Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T12:39:43.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of a ceiling fan ventilation system on finishing young bulls’ health, behaviour and growth performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2016

L. Magrin ,
M. Brscic ,
I. Lora ,
C. Rumor ,
L. Tondello ,
G. Cozzi  and
F. Gottardo
L. Magrin*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padova, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, PD, Italy
M. Brscic
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padova, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, PD, Italy
I. Lora
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padova, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, PD, Italy
C. Rumor
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, University of Padova, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, PD, Italy
L. Tondello
Affiliation:
Azove Organizzazione Produttori Carni Bovine, Via Vallancon Nord 12, 35045 Ospedaletto Euganeo, PD, Italy
G. Cozzi
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
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This research aimed at assessing the effects of a ceiling fan ventilation system on health, feeding, social behaviour and growth response of finishing young bulls fattened indoors during a mild summer season. A total of 69 Charolais young bulls were housed in six pens without any mechanical ventilation system (Control) and in six pens equipped with ceiling fans. The experimental period lasted 98 days from June until mid-September 2014. Four experimental days were considered in order to assess the effect of the ventilation system under two different microclimatic conditions: 2 alert days at monthly interval with temperature humidity index (THI) between 75 and 78, and 2 normal days with THI⩽74. Health and behaviour of the bulls were evaluated through 8-h observation sessions starting after morning feed delivery. The study was carried out during a rather cool summer with a climate average THI of 68.9 and 4 days with average THI>75. Despite these mild climate conditions, ceiling fans lowered litter moisture and acted as a preventive measure for bulls’ dirtiness (odd ratio=47.9; 95% CI 19.6 to 117.4). The risk of abnormal breathing was increased for Control bulls (odd ratio=40.7; 95% CI 5.4 to 304.2). When exposed to alert THI conditions, respiration rate and panting scores increased and rumination duration dropped in Control bulls compared with bulls provided with a ceiling fan. During observations under alert THI, bulls spent less time eating, more time being inactive and consumed more water compared with normal THI conditions. Bulls’ daily dry matter intake measured during the observation sessions decreased on alert compared with normal THI days (P<0.001) due to a drop of intake during the daylight hours. Ceiling fan treatment had no effect on bulls’ growth performance or water consumption but these results most likely depended on the mild climate conditions. Ceiling fans proved to mitigate some of the negative effects of heat stress on bulls’ behaviour (rumination, lying down and drinking water) and respiration rate, however. The lack of a significant improvement of bulls’ growth response should not discourage beef farmers from using ceiling fans in indoor systems, considering the likely increase in frequency and intensity of heat waves in the planet’s temperate areas induced by global warming.

Keywords

ventilation systemceiling fanbeef cattleheat stressbehaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 6 , June 2017 , pp. 1084 - 1092
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Baumont, R, Doreau, M, Ingrand, S and Veissier, I 2006. Feeding and mastication behaviour in ruminants. In feeding and mastication behaviour in ruminants. In Feeding in domestic vertebrates: from structure to behaviour (ed. V Bels), pp. 84–107. Cabi International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Borderas, TF, Pawluczuk, B, de Passillè, AM and Rushen, J 2004. Claw hardness of dairy cows: relationship to water content and claw lesions. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 2085–2093.Google Scholar
Brouk, MJ, Smith, JF and Harner, JP 2003. Effectiveness of cow cooling strategies under different environmental conditions. In Proceedings of the 6th Western Dairy Management Conference, pp. 141–153, Reno, NV, USA.Google 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, 1053–1058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calegari, F, Calamari, L and Frazzi, E 2014. Fan cooling of the resting area in a free stalls dairy barn. International Journal of Biometeorology 58, 1225–1236.CrossRefGoogle 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, 67–80.Google Scholar
Cozzi, G and Gottardo, F 2005. Feeding behaviour and diet selection of finishing Limousin bulls under intensive rearing system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 91, 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, MS, Mader, TL, Holt, SM and Parkhurst, AM 2003. Strategies to reduce feedlot cattle heat stress: effects on tympanic temperature. Journal of Animal Science 81, 649–661.Google Scholar
Dewell, G 2010. Heat stress in beef cattle. Retrieved on 4 July 2016 from https://vetmed.iastate.edu/vdpam/about/production-animal-medicine/beef/bovine-disease-topics/heat-stress-beef-cattle.Google Scholar
European Council 2004. European Council Regulation 853/2004/EC of 29 April 2004 concerning the laying down specific hygiene rules for on the hygiene of foodstuffs. Official Journal of the European Union L139, 55.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2012. Scientific opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and the welfare in intensive calf farming systems. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). EFSA Journal 10, 2669.Google Scholar
Gaughan, JB, Mader, TL and Holt, SM 2008a. Cooling and feeding strategies to reduce heat load of grain-fed beef cattle in intensive housing. Livestock Science 113, 226–233.Google Scholar
Gaughan, JB, Mader, TL, Holt, SM and Lisle, A 2008b. A new heat load index for feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 86, 226–234.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 floor with the same space allowance. Italian Journal of Animal Science 2, 243–253.Google Scholar
Hahn, GL, Gaughan, JB, Mader, TL and Eigenberg, RA 2009. Thermal indices and their applications for livestock environments. In Livestock energetics and thermal environmental management (ed. JA DeShazer), pp. 113–130. ASABE, St Joseph, MI, USA.Google Scholar
Hahn, GL, Mader, TL and Eigenberg, RA 2003. Perspective on development of thermal indices for animal studies and management. EAAP Technical Series 7, 31–44.Google Scholar
Kelly, CF and Bond, TE 1971. Bioclimatic factors and their measurement. In A guide to environmental research on animals (ed. CF Kelly and TE Bond), pp. 7–92. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
Lammers, BP, Buckmaster, DR and Heinrichs, AJ 1996. A simple method for the analyse of particle sizes of forage and total mixed rations. Journal of Dairy Science 79, 922–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livestock Conservation Incorporated (LCI) 1970. Patterns of transit losses. Livestock Conservation Inc., Omaha, NE, USA.Google Scholar
Mader, TH 2003. Environmental stress in confined beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 81, 110–119.Google Scholar
Maekawa, M, Beauchemin, KA and Christensen, DA 2002. Chewing activity, saliva production and ruminal pH of primiparous and multiparous lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1176–1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, P and Bateson, P 2007. Measuring behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Mazzenga, A, Gottardo, F and Cozzi, G 2006. Effect of hot season and type of floor on the microclimate conditions in the pens of the beef cattle intensive farms. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 10, 121–125.Google Scholar
Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA) Research Project 2006. Heat load in feedlot cattle. Retrieved on 8 June 2016 from http://www.mla.com.au/files/02daccf7-a8ef-4c2e-9288-9d5900e40fa9/heatload-in-feedlot-cattle.pdf.Google Scholar
Mitlohner, FM, Morrow, JL, Dailley, JW, Wilson, SC, Galyean, ML, Miller, MF and McGlone, JJ 2001. Shade and water misting effects on behaviour, physiology, performances, and carcass traits of heat-stressed feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2327–2335.Google Scholar
Morignat, E, Gay, E, Vinard, JL, Calavas, D and Hénaux, V 2015. Quantifying the influence of ambient temperature on dairy and beef cattle mortality in France from a time-series analysis. Environmental Research 140, 524–534.Google Scholar
Nardone, A, Ronchi, B, Lacetera, N, Ranieri, MS and Bernabucci, U 2010. Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems. Livestock Science 130, 57–69.Google Scholar
O’Brien, MD, Rhoads, RP, Sanders, SR, Duff, GC and Baumgard, LH 2010. Metabolic adaptations to heat stress in growing cattle. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 38, 86–94.Google Scholar
Renaudeau, D, Collin, A, Yahav, S, de Basilio, V, Gourdine, JL and Collier, RJ 2011. Adaptation to hot climate and strategies to alleviate heat stress in livestock production. Animal 6, 707–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) 2001. The welfare of cattle kept for beef production. Retrieved on 22 January 2016 from http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out54_en.pdf.Google Scholar
Segnalini, M, Nardone, A, Bernabucci, U, Vitali, A, Ronchi, B and Lacetera, N 2010. Dynamics of the temperature-humidity index in the Mediterranean basin. International Journal of Biometeorology 55, 253–263.Google Scholar
Van Laer, E, Moons, CPH, Ampe, B, Sonck, B, Vandaele, L, De Campeneere, S and Tuyttens, FAM 2015. Effect of summer conditions and shade on behavioural indicators of thermal discomfort in Holstein dairy and Belgian Blue beef cattle on pasture. Animal 9, 1536–1546.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Method for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Magrin supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Magrin supplementary material(File)
File 223.8 KB