Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T21:45:17.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reduced space in outdoor feedlot impacts beef cattle welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2020

F. Macitelli Open the ORCID record for F. Macitelli [Opens in a new window] ,
J. S. Braga ,
D. Gellatly Open the ORCID record for D. Gellatly [Opens in a new window]  and
M. J. R. Paranhos da Costa Open the ORCID record for M. J. R. Paranhos da Costa [Opens in a new window]
F. Macitelli
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Av. Alexandre Ferronato, 1200, Sinop, MT, 78550-728, Brasil
J. S. Braga
Affiliation:
UNESP, Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Zootecnia, Rod. Prof. Paulo Donato Castellane s/n, Jaboticabal, SP, 14884-900, Brasil
D. Gellatly
Affiliation:
Olds College – Technology Access Centre for Livestock Production, 4500 50 Street, Olds, AlbertaT4H 1R6, Canada
M. J. R. Paranhos da Costa*
Affiliation:
UNESP, Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Zootecnia, Rod. Prof. Paulo Donato Castellane s/n, Jaboticabal, SP, 14884-900, Brasil UNESP, Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias, Departamento de Zootecnia, Rod. Prof. Paulo Donato Castellane s/n, Jaboticabal, SP, 14884-900, Brasil
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

There is a trend to reduce the space allowance per animal in cattle feedlot, despite its potential negative impact on animal welfare. Aiming to evaluate the effects of space allowance per animal in outdoor feedlots on beef cattle welfare, a total of 1350 Nellore bulls (450 pure and 900 crossbred) were confined for 12 weeks using three space allowances: 6 (SA6), 12 (SA12) and 24 (SA24) m2/animal (n = 450 per treatment). Bulls were housed in three pens per treatment (n = 150 per pen). The first 6 weeks in the feedlot were defined as ‘dry’ and the last as ‘rainy’ period, according to the accumulated precipitation. Animal-based (body cleanliness, health indicators and maintenance behaviour) and environmental-based indicators (mud depth and air dust concentration) were assessed weekly during the feedlot period. Most of the health indicators (nasal and ocular discharge, hoof and locomotion alterations, diarrhoea, bloated rumen and breathing difficulty) were assessed in a subset of 15 animals randomly selected from each pen. Coughs and sneezes were counted in each pen. Maintenance behaviours (number of animals lying and attending the feed bunk) were recorded with scan sampling and instantaneous recording at 20-min intervals. Postmortem assessments were carried out in all animals by recording the frequencies of macroscopic signs of bronchitis, pulmonary emphysema, nephritis and urinary cyst and by measuring the weight and cortical and medullar areas of adrenal glands (n = 30 per pen). Compared with SA12 and SA24, SA6 showed a greater number of sneezes per minute during the dry period and a greater percentage of animals with locomotion alterations during the rainy period. Coughing, diarrhoea and nasal discharge affected a larger number of animals in the SA6 relative to the other two groups. During the rainy period, there was a lower percentage of animals with nasal and ocular discharge, and a greater percentage of animals with abnormal hoof and lying. A lower percentage of animals in SA6 and SA12 (but not SA24) attended the feed bunk during the rainy relative to the dry period. A mud depth score of 0 (no mud) was most frequent in SA24 pens, followed by SA12 and then SA6. Adrenal gland weight and cortical area were lower in SA24 animals compared with those in SA6 and SA12. The results show that decreasing the space allowance for beef cattle in outdoor feedlots degrades the feedlot environment and impoverishes animal welfare.

Keywords

bovinecomforthealthhousingstress
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 12 , December 2020 , pp. 2588 - 2597
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Animal Consortium

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

Beef Exporters’ Association (ABIEC) 2019. BeefREPORT: Brazilian Livestock Profile 2019. Retrieved on 4 May 2020 from http://www.brazilianbeef.org.br/download/sumarioingles2019.pdfGoogle Scholar
Blecha, F 2000. Immune system response to stress. In The biology of animal stress. (ed. Morbeg, GP and Mench, JA), pp. 111–122. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Clark, B, Stewart, GB, Panzone, LA, Kyriazakis, I and Frewer, LJ 2017. Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: a meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy 68, 112–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, C Jr, Goulart, RS, Albertini, TZ, Feigle, BJ, Cerri, CEP, Vasconcelos, JT, Bernoux, M, Lanna, DPD and Cerri, CC 2013. Brazilian beef cattle feedlot manure management: a country survey. Journal of Animal Science 91, 1811–1818.Google ScholarPubMed
Davis, S and Mader, TL 2003. Adjustments for wind speed and solar radiation to the temperature-humidity index. Nebraska Beef Cattle Report 224. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA. Retrieved on 30 November 2019 from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1223&context=animalscinbcrGoogle Scholar
Edwards, TA 2010. Control methods for bovine respiratory disease for feedlot cattle. The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Food Animal Practice 26, 273–284.Google ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, T and Rasband, W 2012. ImageJ User Guide: ImageJ/Fiji 1.46. National Institute of Health, Bethesda-MD, USA. Retrieved on 4 May 2020 from https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/docs/guide/user-guide.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fisher, AD, Stewart, M, Verkerk, GA, Morrow, CJ and Matthews, LR 2003. The effects of surface type on lying behaviour and stress responses of dairy cows during periodic weather-induced removal from pasture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2014. Animal welfare and society concerns finding the missing link. Meat Science 98, 461–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 2016. Evaluation of the welfare of cattle housed in outdoor feedlot pens. Veterinary and Animal Science 1, 23–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gupta, S, Earley, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, PW 2016. Adrenocortical endocrine disruption. The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 155, 199–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
House, HK 2010. Housing requirements for backgrounding beef cattle. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Canada. Retrieved on 2 December 2019 from http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/beef/facts/info_housreq.htmGoogle Scholar
Lean, IJ, Westwood, CT, Golder, HM and Vermunt, JJ 2013. Impact of nutrition on lameness and claw health in cattle. Livestock Science 156, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lechtenberg, K, Tessman, RK and Theodore, CS 2011. Efficacy of gamithromycin injectable solution for the treatment of Mycoplasma bovis induced pneumonia in cattle. The Journal of Applied Research in Veterinary Medicine 9, 233–240.Google Scholar
Mader, TL and Colgan, SL 2007. Pen density and straw bedding during feedlot finishing. Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports 70. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA. Retrieved on 2 December 2019 from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/70Google Scholar
Mader, TL 2011. Mud effects on feedlot cattle. Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports 613. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA. Retrieved on 30 November 2019 from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1629&context=animalscinbcrGoogle Scholar
Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA) 1971. Inspeção de carnes: Padrões e técnicas, instalações e equipamentos. Tomo I Bovinos. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, Brasília, Brasil. Retrieved on 12 April 2020 from https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/inspecao/produtos-animal/empresario/copy_of_TOMODEBOVINO.pdfGoogle Scholar
May, S, Romberger, DJ and Poole, JA 2012. Respiratory health effects of large animal farming environments. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 15, 524–541.Google ScholarPubMed
Mertens, DR 1994. Regulation of forage intake. In Forage quality, evaluation, and utilization (ed. Fahey, GC Jr), pp. 450–493. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 1981. Effect of environment on nutrient requirements of domestic animals. National Academic Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Oliveira, FS, Macitelli, FM, Santos, CCC, Braga, JS, Costa, BC, Pastore, M, Rocha, TSS and Paranhos da Costa, MJR 2018. Combination of fixative agents and fixation times to visually differentiate the cortical from the medullary layer in bovine adrenal glands. Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences 90, 3887–3891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K, Stookey, JM, Berg, J, Campbell, J, Haley, DB, Pajor, R and McKillop, I 2012. Code of practice for the care & handling of beef cattle: review of scientific research on priority issues. National Farm Animal Care Council. Retrieved on 30 November 2019 from https://www.nfacc.ca/resources/codes-of-practice/beef-cattle/Beef_Cattle_Review_of_Priority_Welfare_Issues_Nov_2012.pdfGoogle Scholar
Shearer, JK, Van Amstel, SR and Brodersen, BW 2012. Clinical diagnosis of foot and leg lameness in cattle. The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Food Animal Practice 28, 535–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Temple, D, Bargo, F, Mainau, E, Ipharraguerre, I and Manteca, X 2016. Lying behaviour and performance of dairy cattle – practical cases. Farm Animal Welfare Fact Sheet, number 15, FAWEC: Barcelona, Spain. Retrieved on 2 December 2019 from https://www.fawec.org/media/com_lazypdf/pdf/Fact_Sheet_FAWEC15_n15_efficiency_comfort_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Thomson, DU and White, BJ 2015. Managing feeder cattle health the first 30 days on feed. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 31, xi–xii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vale, P, Gibbs, H, Vale, R, Christie, M, Florence, E, Munger, J and Sabaini, D 2019. The expansion of intensive beef farming to the Brazilian Amazon. Global Environmental Change 57, 1–11.Google Scholar
Van Niekerk, BDH and Jacobs, GH 1985. Influence of pen area and trough space on feedlot performance of beef cattle. South African Journal of Animal Sciences 15, 164–166.Google Scholar
Wagner, JJ, Archibeque, SL and Feuz, DM 2014. The modern feedlot for finishing cattle. The Annual Review of Animal Biosciences 2, 535–554.Google ScholarPubMed
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands. Retrieved on 30 November 2019 from http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/media/1088/cattle_protocol_without_veal_calves.pdfGoogle Scholar
West, B 2011. Dust palliatives for unpaved roads and beef cattle feedlots. In A review of beneficial management practices for managing undesirable air emissions from confined feeding operations. (ed. Edeogu, I), pp. 94–120. Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Retrieved on 30 November 2019 from http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/deptdocs.nsf/all/epw10940/$FILE/213-review_BMP.pdfGoogle Scholar