Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-5xszh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T02:26:01.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of space allowance and floor type on performance, welfare and physiological measurements of finishing beef heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2017

M. P. Keane
Affiliation:
Animal and Bioscience Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, IrelandC15 PW93 School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, IrelandD04 N2E5
M. McGee
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, IrelandC15 PW93
E. G. O’Riordan
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, IrelandC15 PW93
A. K. Kelly
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, IrelandD04 N2E5
B. Earley*
Affiliation:
Animal and Bioscience Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, IrelandC15 PW93
Get access

Abstract

Accommodating cattle indoors during the winter is widely practiced throughout Europe. There is currently no legislation surrounding the space allowance and floor type that should be provided to cattle during this time, however, concerns have been raised regarding the type of housing systems currently in use. The objective of the study was to investigate the effect of space allowance and floor type on performance and welfare of finishing beef heifers. Continental crossbred heifers (n=240: mean initial live; weight, 504 (SD 35.8) kg) were blocked by breed, weight and age and randomly assigned to one of four treatments; (i) 3.0 m2, (ii) 4.5 m2 and (iii) 6.0 m2 space allowance per animal on a fully slatted concrete floor and (iv) 6.0 m2 space allowance per animal on a straw-bedded floor, for 105 days. Heifers were offered a total mixed ration ad libitum. Dry matter intake was recorded on a pen basis and refusals were weighed back twice weekly. Heifers were weighed, dirt scored and blood sampled every 3 weeks. Whole blood was analysed for complete cell counts and serum samples were assayed for metabolite concentrations. Behaviour was recorded continuously using IR cameras from days 70 to 87. Heifers’ hooves were inspected for lesions at the start of the study and again after slaughter. Post-slaughter, carcass weight, conformation and fat scores and hide weight were recorded. Heifers housed at 4.5 m2 had a greater average daily live weight gain (ADG) than those on both of the other concrete slat treatments; however, space allowance had no effect on carcass weight. Heifers accommodated on straw had a greater ADG (0.15 kg) (P<0.05), hide weight (P<0.01) better feed conversion ratio (P<0.05) and had greater dirt scores (P<0.05) at slaughter than heifers accommodated on concrete slats at 6.0 m2. The number of heifers lying at any one time was greater (P<0.001) on straw than on concrete slats. Space allowance and floor type had no effect on the number of hoof lesions gained or on any of the haematological or metabolic variables measured. It was concluded that increasing space allowance above 3.0 m2/animal on concrete slats was of no benefit to animal performance but it did improve animal cleanliness. Housing heifers on straw instead of concrete slats improved ADG and increased lying time; however carcass weight was not affected.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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, 1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brscic, M, Gottardo, F, Tessitore, E, Guzzo, L, Ricci, R and Cozzi, G 2015. Assessment of welfare of finishing beef cattle kept on different types of floor after short- or long-term housing. Animal 9, 10531058.Google Scholar
Buckham Sporer, KR, Weber, PS, Burton, JL, Earley, B and Crowe, MA 2008. Transportation of young beef bulls alters circulating physiological parameters that may be effective biomarkers of stress. Journal of Animal Science 86, 13251334.Google Scholar
Burton, JL, Madsen, SA, Chang, LC, Weber, PS, Buckham, KR, van Dorp, R, Hickey, MC and Earley, B 2005. Gene expression signatures in neutrophils exposed to glucocorticoids: a new paradigm to help explain ‘neutrophil dysfunction’ in parturient dairy cows. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 105, 197219.Google Scholar
Earley, B, McDonnell, B and O’Riordan, E 2015. Effect of floor type on the performance, physiological and behavioural responses of finishing beef steers. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 57, 111.Google Scholar
EC 2006. Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2006 of 24 July 2006 concerning the community scale for the classification of carcasses of adult bovine animals Offical. Journal of the European Union 214, 16.Google Scholar
Eicher, SD, Lay, DC Jr, Arthington, JD and Schutz, MM 2013. Effect of rubber flooring during the first 2 lactations on production, locomotion, hoof health, immune function and stress. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 36393651.Google Scholar
Fayed, RH 1997. Effect of housing systems on behaviour and lameness in dairy cows. Veterinary Medical Journal Giza 45, 101110.Google Scholar
Fisher, AD, Crowe, MA, O’Kiely, P and Enright, WJ 1997. 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.Google Scholar
Fregonesi, JA and Leaver, JD 2001. Behaviour, performance and health indicators of welfare for dairy cows housed in strawyard or cubicle systems. Livestock Production Science 68, 205216.Google Scholar
Fregonesi, JA and Leaver, JD 2002. Influence of space allowance and milk yield level on behaviour, performance and health of dairy cows housed in strawyard and cubicle systems. Livestock Production Science 78, 245257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fregonesi, JA, Tucker, CB, Weary, DM, Flower, FC and Vittie, T 2004. Effect of rubber flooring in front of the feed bunk on the time budgets of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 12031207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 243253.Google Scholar
Greenough, PR and Vermunt, JJ 1991. Evaluation of subclinical laminitis in a dairy herd and observations on associated nutritional and management factors. The Veterinary Record 128, 1117.Google Scholar
Gupta, S, Earley, B and Crowe, MA 2007. Pituitary, adrenal, immune and performance responses of mature Holstein x Friesian bulls housed on slatted floors at various space allowances. The Veterinary Journal 173, 594604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gygax, L, Siegwart, R and Wechsler, B 2007. 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, 112.Google Scholar
Haley, DB, Rushen, J and de Passillé, AM 2000. Behavioural indicators of cow comfort: activity and resting behaviour of dairy cows in two types of housing. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 80, 257263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 89100.Google Scholar
Ingvartsen, KL and Andersen, HR 1993. Space allowance and type of housing for growing cattle: a review of performance and possible relation to neuroendocrine function. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 43, 6580.Google Scholar
Jones, ML and Allison, RW 2007. Evaluation of the ruminant complete blood cell count. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 23, 377402.Google Scholar
Keane, M, McGee, M, O’Riordan, E, Kelly, A and Earley, B 2015. Effect of floor type on hoof lesions, dirt scores, immune response and production of beef bulls. Livestock science 180, 220225.Google Scholar
Leonard, FC, O’Connell, JM and O’Farrell, KJ 1996. Effect of overcrowding on claw health in first-calved Friesian heifers. British Veterinary Journal 152, 459472.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, 3342.Google Scholar
Maton, A, Daelemans, J and Lambrecht, J 2012. Housing of animals: Construction and equipment of animal houses. Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Nagaraja, TG and Titgemeyer, EC 2007. Ruminal acidosis in beef cattle: the current microbiological and nutritional outlook 1, 2. Journal of Dairy Science 90 (suppl. 1), E17E38.Google Scholar
Owens, D, McGee, M, Boland, T and O’Kiely, P 2008. Intake, rumen fermentation and nutrient flow to the omasum in beef cattle fed grass silage fortified with sucrose and/or supplemented with concentrate. Animal Feed Science and Technology 144, 2343.Google Scholar
Phillips, CJC, Beerda, B, Knierim, U, Waiblinger, S, Lidfords, L, Krohn, CC, Canali, E, Valk, H, Veissier, I and Hopster, H 2013. A review of the impact of housing on dairy cow behaviour, health and welfare. In Livestock housing: modern management to ensure optimal health and welfare of farm animals (ed. A Aland and T Banhazi), pp. 3754. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Platz, S, Ahrens, F, Bendel, J, Meyer, HHD and Erhard, MH 2008. What happens with cow behavior when replacing concrete slatted floor by rubber coating: a case study. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 9991004.Google Scholar
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare 2001. The welfare of cattle kept for beef production (SANCO.C.2/AH/R22/2000. European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Scott, GB and Kelly, M 1989. Cattle cleanliness in different housing systems. Farm Building Progress 95, 2124.Google Scholar
Sutherland, MA, Worth, GM and Steward, M 2014. The effect of rearing substrate and space allowance on the behaviour and physiology of dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 44554463.Google Scholar
Thio, T, Gygax, L, Friedli, K, Mayer, C and Ossent, P 2005. Einfluss von gummimodifizierten Spaltenböden auf die Klauengesundheit von Mastbullen. Tierärztliche Praxis Großtiere 33, 7784.Google Scholar
Wechsler, B 2011. Floor quality and space allowance in intensive beef production: a review. Animal Welfare 20, 497503.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality ® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality ® Consortium, Lelystad, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Williamson, M 1998. Straw in Europe. Chalcombe publications, Southampton, UK.Google Scholar