Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:09:24.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Luminance and glare in indoor cattle-handling facilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

K Klinglmair ,
KB Stevens  and
NG Gregory
K Klinglmair*
Affiliation:
Schickgasse 25/5/32, A1220 Wien, Austria Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield AL9 7TA, UK
KB Stevens
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield AL9 7TA, UK
NG Gregory
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield AL9 7TA, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study examined the sources of glare and range in luminance levels in eleven UK cattle abattoirs, and the effect of reflected glare from a footbath on balking behaviour of cows in a milking parlour. At the abattoirs, the mean luminance levels decreased from 240,000 cd m−2 outdoors to 100 cd m−2 in the stunning pen. In five of the abattoirs, the luminance of the glare from wet floor surfaces was three times higher than the luminance from the surrounding darker areas, and the luminance of the glare from shiny metal surfaces was ten times higher than the luminance from the adjacent darker areas. In the glare study, frequency of balking increased significantly from 10 to 23% when reflected glare increased from 0 (no lightbulb) to 873 cd m−2 (100 W bulb), but significantly fewer animals balked during the afternoon milking than at the morning milking times.

Keywords

abattoiranimal welfarebalkingcattlefloorglare
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , May 2011 , pp. 263 - 269
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anonymous 1898 Spectacles for cattle. Queensland Agricultural Journal 3: 323Google Scholar
Aslam, TM, Haider, D and Murray, IJ 2007 Principles of disability glare measurement: an ophthalmological perspective. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica 85: 354–360CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cross, N, van Doorn, F, Versnel, C, Cawdell-Smith, J and Phillips, C 2008 Effects of lighting conditions on the welfare of horses being loaded for transportation. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 3: 20–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1980 Observations on cattle behaviour applied to the design of cattle handling facilities. Applied Animal Ethology Science 6: 19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1996 Factors that impede animal movement at slaughter plants. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 209: 757–759Google ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 1997 The design and construction of facilities for handling cattle. Livestock Production Science 49: 103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1999 Principles for low-stress cattle handling. Proceedings of the Range Beef Cow Symposium XVI pp 10. 14-16 December 1999, Greeley, Colorado, USAGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2006 Progress and challenges in animal handling and slaughter in the US. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100: 129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2007 Animal welfare and meat production. In: Gregory, NG (ed) Animal Welfare and Meat Production pp 236. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Gray, R and Regan, D 2007 Glare susceptibility test results correlate with temporal safety margin when executing turns across approaching vehicles in simulated low-sun conditions. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 27: 440–450CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, NG and Bell, JC 1987 Duration of wing flapping in chickens shackled before slaughter. Veterinary Record 121: 567–569Google ScholarPubMed
Hopkinson, RG, Petherbridge, P and Longmore, J 1966 Daylighting. William Heinemann Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Kim, W, Han, H and Kim, JT 2009 The position index of a glare source at the borderline between comfort and discomfort (BCD) in the whole visual field. Building and Environment 44: 1017–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lomas, CA, Piggins, D and Phillips, CJC 1998 Visual awareness. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57: 247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, CJC and Arab, TM 1998 The preference of individually-penned cattle to conduct certain behaviours in the light or the dark. Applied Animal Behaviour Sciences 58: 183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, CJC and Lomas, CA 2001 The perception of color by cattle and its influence on behavior. Journal of Dairy Science 84: 807–813CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, CJC and Weiguo, L 1991 Brightness discrimination abilities of calves relative to those of humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31: 25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, CJC, Morris, ID, Lomas, CA and Lockwood, SJ 2000 The locomotion of dairy cows in passageways with different light intensities. Animal Welfare 9: 421–431Google Scholar