Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:00:19.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of welfare of finishing beef cattle kept on different types of floor after short- or long-term housing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2015

M. Brscic ,
F. Gottardo ,
E. Tessitore ,
L. Guzzo ,
R. Ricci  and
G. Cozzi
M. Brscic*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, PD, Italy
F. Gottardo
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, PD, Italy
E. Tessitore
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, PD, Italy
L. Guzzo
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, PD, Italy
R. Ricci
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, PD, Italy
G. Cozzi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, PD, Italy
*
†E-mail: marta.brscic@unipd.it
Get access

Abstract

This study aimed at evaluating short- and long-term effects of housing beef cattle on deep litter (DL) or concrete fully slatted floor (FS) on their welfare. Animal-based measures of the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle were used to assess health status and behaviour of bulls. The assessment was carried out in a large commercial farm on 15 batches of bulls (4 DL and 11 FS) 1 month after their receiving day (short-term) and on 12 batches (three DL and nine FS) the week before slaughter (long-term). Signs of better comfort on deep litter in terms of shorter lying down durations (5.1±0.5 v. 6.5±0.4 s; P<0.05) and lower risk of hairless patches (odds ratio=0.09; 95% confidence interval=0.01 to 0.68; P<0.05) were already observed after 1 month. Heavy bulls after a long-term housing on FS showed a higher prevalence of bursitis, hairless patches and lesions/swellings than animals on DL. Bulls on fully slatted floor were at higher risk of early culling (odds ratio=6.44; 95% confidence interval=1.57 to 26.37; P<0.01), mainly due to musculoskeletal system pathologies/lameness. Deep litter proved to be a valid alternative to slatted floor, making animals more confident to interact with powerful movements such as mounting at the end of the finishing period. A negative aspect of the deep litter was the poor cleanliness of the bulls. Compared with the fully slatted floor, there were higher odds ratios for dirty bulls at both, the short- (odds ratio=25.09; 95% confidence interval=8.96 to 70.22; P<0.001) and the long-term housing (odds ratio=276.13; 95% confidence interval=98.21 to 776.38; P<0.001). In order to improve health and welfare of beef cattle finished at a heavy weight, deep litter systems are a promising alternative to fully slatted floors. However, proper management of deep litter is necessary to maintain satisfactory cleanliness of the bulls.

Keywords

beef cattledeep litterslatted floorhealthwelfare
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 6 , June 2015 , pp. 1053 - 1058
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Absmanner, E, Rouha-Mülleder, C, Scharl, T, Leisch, F and Troxler, J 2009. Effects of different housing systems on the behaviour of beef bulls – an on-farm assessment on Austrian farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118, 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerchiaro, I, Contiero, B and Mantovani, R 2005. Analysis of factors affecting health status of animals under intensive beef production systems. Italian Journal of Animal Science 4 (suppl. 3), 122–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cozzi, G, Ricci, R, Dorigo, M and Zanet, D 2005. Growth performance, cleanliness and lameness of finishing Charolais bulls housed in littered pens of different design. Italian Journal of Animal Science 4 (suppl. 2), 251–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cozzi, G, Brscic, M and Gottardo, F 2009. Main critical factors affecting the welfare of beef cattle and veal calves raised under intensive rearing systems in Italy: a review. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cozzi, G, Tessitore, E, Contiero, B, Ricci, R, Gottardo, F and Brscic, M 2013. Alternative solutions to the concrete fully-slatted floor for the housing of finishing beef cattle: effects on growth performance, health of the locomotor system and behavior. The Veterinary Journal 197, 211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daelemans, J and Maton, A 1987. Beef production with special reference to fattening bulls. In Welfare aspects of housing systems for veal calves and fattening bulls (ed. MC Schlichting and D Smit), pp 61–71. Commission of the European Communities, Luxemburg.Google Scholar
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare 2012. Scientific opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and the welfare in intensive calf farming systems. EFSA Journal 10, 166 pp.Google Scholar
Gottardo, F, Cozzi, G, Preciso, S and Ravarotto, L 2003a. Effect of type of floor and space at the manger on growth performance and feeding behaviour of beef cattle. Italian Journal of Animal Science 2 (suppl. 1), 322–324.Google Scholar
Gottardo, F, Ricci, R, Fregolent, G, Ravarotto, L and Cozzi, G 2003b. Welfare and meat quality of beef cattle housed on two types of floor with the same space allowance. Italian Journal of Animal Science 2, 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gygax, L, Mayer, C, Schulze Westerath, H, Friedli, K and Wechsler, B 2007. On-farm assessment of the lying behaviour of finishing bulls kept in housing system with different floor qualities. Animal Welfare 16, 205–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL and Borg, S 2000. Relationships between human–animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 78, 2821–2831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickey, MC, Earley, B and Fisher, AD 2003. The effect of floor type and space allowance on welfare indicators of finishing steers. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 42, 89–100.Google Scholar
Lowe, DE, Steen, RWJ, Beattie, VE and Moss, BW 2001. The effects of floor type systems on the performance, cleanliness, carcass composition and meat quality of housed finishing beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 69, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 2007. Measuring behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, PA, Hannan, J and Moneghan, M 1987. A survey of lameness in beef cattle housed on slats and on straw. In Cattle housing systems, lameness and behaviour (ed. HK Wierenga and DJ Peterse), pp. 73–86. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Platz, S, Ahrens, F, Bahrs, E, Nuske, S and Erhard, MH 2007. Association between floor type and bahaviour, skin lesion, and claw dimension in group-housed fattening bulls. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 80, 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, CA, Small, A, Avery, SM and Buncic, S 2002. Presence of food-borne pathogens on cattle hides. Food Control 13, 411–415.CrossRefGoogle 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 Improving health and welfare in animal production (ed. HJ Blokhuis, ED Ekkel and B Wechsler), pp. 29–36. EAAP Publication No. 102. Wageningen Press, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
SAS/STAT 1990. User’s guide: statistics, version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) 2001. The welfare of cattle kept for beef production. Retrieved January 9, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out54_en.pdf Google Scholar
Schrader, L, Roth, H-R, 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, 119–130.CrossRefGoogle 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, 77–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tessitore, E, Brscic, M, Boukha, A, Prevedello, P and Cozzi, G 2009. Effects of pen floor and class of live weight on behavioural and clinical parameters of beef cattle. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8 (suppl. 2), 658–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM 2005. The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 261–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and Fölsch, DW 2003. Influences on the avoidance and approach behaviour of dairy cows towards humans on 35 farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, B 2007. Normal behaviour as a basis for animal welfare assessment. Animal Welfare 16, 107–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, B 2011. Floor quality and space allowance in intensive beef production: a review. Animal Welfare 20, 497–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar