Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T03:05:21.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of floor type on the performance, cleanliness, carcass characteristics and meat quality of dairy origin bulls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2017

V. S. Murphy ,
D. E. Lowe ,
F. O. Lively  and
A. W. Gordon
V. S. Murphy*
Affiliation:
Sustainable Agri-Food Sciences Division, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Large park, Hillsborough BT26 6DR, UK School of Biological Sciences, Queens University Belfast, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK
D. E. Lowe
Affiliation:
Sustainable Agri-Food Sciences Division, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Large park, Hillsborough BT26 6DR, UK
F. O. Lively
Affiliation:
Sustainable Agri-Food Sciences Division, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Large park, Hillsborough BT26 6DR, UK
A. W. Gordon
Affiliation:
Biometrics and Information Systems Branch, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, 18a Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
*
†E-mail: vthompson10@qub.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of using different floor types to accommodate growing and finishing beef cattle on their performance, cleanliness, carcass characteristics and meat quality. In total, 80 dairy origin young bulls (mean initial live weight 224 kg (SD=28.4 kg)) were divided into 20 blocks with four animals each according to live weight. The total duration of the experimental period was 204 days. The first 101 days was defined as the growing period, with the remainder of the study defined as the finishing period. Cattle were randomly assigned within blocks to one of four floor type treatments, which included fully slatted flooring throughout the entire experimental period (CS); fully slatted flooring covered with rubber strips throughout the entire experimental period (RS); fully slatted flooring during the growing period and moved to a solid floor covered with straw bedding during the finishing period (CS-S) and fully slatted flooring during the growing period and moved to fully slatted flooring covered with rubber strips during the finishing period (CS-RS). Bulls were offered ad libitum grass silage supplemented with concentrates during the growing period. During the finishing period, bulls were offered concentrates supplemented with chopped barley straw. There was no significant effect of floor type on total dry matter intake (DMI), feed conversion ratio, daily live weight gain or back fat depth during the growing and finishing periods. Compared with bulls accommodated on CS, RS and CS-RS, bulls accommodated on CS-S had a significantly lower straw DMI (P<0.01). Although bulls accommodated on CS and CS-S were significantly dirtier compared with those accommodated on RS and CS-RS on days 50 (P<0.05) and 151 (P<0.01), there was no effect of floor type on the cleanliness of bulls at the end of the growing and finishing periods. There was also no significant effect of floor type on carcass characteristics or meat quality. However, bulls accommodated on CS-S had a tendency for less channel, cod and kidney fat (P=0.084) compared with those accommodated on CS, RS and CS-RS. Overall, floor type had no effect on the performance, cleanliness, carcass characteristics or meat quality of growing or finishing beef cattle.

Keywords

beef cattlecarcass characteristicscleanlinessfloor typemeat quality
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 5 , May 2018 , pp. 1102 - 1110
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, 12–19.Google Scholar
British Standards Institution 1975. Precision of test methods 1: guide for the determination and reproducibility for a standard test method (BS 597, Part 1). BSI, London.Google Scholar
Brscic, M, Gottardo, F, Tessitore, E, Guzzo, L, Ricci, R and Cozzi, G 2015a. Assessment of welfare of finishing beef cattle kept on different types of floor after short- or long-term housing. Animal 9, 1053–1058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brscic, M, Ricci, R, Prevedello, P, Lonardi, C, De Nardi, R, Contiero, B, Gottardo, F and Cozzi, G 2015b. Synthetic rubber surface as an alternative to concrete to improve welfare and performance of finishing beef cattle reared on fully slatted flooring. Animal 9, 1386–1392.Google Scholar
Brugiapaglia, A and Destefanis, G 2012. Influence of the housing system on meat quality of double muscled Piemontese young bulls. Livestock Science 145, 73–78.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 behaviour. 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
Dawson, LER 2012. The effect of inclusion of lupins/triticale whole crop silage in the diet of winter finishing beef cattle on their performance and meat quality at two levels of concentrates. Animal Feed Science and Technology 171, 75–84.Google Scholar
Dunne, PG, O’Mara, FP, Monahan, FJ, French, P and Moloney, AP 2005. Colour of muscle from 18-month-old steers given long-term daily exercise. Meat Science 71, 219–229.Google Scholar
Dunne, PG, Rogalski, J, Moreno, T, Monahan, FJ, French, P and Moloney, AP 2008. Colour, composition and quality of M. longissimus dorsi and M. extensor carpi radialis of steers housed on straw or concrete slats or accommodated outdoor on woodchips. Meat Science 79, 700–708.Google Scholar
Estevez, I, Anderson, I and Naevdal, E 2007. Group size, density and social dynamics in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103, 185–204.Google Scholar
Eurobarometer 2007. Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Retrieved on 12 December 2016 from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/ archives /ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf Google Scholar
Færevik, G, Jensen, MB and Bøe, KE 2006. Dairy calves social preferences and the significance of a companion animal during separation from the group. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 205–221.Google Scholar
Farm Quality Assurance Scheme 2014. The product standard and rules of the Northern Ireland Beef and Lamb Quality Assurance Scheme. Retrieved on 7 November 2016 from http://www.nifcc.co.uk/filestore/documents/publications/FQAS_Standard_and_Rules_April_2014.pdf Google Scholar
Gottardo, F, Ricci, 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, 243–253.Google Scholar
Graunke, KL, Telezhenko, E, Hessle, A, Bergsten, C and Loberg, JM 2011. Does rubber flooring improve welfare and production in growing bulls in fully slatted floor pens? Animal Welfare 20, 173–183.Google Scholar
Gupta, S, Early, 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, 594–604.Google Scholar
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, 1–12.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. Animal Science 43, 65–80.Google Scholar
Kirkland, RM 2003. An examination of factors affecting the cleanliness of housed beef cattle in Northern Ireland. AgriSearch, Northern Ireland.Google Scholar
Kirkland, RM and Keady, TWJ 2006. Holstein bull beef production. AgriSearch, Northern Ireland.Google Scholar
Keane, MP, McGee, M, O’Riordan, EG, Kelly, AK and Earley, B 2015. Effect of floor type on hoof lesions, dirt scores, immune response and production of beef bulls. Livestock Science 180, 220–225.Google Scholar
Little, MW, O’Connell, NE, Welsh, MD, Barley, J, Meade, KG and Ferris, CP 2016. Prepartum concentrate supplementation of a diet based on medium-quality grass silage: effects on performance, health, fertility, metabolic function, and immune function of low body condition score cows. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 7102–7122.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
Marsh, SP 2013. Effect of reducing the starch content of cereal based rations by the partial replacement of barley with soya hulls for intensively finished dairy-bred bulls. Harper Adams University, Shropshire, UK.Google Scholar
Met Office 2016. UK climate – Historic Station data. Retrieved on 24 August 2016 from http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/stationdata/armaghdata.txt Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) 2011. Meat Standards Australia beef information kit. Retrieved on 16 November 2016 from https://www.mla.com.au/globalassets/mla-corporate/marketing-beef-and-lamb/documents/meat-standards-australia/tt_whole-set.pdf.Google Scholar
Moran, L, O’Sullivan, MG, Kerry, JP, Picard, B, McGee, M, O’Riordan, EG and Moloney, AP 2017. Effect of a grazing period prior to finishing on a high concentrate diet on meat quality from bulls and steers. Meat Science 125, 76–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Payne, RW, Harding, SA, Murray, DA, Soutar, DM, Baird, DB, Glaser, AI, Channing, IC, Welham, SJ, Gilmour, AR, Thompson, R and Webster, R 2015. The guide to GenStat release 12, part 2: statistics. VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, UK.Google Scholar
Rouha-Muelleder, C, Absmanner, E, Kahrer, E, Zeiner, H, Scharl, T, Leisch, F, Stanek, C and Troxler, J 2012. Alternative housing systems for fattening bulls under Austrian conditions with special respect to rubberised slatted floors. Animal Welfare 21, 113–126.Google Scholar
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare 2001. The Welfare of Cattle kept for Beef Production. Retrieved on 14 September 2016 from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/EU_comision_The_welfare_o_cattle_kept_for_beef_production.pdf Google 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.Google Scholar
Scott, GB and Kelly, M 1989. Cattle cleanliness in different housing systems. Farm building progress 96, 21–24.Google Scholar
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, 658–660.Google Scholar