Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:59:35.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Synthetic rubber surface as an alternative to concrete to improve welfare and performance of finishing beef cattle reared on fully slatted flooring

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2015

M. Brscic ,
R. Ricci ,
P. Prevedello ,
C. Lonardi ,
R. De Nardi ,
B. Contiero ,
F. Gottardo  and
G. Cozzi
M. Brscic*
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
P. Prevedello
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padova, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
C. Lonardi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padova, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
R. De Nardi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padova, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
B. Contiero
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
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

The aim of this study was to compare a fully slatted concrete floor (concrete slatted (CS)) with the same floor on which synthetic rubber slats were placed on the concrete slats (rubber slatted (RS)) as housing solution for finishing beef cattle. The present study involved five commercial beef cattle farms in which the floor of at least three pens was kept as fully slatted, and in an equal number of pens a rubber cover was placed on the floor, tightly matching the gap profile of the concrete slats to allow the drainage of manure. A total of 326 finishing beef bulls were used (153 on CS and 173 on RS), and regardless of the floor treatment animals were housed in groups of 6 to 12 bulls/pen with a space allowance of 3.1±0.2 m2/bull. Bulls had similar initial live weights (422.3 kg on CS and 425.0 kg on RS), but bulls on RS were heavier at the end of the finishing period with a higher average daily gain than bulls kept on CS (1.53 v. 1.46 kg/day; P<0.05). The proportion of bulls treated for locomotor problems was lower in RS pens compared with CS. Rubber covering prevented the occurrence of bursitis, but it increased the odds for hoof overgrowth at end of the finishing period. Hoof overgrowth detected in vivo in bulls on RS was confirmed at the slaughterhouse by the longer dorsal wall and diagonal lengths of the hoof as well as by a more acute toe angle. Compared with bulls on CS, bulls on RS showed less inactivity and resting time, increased social interactions, decreased abnormal lying down and unsuccessful attempts to lie down, as well as shortened the time for lying down. Bulls in RS pens were dirtier compared with those in CS pens, likely due to the draining gaps being reduced to 11.6±1.2% of the total pen surface compared with the 16.9±1.7% in CS pens. This study gave further evidence about the positive effects of the RS floor on growth performance and welfare of finishing beef cattle, although compromising cleanliness and hoof overgrowth.

Keywords

beef cattlewelfareslatted floorrubber covering
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Supplement 8 , August 2015 , pp. 1386 - 1392
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-Mulleder, 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
Barker, ZE, Leach, KA, Whay, HR, Bell, NJ and Main, DCJ 2010. Assessment of lameness prevalence and associated risk factors in dairy herds in England and Wales. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 932–941.Google 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 (suppl. 1), 67–80.Google 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. Veterinary Journal 197, 211–215.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
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, 257–263.Google Scholar
Lowe, DE, Steen, RW, 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.Google Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1993. Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
McCullagh, P and Nelder, A 1983. Generalized linear models. Annals of Statistics 12, 1589–1596.Google Scholar
McEvoy, JR, Lee, KS, Blankenbaker, DG, del Rio, AM and Keene, JS 2013. Ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injections for treatment of greater trochanteric pain syndrome: greater trochanter bursa versus subgluteus medius bursa. American Journal of Roentgenology 201, W313–W317.Google Scholar
Platz, S, Ahrens, F, Bahrs, E, Nüske, S and Erhard, MH 2007. Association between floor type and behaviour, skin lesions, and claw dimensions in group-housed fattening bulls. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 80, 209–221.Google Scholar
Refaai, W, Van Aert, M, Abd El-Aal, AM, Behery, AE and Opsomer, G 2013. Infectious diseases causing lameness in cattle with a main emphasis on digital dermatitis (Mortellaro disease). Livestock Science 156, 53–63.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
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, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
SAS/STAT 2008. User’s guide: statistics, version 9.3. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA.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. Veterinary Journal 174, 77–85.Google Scholar
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare 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
Somers, JGCJ, Schouten, WGP, Frankena, K, Noordhuinzen-Stassen, EN and Metz, JHM 2005. Development of claw traits and claw lesions in dairy cows kept on different floor systems. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 110–120.Google Scholar
Telezhenko, E, Bergsten, C, Magnusson, M and Nillson, C 2009. Effect of different flooring systems on claw conformation of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 2625–2633.Google Scholar
Tessitore, E, Boukha, A, Guzzo, L and Cozzi, G 2009a. Differences in behaviour, health status and productive performance of beef young bulls housed on different type of floor and assessed in two fattening phases. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8, 190–192.Google Scholar
Tessitore, E, Brscic, M, Boukha, A and Cozzi, G 2009b. 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
Vanegas, J, Overton, M, Berry, SL and Sischo, WM 2006. Effect of rubber flooring on claw health in lactating dairy cows housed in free-stall barns. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 4251–4258.Google Scholar
Vokey, FJ, Guard, CL, Erb, HN and Galton, DM 2001. Effects of alley and stall surfaces on indices of claw and leg health in dairy cattle housed in a free-stall barn. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 2686–2699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, B 2011. Floor quality and space allowance in intensive beef production: a review. Animal Welfare 20, 497–503.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® Assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands. pp. 29–73.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Brscic supplementary material

Figure S1a-b

Download Brscic supplementary material(File)
File 1.7 MB