Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-lwxm7 Total loading time: 0.206 Render date: 2021-06-21T05:23:40.594Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Article contents

Podolian beef production on pasture and in confinement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2011

A. Braghieri
Dipartimento di Scienze delle Produzioni animali, Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Via dell'Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy
C. Pacelli
Dipartimento di Scienze delle Produzioni animali, Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Via dell'Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy
G. De Rosa
Dipartimento di Scienze del Suolo, della Pianta, dell'Ambiente e delle Produzioni animali, Università di Napoli ‘Federico II’, Via Università 133, 80055 Portici (NA), Italy
A. Girolami
Dipartimento di Scienze delle Produzioni animali, Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Via dell'Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy
P. De Palo
Dipartimento di Sanità Pubblica e Zootecnia, Università di Bari, S. P. per Casamassima Km 3, 70010 Valenzano (BA), Italy
F. Napolitano
Dipartimento di Scienze delle Produzioni animali, Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Via dell'Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy
E-mail address:
Get access


From February to August 2007 the effect of rearing system (confined (C) v. free ranging (FR)) and season (spring v. summer) was evaluated on behaviour, immune and blood parameters and beef production (experiment 1). From February to August 2008, the effect of rearing system was only evaluated on beef production (experiment 2). A total of 12 Podolian young bulls were used each year. They were slaughtered at 18 and 15 months of age in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Herbage mass and pasture composition were monitored during the 2 years. Pasture availability, in terms of herbage mass and composition, as well as its seasonal development, was similar in the 2 years. In the first experiment, FR animals spent more time walking (P < 0.05), feeding (P < 0.001) and standing (P < 0.01) and showed a lower number of agonistic (P < 0.05) and non-agonistic social interaction than C animals (P < 0.01). Significant lower concentrations of serum urea nitrogen (P < 0.001) and creatinine (P < 0.10) in FR animals indicated a lower protein nutritional status due to inadequate protein availability at pasture. As a consequence, average daily gains (P < 0.05), slaughter weight (P < 0.05) and body condition score (P < 0.01) were lower in grazing animals as compared with C bulls. Cellular immune responsiveness was higher in FR animals (P < 0.05). Similarly, antibody titre to keyhole limpet hemocyanin was higher in FR bulls at the 2nd and 3rd month after antigen injection (P < 0.05), whereas it tended to be higher at the 4th month (P < 0.10). In both experiments, grazing negatively affected meat colour in terms of lightness. Eighteen-month-old bulls also showed lower final weight, weight gain and body conditions when kept outdoor: a possible consequence of nutrient deficits, as suggested by the metabolic status of FR animals. The same animals, however, benefited from FR in terms of natural behaviour expression and immune responsiveness. When the experiment was replicated the subsequent year, on animals slaughtered at 15 months of age, no differences between the performances of FR and C animals were detected. The earlier slaughter age system was also proportionally less dependent on external inputs as grazing was not extended to the dry season when herbage mass availability was lower.

Full Paper
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.


Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google ScholarPubMed
Bergeron, R, Badnell-Waters, AJ, Lambton, S, Mason, GJ 2006. Stereotypic oral behaviour in captive ungulates: foraging, diet and gastrointestinal function. In Stereotypic behaviour: fundamentals and applications to welfare (ed. G Mason), pp. 1957. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouissou, MF, Boissy, A 2005. The social behaviour of cattle and its consequences on breeding. Productions Animales 18, 8799.Google Scholar
Bouissou, MF, Boissy, A, Le Neindre, P, Veissier, I 2001. The social behaviour of cattle. In Social behaviour in farm animals (ed. LJ Keeling and HW Gonyou), pp. 113144. CABI Publishing, CAB International, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourguet, C, Deiss, V, Gobert, M, Durand, D, Boissy, A, Terlouw, EMC 2010. Characterising the emotional reactivity of cows to understand and predict their stress reactions to the slaughter procedure. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 125, 921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boval, M, Fanchone, A, Archimede, H, Gibb, MJ 2007. Effect of structure of a tropical pasture on ingestive behaviour, digestibility of diet and daily intake by grazing cattle. Grass Forage Science 62, 4454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braghieri, A, Pacelli, C, Verdone, M, Girolami, A, Napolitano, F 2007. Effect of grazing and homeopathy on milk production and immunity of Merino derived ewes. Small Ruminant Research 69, 95102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, JC, Sollenberger, LE 2002. Grazing behaviour of ruminants and daily performance from warm-season grasses. Crop Science 47, 873881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabaraux, JF, Dufrasne, I, Istasse, L, Hornick, JL 2005. Variation of plasma parameters and nitrogen metabolism in finishing Belgian Blue double-muscled cull females. Journal of Animal Physiology Animal Nutrition 89, 5562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cosgrove, GP 1997. Grazing behaviour and forage intake. In International Symposium on Animal Production under Grazing, Departmento de Zootechnia, Universite Federal de Vicosa, Brazil, pp. 59–80.Google Scholar
Cummins, KA, Brunner, CJ 1991. Effect of calf housing on plasma ascorbate and endocrine and immune function. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 15821588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Rosa, G, Fedele, V, Napolitano, F, Gubitosi, L, Bordi, A, Rubino, R 1997. Dietary preferences in adult and juvenile goats. Animal Science 65, 457463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Rosa, G, Napolitano, F, Saltalamacchia, F, Bilancione, A, Sabia, E, Grasso, F, Bordi, A 2007. The effect of rearing system on behavioural and immune responses of buffalo heifers. Italian Journal of Animal Science 6 (suppl. 2), 12601263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doornenbal, H, Tong, AKW, Murray, NL 1988. Reference values of blood parameters in beef cattle of different ages and stages of lactation. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 52, 99105.Google ScholarPubMed
Dumont, B, Garel, JP, Ginane, C, Decuq, F, Farruggia, A, Pradel, P, Rigolot, C, Petit, M 2007. Effect of cattle grazing a species-rich mountain pasture under different stocking rates on the dynamics of diet selection and sward structure. Animal 1, 10421052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EU Directive 93/119/CE 1993. On the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. Official Journal L340, 2134.Google Scholar
Fisher, AD, Crowe, MA, O'Kiely, P, Enright, WJ 1997a. Growth, behaviour, adrenal and immune responses of finishing beef heifers housed on slatted floors at 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 or 3.0 m2 space allowance. Livestock Production Science 51, 245254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, AD, Crowe, MA, Prendiville, DJ, Enright, WJ 1997b. Indoor space allowance: effects on growth, behaviour, adrenal and immune responses of finishing beef heifers. Animal Science 64, 5362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, M, Figwer, P, Poirel, MT 2000. Efft du type genetique et du temps d'attente sur la frequence du carctere destructure de la viande de porc. 8eme Journees des Sciences du Muscle et tecnologies de la viande, Paris, pp. 51–53.Google Scholar
Freedland, RA, Szepesi, B 1971. Control of enzyme activity: nutritional factors. In Enzyme synthesis and degradation in mammalian systems (ed. M Recheigkl Jr) University Park Press, Baltimore, USA.Google Scholar
Gentry, JG, McGlone, JJ, Miller, MF, Blanton, JR Jr 2004. Environmental effects on pig performance, meat quality, and muscle characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 82, 209217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibb, MJ, Huckle, CA, Nuthall, R, Rook, AJ 1997. Effect of sward surface height on intake and grazing behaviour by lactating Holstein Friesian cows. Grass and Forage Science 52 (suppl. 3), 309321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginane, C, Petit, M, D'hour, P 2003. How do grazing heifers choose between maturing reproductive and tall or short vegetative swards. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83, 1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, IJ 1995. Animal-based techniques for grazing ecology research. Small Ruminant Research 16, 203214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, LJ, Illius, AW 1992. Foraging strategy: from monoculture to mosaic. In Progress in sheep and goat research (ed. AW Speedy), pp. 153170. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PHH, Barnett, JL, Beveridge, L, Matthews, LR 1995. The welfare of extensively managed dairy cattle: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42, 161182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernandez, L, Barral, H, Halffter, G, Colon, SS 1999. A note on the behaviour of feral cattle in the Chihuahan Deser of Mexico. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63, 259267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hessle, A, Rutter, M, Wallin, K 2008. Effect of breed, season and pasture moisture gradient on foraging behaviour in cattle on semi-natural grasslands. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 111, 108119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, R, Baumung, R, Wurzinger, M, Semambo, D, Mwai, O, Winckler, C 2008. Grazing, social and comfort behaviour of Ankole and crossbred heifers on pasture in south western Uganda. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112, 223234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huuskonen, A, Jansson, S, Honkavaara, M, Tuomisto, L, Kauppinen, R, Joki-Tokola, E 2010. Meat colour, fatty acid profile and carcass characteristics of Hereford bulls finished on grazed pasture or grass silage-based diets with similar concentrate allowance. Livestock Science 131, 125129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illius, AW, Gordon, IJ 1987. The allometry of food intake in grazing ruminants. Journal of Animal Ecology 56, 989999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INRA 1988. Alimentation des bovins ovins & caprins (ed. R Jarrige). Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Karn, JF 2001. Phosphorus nutrition of grazing cattle: a review. Animal Feed Science Technology 89, 133153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempkens, K, Boxberger, J 1987. Locomotion of cattle in loose housing system. In Cattle housing systems, lameness and behaviour (ed. HK Wierenga and JD Peterse), pp. 107118. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Keyserlingk, MAG, Rushen, J, de Passillé, AM, Weary, DM 2009. Invited review: the welfare of dairy cattle – key concepts and the role of science. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 41014111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krohn, CC 1994. Behaviour of dairy cows kept in extensive (loose housing/pasture) or intensive (tie stall) environments. III. Grooming, exploration and abnormal behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42, 7386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krohn, CC, Munksgaard, L, Jonasen, B 1992. Behaviour of dairy cows kept in extensive (loose housing/pasture) or intensive (tie stall) environments, I. Experimental procedure, facilities, time budgets – diurnal and seasonal conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34, 3747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamoot, I, Meert, C, Hoffmann, M 2005. Habitat use of ponies and cattle foraging together in a coastal dune area. Biological Conservation 122, 523536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindahl, G, Lundstrom, K, Tornberg, E 2001. Contribution of pigment content, myoglobin forms and internal reflectance to the colour of pork loin and ham from pure breed pigs. Meat Science 59, 141151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindahl, G, Henckel, P, Karlsson, AH, Andersen, HJ 2006. Significance of early postmortem temperature and pH decline on colour characteristics of pork loin from different crossbreeds. Meat Science 72, 613623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marino, R, Braghieri, A, Albenzio, M, Caroprese, M, Girolami, A, Santillo, A, Sevi, A 2009. Effect of rearing system and of dietary protein level on leptin, growth, and carcass composition in young Podolian bulls. Journal of Animal Science 87, 30973104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, P, Bateson, P 2007. Measuring behaviour, 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martiniello, P, Gesualdo, G, Sabia, E, Terzano, GM, Pacelli, C, Berardo, N 2007. Intensive rainfed and irrigated forage crop production for Mediterranean Italian Buffalo feeding. Italian Journal of Animal Science 6 (suppl. 2), 12261229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijs, JAC, Walters, RJK, Keen, A 1982. Sward methods. In Herbage intake handbook (ed. JD Leaver), pp. 1136. British Grassland Society, Berkshire, UK.Google Scholar
Miller, K, Wood-Gush, DGM 1991. Some effects of housing on the social behaviour of dairy cows. Animal Production 53, 271278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napolitano, F, Caporale, G, Carlucci, A, Monteleone, E 2007. Effect of information about animal welfare and product nutritional properties on acceptability of meat from Podolian cattle. Food Quality Preference 18, 305312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napolitano, F, Pacelli, C, De Rosa, G, Braghieri, A, Girolami, A 2005. Sustainability and welfare of Podolian cattle. Livestock Production Science 92, 323331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redbo, I, Nordblad, A 1997. Stereotypies in heifers are affected by feeding regime. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53, 193202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, MW, Spitzer, JC, Warner, MB 1986. Effect of varying levels of postpartum nutrition and body condition at calving on subsequent reproductive performance in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 62, 300306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruckebusch, Y, Bueno, L 1978. An analysis of ingestive behaviour and activity of cattle under field conditions. Applied Animal Ethology 4, 301313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarker, AB, Holmes, W 1974. The influence of supplementary feeding on the herbage intake and grazing behaviour of dry cows. Journal of the British Grassland Society 29, 141143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) 1990. SAS/STAT user's guide, version 6, 4th edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Suttle, NF 2009. Mineral nutrition of livestock. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
Terlouw, C, Berne, A, Astruc, T 2009. Effect of rearing and slaughter conditions on behaviour, physiology and meat quality of Large White and Duroc-sired pigs. Livestock Science 122, 199213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, JF, Hentges, JF Jr 1983. Effects of breed and pasture location on blood serum components of beef cattle. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, DA, Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 35833597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, M, Oksbjerg, N, Henckel, P 2000. Influence of feeding intensity, grazing and finishing feeding on muscle fibre characteristics and meat colour of semitendinosus, longissimus dorsi and supraspinatus muscles of young bulls. Meat Science 54, 177185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallis De Vries, MF, Daleboudt, C 1994. Foraging strategy of cattle in patchy grassland. Oecologia 100, 98106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, JM, Stookey, JM 2000. Vocal behaviour in cattle: the animal's commentary on its biological processes and welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67, 1533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wierenga, HK 1984. The social behaviour of dairy cows: some differences between pasture and cubicle system. In Proceedings of International Congress on Applied Ethology (ed. J Unshelm, G van Putten and K Zeeb), pp. 135138. Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Podolian beef production on pasture and in confinement
Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Podolian beef production on pasture and in confinement
Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Podolian beef production on pasture and in confinement
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *