Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:28:48.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare and performance of yearling dairy heifers out-wintered on a wood-chip pad or housed indoors on two levels of nutrition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2008

L. A. Boyle ,
R. M. Boyle  and
P. French
L. A. Boyle*
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
R. M. Boyle
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
P. French
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
E-mail: laura.boyle@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

Wood-chip pads represent a low-cost alternative to housing for cattle during the winter. Considering the negative welfare implications associated with housing indoors on concrete, they may also offer welfare benefits to replacement dairy heifers. However, these animals may not be able to withstand winter weather conditions on a grass silage diet. The aim of this experiment was to evaluate behaviour, limb injuries, dirtiness scores, performance and climatic energy demand (CED) of yearling dairy heifers on two levels of nutrition kept outdoors on a wood-chip pad or indoors in cubicles during the winter. Ninety-six 10-month-old heifers were blocked and assigned in groups of eight, to one of the following four treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design: (a) indoors, silage only; (b) indoors, silage plus concentrate; (c) outdoors, silage only; and (d) outdoors, silage plus concentrate. There were three replicate groups per treatment. All animals were inspected for skin lesions and were weighed and body condition scored (BCS) at the beginning and end of the trial. Instantaneous scan sampling and continuous all-occurrence behaviour sampling were used to collect behaviour data during two 24-h periods. Animals were also dirtiness scored and group feed intakes were recorded during the trial. Significantly more comfort, social and play behaviours were recorded outdoors (P < 0.05) while trips, slips and falls were only recorded indoors (P < 0.001). Groups outdoors had significantly lower limb lesion scores at the end of the experiment (P < 0.05) and fewer groups outdoors were affected by all categories of limb lesions. However, they were consistently dirtier than animals indoors (P < 0.001). Low-nutrition animals had lower feed intakes, smaller BCS changes and lower average daily weight gains than high-nutrition animals (P < 0.01). Heifers outdoors had significantly lower average daily weight gains and BCS changes (P < 0.05) explained by lower feed intakes (P < 0.01). However, outdoor heifers on both the high- and low-nutrition diets and indoor animals on the low-nutrition diet had lower UFL (feed unit for maintenance and lactation (Irish Republic)) intakes (−0.36, −0.35 and −0.22, respectively) than that required to meet the daily live-weight gains they achieved. Heifers indoors on the high-nutrition diet gained 0.98 kg per day but consumed 0.17 UFL more than what would be recommended to achieve a daily weight gain of 1.0 kg. The CED for outdoor heifers was higher than that of indoor heifers (6.18 v. 5.47 MJ/day per m2 body surface area; P < 0.001, s.e.d. 0.044). However, CED did not exceed heat production in any treatment. Although animal performance was reduced outdoors, the wood-chip pad was associated with welfare benefits compared with cubicle housing.

Keywords

behaviourdairyheiferperformancewelfare
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 5 , May 2008 , pp. 769 - 778
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

Albright, JL, Arave, CW 1997. Maintenance behaviours. In The behaviour of cattle (ed. JL Albright and CW Arave), pp. 19–44. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, LA, Mee, JF, Kiernan, PK 2007. The effect of rubber versus concrete passageways in cubicle housing on claw health and reproduction of pluriparous dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 106, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christopherson, RJ 1985. Management and housing of animals in cold environments. In Stress physiology in livestock (ed. MK Yousef), pp. 175–194. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
Clarkson, MJ, Faull, WB, Hughes, JW, Downham, DY, Manson, FJ, Merritt, JB, Murray, RD, Russell, WB, Sutherst, JE, Ward, WR 1996. Epidemiology of lameness in dairy cattle: the influence of cubicles and indoor and outdoor walking surfaces. The Veterinary Record 139, 130–136.Google Scholar
Enevoldsen, C, Gohn, YT, Thysen, I 1994. Skin injuries on the body and thigh of dairy cows: associations with season, claw health, disease treatment, and other cow characteristics. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 35, 337–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzgerald L 2002. Yearling performance not matching expectations. Weekly Farming Tips, Teagasc - Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority, Ireland. Retrieved August 20, 2006, from www.teagasc.ieGoogle Scholar
Fox, DG, Tylutki, TP 1998. Accounting for the effects of environment on the nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. Journal Dairy Science 81, 3085–3095.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frankena, K, van Keulen, KAS, Noordhuizen, JP, Noordhuizen-Stassen, EN, Gundelach, J, de Jong, DJ, Saedt, I 1992. A cross-sectional study into prevalence and risk indicators of digital haemorrhages in female dairy calves. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 14, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, AF, Broom, DM 1997. Farm animal behaviour and welfare, 3rd edition. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
French P and Hickey MC 2005. Out-wintering pads; effects on beef cattle production. In The proceedings of the Agricultural Research Forum 14th and 15th March 2005, pp. 67. Tullamore, Co. Offaly, Ireland.Google Scholar
Hannan, J, Murphy, PA 1983. Comparative mortality and morbidity rates for cattle on slatted floors and in straw yards. In Indicators relevant to farm animal welfare (ed. D Smidt), pp. 139–142. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, MC, French, P, Grant, J 2002. Out-wintering pads for finishing beef cattle: animal production and welfare. Animal Science 75, 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, KP, Dodd, A 1989. A model of the bioclimatic value of shelter to beef cattle. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 42, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, MB, Vestergard, KS, Krohn, CC 1998. Play behaviour in dairy calves kept in pens: the effect of social contact and space allowance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56, 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jungbluth T, Benz B and Wandel H 2003. Soft walking areas in loose housing systems for dairy cows. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Dairy Housing Conference, pp. 171–177. Fort Worth, Texas, 29–31 January 2003.Google Scholar
Kerr, SGC, Wood-Gush, DGM 1987. The development of behaviour patterns and temperament in dairy heifers. Behavioural Processes 15, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiernan P, Boyle LA, Arkins S and Hanlon A 2004. Effect of cushioned flooring in cubicle housing and out-wintering on all weather pads on behaviour and foot lesion scores of pregnant dairy heifers. In Proceedings of the British Society for Animal Science, pp. 252. York, United Kingdom, 3–5th April 2004.Google Scholar
Lawrence AB, Dwyer CM, Jarvis S, Roberts D 2004. Welfare implications of dairy calf and heifer rearing. In Calf and heifer rearing: principles of rearing the modern dairy heifers from calf to calving. 60th University of Nottingham Easter School in Agricultural Science, Nottingham, UK. 23rd–24th March 2004. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Livesey CT, Metcalf JA, May SA and Johnston AM 1997. A possible stress reaction identified in a group of heifers in a controlled experiment. In Proceedings of the Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, pp 129–143. University College Chester, UK, 9–11th April 1997.Google Scholar
Livesey, CT, Marsh, C, Metcalf, JA, Laven, RA 2002. Hock injuries in cattle kept in straw yards or cubicles with rubber mats or mattresses. The Veterinary Record 150, 677–679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowe, DE, Steen, RWJ, Beattie, VE 2001. Preferences of housed finishing beef cattle for different floor types. Animal Welfare 10, 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, PR, Bateson, PPG 1993. Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Met Eireann 2006. The Irish National Meteorological Service. Retrieved August 10, 2006, from http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly_summarys/winter04_05.pdfGoogle Scholar
Miller, K, Wood-Gush, DGM 1991. Some effects of housing on social behaviour of dairy cows. Animal Production 53, 271–278.Google Scholar
Mitchell, CD 1974. Are the passageways in your cubicle building too slippery? Farm Buildings Progress 37, 17–20.Google Scholar
Mossberg I 1992. Environmental influences on growing bulls in two housing systems. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, report 217, p. 119. Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Mounier, L, Veissier, I, Andanson, S, Delval, E, Boissy, A 2006. Mixing at the beginning of fattening moderates social buffering in beef bulls. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council 1996. Effect of environment on nutrient requirements of domestic animals. National Academy Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Newberry, RC, Wood-Gush, DGM, Hall, J 1988. Playful behaviour of piglets. Behavioural Processes 17, 205–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Connell, JM, Giller, PS, Meaney, WJ 1992. Factors affecting cubicle utilisation by dairy cattle using stall frame and bedding manipulation experiments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 35, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connell, JM, Giller, PS, Meaney, WJ 1993a. A note on management practices and cubicle refusal in dairy cows. Irish Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 32, 83–86.Google Scholar
O’Connell, JM, Giller, PS, Meaney, WJ 1993b. Yearling training and cubicle usage as heifers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Mara F 1993. A net energy system for cattle and sheep. Department of Animal Science and Production, Faculty of Agriculture. University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland. Version 1.2.Google Scholar
Redbo, I, Mossberg, I, Ehrlemark, A, Stahl-Hogberg, M 1996. Keeping growing cattle outside during winter: behaviour and climatic demand. Animal Science 62, 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redbo, I, Ehrlemark, A, Redbo-Torstensson, P 2001. Behavioural responses to climatic demands of dairy heifers housed outdoors. Canadian Journal Animal Science 91, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, S, Tarumizu, K, Hatae, K 1993. The influence of social factors on allo-grooming in cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38, 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiner, DA, Ruegg, PL 2003. Relationship between udder and leg hygiene scores and sub-clinical mastitis. Journal Dairy Science 86, 3460–3465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, GB, Kelly, M 1989. Cattle cleanliness in different housing systems. Farm Building Progress 95, 21–24.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems 1989. SAS/STAT Users Guide. Version 6, vol. 1, 4th edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, USA.Google Scholar
Tucker, CB, Weary, DM, de Passille, AM, Campbell, B, Rushen, J 2006. Flooring in front of the feed bunk affects feeding behaviour and use of freestalls by dairy cows. Journal Dairy Science 89, 2065–2071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wildman, EE, Jones, GM, Wagner, PE, Boman, RL, Troutt, HF, Lesch, TN Jr 1982. A dairy cow body condition scoring system and its relationship to selected production characteristics. Journal Dairy Science 65, 495–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar