Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T15:33:57.760Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On-farm assessment of the lying behaviour of finishing bulls kept in housing systems with different floor qualities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

L Gygax ,
C Mayer ,
H Schulze Westerath ,
K Friedli  and
B Wechsler
L Gygax*
Affiliation:
Centre for proper housing of ruminants and pigs, Federal Veterinary Office, Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Tänikon, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland
C Mayer
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Federal Agricultural Research Centre, Dörnbergstrasse 25-27, 29223 Celle, Germany
H Schulze Westerath
Affiliation:
Centre for proper housing of ruminants and pigs, Federal Veterinary Office, Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Tänikon, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland
K Friedli
Affiliation:
Centre for proper housing of ruminants and pigs, Federal Veterinary Office, Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Tänikon, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland
B Wechsler
Affiliation:
Centre for proper housing of ruminants and pigs, Federal Veterinary Office, Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Tänikon, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: lorenz.gygax@art.admin.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several studies have shown that finishing bulls kept in housing systems with fully slatted concrete floors are impaired in their lying behaviour and locomotion due to the hardness and slipperiness of the ground. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of floor quality (straw-bedded lying area, rubber-coated slats, concrete slats) on the lying behaviour of finishing bulls. The floor type did not influence the total lying duration, but the number of lying bouts and the number of short standing periods decreased with increasing hardness of the floor in the lying area. In addition, bulls showed more interrupted lying-down and standing-up movements on concrete and rubber-coated slats than on straw bedding. On the other hand, atypical lying-down and standing-up instances, slipping and falling were reduced on rubber-coated slats and on straw bedding compared to concrete slats. Displacements of lying animals were observed more often on rubber-coated slats than on concrete slats or straw bedding. In conclusion, rubber-coated slats improve traction on the ground but are not able to provide as soft a lying area as straw bedding. Rubber coating can thus serve to improve welfare for finishing bulls kept on concrete slats but cannot be considered equivalent to straw bedding.

Keywords

animal welfarefinishing bullsfloor qualitylying behaviourrubber-coated slats
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , May 2007 , pp. 205 - 208
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

Andreae, U 1979 Zur Aktivitätsfrequenz von Mastbullen bei Spaltenbodenhaltung. Landbauforschung Völkenrode 48: 98–94. [Title translation: Activity of finishing bulls kept on fully slatted floors]Google Scholar
Graf, B 1987 Beurteilung des Vollspaltenbodens als Liegeplatz bei Mastrindern anhand des Bedarfsdeckungs- und Schadensvermeidungskonzeptes. KTBL-Schrift 319: 39–55 [Title translation: Assessment of fully slatted concrete floors as lying area for finishing cattle on the basis of requirement covering and injuries prevention concepts]Google Scholar
Lidfors, L 1992 Behaviour of bull calves in two different housing systems: deep litter in an uninsulated building versus slatted floors in an insulated building. Report no.30, Licenciate Thesis, Department of Animal Hygiene, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Lowe, DE, Steen, RWJ and Beattie, VE 2001 Preferences of housed finishing beef cattle for different floor types. Animal Welfare 10: 395–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mogensen, L, Krohn, CC, Sørensen, JT, Hindhede, J and Nielsen, LH 1997. Association between resting behaviour and live weight gain in dairy heifers housed in pens with different space allowance and floor type. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, JC and Bates, DM 2000 Mixed-effects models in S and S-Plus. Springer: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruis-Heutinck, LFM, Smits, MCJ, Smits, AC and Heeres, JJ 2000 Effects of floor type 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 Wageningen Press: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Thio, T, Gygax, L, Friedli, K, Mayer, C and Ossent, P 2005 Einfluss von gummimodifizierten Spaltenböden auf die Klauengesundheit von Mastbullen. Tierärztliche Praxis 33: 77–84 [Title translation: Effect of rubber topped concrete slatted floors on claw health in fattening bulls]Google Scholar
Venables, WN and Ripley, BD 2002 Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edition. Springer: New York, USAGoogle Scholar