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pastorelli, G, Musella, M, Zaninelli, M, Tangorra, F and Corino, C 2006 Static spatial requirements of growing-finishing and heavy pigs. Livestock Science 105(1-3): 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petherick, JC 2007 Spatial requirements of animals: Allometry and beyond. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2(6): 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2007.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C 2002 Cattle Behaviour and Welfare. Blackwell Science Ltd: Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470752418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, V, Alderson, L, Hall, SJG and Sponenberg, DP 2016 Mason's World Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding, Volume 2. CABI: Oxfordshire, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845934668.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues dos Santos, M, Freiberger, G, Bottin, F, Chiocca, M, Zampar, A and de Córdova Cucco, D 2017 Evaluation of methodologies for equine biometry. Livestock Science 206: 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2017.10.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruis-Heutinck, LFM, Smits, MCJ, Smits, AC and Heeres, JJ 2000 Effect of floor and floor area on behaviour and carpal joint lesions in beef bulls. In: Blokhuis HJ, Ekkel ED and Wechsler B (eds) Improving Health and Welfare in Animal Production, EAAP Publication No 102 pp 29–36. Wageningen Pers: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
SCAHAW 2001 The Welfare of Cattle kept for Beef Production. Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General. https://core.ac.uk/reader/10919221Google Scholar
Schneider, L, Volkmann, N, Spindler, B and Kemper, N 2020 Large group housing systems in fattening bulls. Comparison of behavior and performance. Frontiers of Veterinary Science 7: 1064. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.543335CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schrader, L 2007 Verhalten und Tierhaltung. In: Brade, W and Flachowsky, G (eds) Rinderzucht und Rindfleischerzeugung - Empfehlungen für die Praxis. Landbauforschung Völkenrode - FAL Agricultural Research: Braunschweig, Germany. [Title translation: Behaviour and livestock farming]Google Scholar
Schrader, L, Roth, HR, Winterling, C, Brodmann, N, Langhans, W, Geyer, H and Graf, B 2001 The occurrence of tail tip alterations in fattening bulls kept under different husbandry conditions. Animal Welfare 10(2): 119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze Westerath, H, Gygax, L, Mayer, C and Wechsler, B 2007 Leg lesions and cleanliness of finishing bulls kept in housing systems with different lying area surfaces. The Veterinary Journal 174(1): 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2006.05.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegwart, R, Gygax, L and Wechsler, B 2005 Wird das Wohlbefinden von Mastbullen auf gummierten Spaltenböden mit vergrössertem Platzangebot erhöht? KTBL-Schrift 441: 76–85. [Title translation: Does increased space allowance enhance animal wel-fare in finishing bulls kept on rubber coated slatted floors?]Google Scholar
Spindler, B, Giersberg, MF, Briese, A, Kemper, N and Hartung, J 2016 Spatial requirements of poultry assessed by using a colour-contrast method (KobaPlan). British Poultry Science 57(1): 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2015.1127894CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tennessen, T, Price, MA and Berg, RT 1985 The social interactions of young bulls and steers after re-grouping. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 14(1): 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(85)90036-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tessitore, E, Brscic, M, Aziza, B, Prevedello, P and Giulio, C 2010 Effects of pen floor and class of live weight on behavioural and clinical parameters of beef cattle. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8(S2): 190–192. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.s2.658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Capdeville, J and Delval, E 2004 Cubicle housing systems for cattle: Comfort of dairy cows depends on cubicle adjustment. Journal of Animal Science 82(11): 3321–3337. https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.82113321xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, B 2011 Floor quality and space allowance in intensive beef production: A review. Animal Welfare 20: 497–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winckler, C 2009 Verhalten der Rinder. In: Hoy, S (ed) Nutztierethologie pp 78–103. Verlag Eugen Ulmer: Stuttgart, Germany. [Title translation: Cattle behaviour]Google Scholar
Zerbe, F, Niemann, G and Scheithauer, E 2008 Mastbullenhaltung - Alternativen in der Spaltenbodenhaltung. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 115:118–122. [Title translation: Fattening bulls: alternative housing on slatted floors]Google Scholar