Housing and Environment of Beef Cattle
Animals (Basel). 2020 April; ten(4): 565.
A Scoping Review: The Impact of Housing Systems and Ecology Features on Beef Cattle Welfare
Rachel G. Park
1Department of Brute Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845, USA; ude.uscn@krapmr
Margaret Foster
2Medical Sciences Library, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845, Usa; ude.umat@retsofteragram
Courtney L. Daigle
1Department of Fauna Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845, United states of america; ude.uscn@krapmr
Received 2020 Jan 27; Accustomed 2020 Mar 5.
Abstract
Uncomplicated Summary
Reviews are needed to synthesize known data on a particular topic. Beefiness cattle welfare is an emergent research field. Decisions producers make, such as how to house cattle, tin impact their overall welfare. Environmental features that can influence the microclimate and beefiness cattle welfare include floor type, space assart, shade availability, and inclusion of enrichment (EE) devices or ventilation features. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to examine the relationship between housing and welfare metrics, so that beef cattle producers and fauna scientists tin make informed decisions regarding how their housing choices may impact beefiness cattle welfare. The databases searched were CAB (Ovid), AGRIS (Ovid), Agricola (EBSCO) and Searchable Proceedings of Animal Conferences. The final search was conducted on June four, 2018. 1 reviewer determined relevancy of studies based on titles and abstracts. The full text was reviewed to determine report inclusion and iv trained reviewers nerveless data from the included studies using pre-defined forms. From 1147 citations, 40 studies were included that evaluated the impact of a feature of beefiness cattle housing on welfare. In this review, we outlined how these features may positively or negatively touch cattle wellness, productivity, stress and behavior. Our master findings were as follows: (i) Space allowance influences feedlot cattle biological science and behavior (two) Veal calves exhibited behavioral, physiological, and operation parameters indicative of a positive welfare land while group housed and (3) Provision of progressive modifications (eastward.thousand., shade, EE) to the feedlot surround resulted in increased performance of species-specific behaviors
Abstract
Housing systems and environmental features can influence beefiness cattle welfare. To date, footling information has been synthesized on this topic. The aim of this scoping review was to examine the relationship between housing and welfare condition, so that beef cattle producers and animal scientists can make informed decisions regarding how their housing choices could touch beefiness cattle welfare. Housing features were categorized by floor type, infinite assart and shade availability, as well equally the inclusion of enrichment devices or ventilation features. Evaluation of space allowances across feedlot environments determined behavioral and production benefits when cattle were housed between 2.5 10002 to 3.0 thousand2 per beast. Over 19 different floor types were investigated and across floor types; straw flooring was viewed most favorably from a behavioral, production and hygiene standpoint. Veal calves experience enhanced welfare (due east.chiliad., improved behavioral, physiological, and functioning metrics) when group housed. There is show that the implementation of progressive housing modifications (e.chiliad., shade, ecology enrichment) could promote the behavioral welfare of feedlot cattle. This review presents the advantages and disadvantages of specific housing features on the welfare of beef cattle.
Keywords: welfare, beefiness cattle, housing, floor type, infinite allowance, shade, environmental enrichment, ventilation
1. Introduction
Beef cattle housing varies based on stage of production, state, region, climate, and personal preferences of the producer. These factors ultimately lead to operation-specific direction decisions (e.g., genetics, nutrition, weaning fourth dimension, homo-creature interactions, etc.). Veal calves, cow-calf operations, stockers and feedlots differ in their production goals, besides as the brood and age of cattle managed. These inherent differences among operations require that cattle housing vary based on the specific needs of the producer. Inside the Usa and beyond the world, politics, legislation, social norms, and perceptions of beefiness cattle differ, thus impacting housing decisions made by producers.
The environments that beef cattle will experience vary based upon geographical location, climate, sector of the production system, and these volition influence the type of housing organisation used, i.e. the microclimate created [1,two], and therefore, the various available features within these housing systems (e.yard., floor type, space availability, shade access, enrichment and ventilation). Housing features create the environments and microclimates that cattle feel. The intensity, variation and type of environments created tin can have a directly bear upon on fauna wellness, productivity and welfare. Therefore, evaluating how these housing differences impact the animal (due east.k., beliefs, physiology and productivity) volition facilitate the understanding of the welfare status maintained within each specific system.
Refereed reviews relative to beef cattle housing have been limited. The European union Commission called for comprehensive reports and updates on the welfare of cattle maintained for beef product. This phone call has resulted in a total of three scientific opinion reports conducted past experts within the field, which cover a vast array of topics (e.g., housing systems, space allowance, castration, dehorning, genetics, nutrition, illness management) and their impact on beefiness cattle welfare. Nonetheless, the reviews were limited to beefiness cattle product to countries within the European Union and were non peer-reviewed in nature [3,4,v]. Ingartsen and Anderson (1993) [6] examined the relationships among infinite allowance, housing blazon and flooring on the performance of cattle. Production measures examined included daily gain, feed intake, feed conversion, dressing percentages, carcass composition and conformation score. However, their review did not assess measures that may provide more insight into the welfare condition of the animals nether varying housing conditions, as the sole focus of that comparison was on performance metrics. To the authors' knowledge, this is the showtime review that is systematic in nature that emphasizes the bear upon of all variations of housing (e.g., housing systems, flooring type, space allowance, shade availability, enrichment and ventilation) on beef cattle welfare and conducts comprehensive comparisons within each individual stage of production (east.k., finishing/fattening, cow-calf and veal calves).
A systematic assay of scientific peer-reviewed literature is necessary to proceeds more insight into the relationship between beef cattle housing and the welfare of cattle reared for beef production. The review question agreed upon for this newspaper was "How do overall housing systems and housing facility features touch the status of animal welfare of beef cattle?" The principal purpose of this paper was to institute comparisons based on existing studies of the impacts that overall housing systems and housing features (eastward.g., flooring type, infinite availability, shade access, enrichment and ventilation) have on the welfare of cattle reared for beef production. While a multitude of factors influence animal welfare, this review will solely focus on housing impact and not discuss the additional touch of direction decisions on beefiness cattle welfare, as that is across the telescopic of the included studies.
In that location were 3 main objectives of this review. The outset aim of this review was to create a catalog of the housing systems, as well as the features of housing that producers accept used throughout the diverse stages of beef production to characterize the advantages and disadvantages of the different housing options' impact on beefiness cattle welfare. Secondly, the review was used to assemble measures that take been used to assess the welfare status of beefiness cattle in housing studies. Lastly, the relationships between housing and beef cattle welfare will be examined.
2. Materials and Methods
This scoping review was conducted following the methodology outlined in O'Connor et al. (2014) [7] and Sargeant and O'Connor (2014) [eight].
ii.one. Eligibility Criteria
2.1.one. Population and Interventions
The population considered for this scoping review consisted of beefiness cattle. Studies were required to examine housing as the intervention. Housing facilities were defined as pastures and/or buildings used to confine beef cattle for nutrient product. Features of housing were defined as features of the housing units such as space allowance, floor, shade, enrichment additions and/or ventilation.
2.1.2. Comparators and Outcomes
All stages of production were included in an effort to provide a comprehensive comparison of housing systems and housing features for producers and scientists, equally well as highlight areas that need further investigation. Comparisons were fabricated inside, not amid, production stages, east.g., veal calf studies were only compared to other veal calf studies, and then on. The outcomes investigated were the behavior, health, physiology, or production metrics reported in the report. Animate being welfare was divers every bit how the creature is coping in the weather in which it lives [9].
2.1.three. Limitations
Studies were included from the post-obit years: 1975 to 2018. But papers written in English language were considered for inclusion.
two.2. Search
A librarian experienced in systematic reviews and beast literature searching designed the searches in 4 databases: CAB Abstracts (Ovid), AGRIS (Ovid), Agricola (Ebsco), and the Searchable Proceedings of Fauna Conferences. Concepts included in the search were beef cattle, housing and welfare. Concepts were searched in keyword, thesaurus, title and abstruse fields following the Cochrane Collaboration standards of search strategy structure. Searches were conducted between Dec viii, 2017 and April eleven, 2018. Cab Abstracts was updated on June 4, 2018. Run into Tabular array 1 for the details of the search.
Table 1
CAB Abstracts (Ovid) search details.
| Search Order | Search Terms |
|---|---|
| one. | exp beefiness cattle/ |
| two. | (beefiness adj2 (cattle or cow*or bull)).ti,ab. |
| iii. | or/1–2 |
| four. | exp calf housing/ or exp housing/ or exp cattle housing/ |
| v. | (housing or barn* or pasture* or hill* or feedlot*).ti,ab. |
| 6. | or/four–5 |
| 8. | exp fauna welfare/ |
| 9. | (welfare* or wellbeing).ti,ab. |
| ten. | or/9–10 |
| 11. | 3 and vi and x |
| 12. | limit xi to English language |
2.3. Selection
Citations were uploaded to Rayyan QRCI to exist sorted for inclusion, on the basis of championship and abstract content [10]. Inclusion keywords identified manually at this level included beef cattle and housing. Exclusion keywords identified manually, based on search results, included dairy, transport, reviews, rabbits, literature review, broiler, cross-exclusive, age-matched, in vitro, cells, mice and fish. Simply manufactures that conducted randomized control trials were included in this review. One reviewer (RMP) read all abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies. In the event, an abstract included an inclusion and exclusion discussion, the single reviewer (RMP) determined if the commodity should exist moved to the next circular of study assessment. These studies were then uploaded into RefWorks Proquest for full text to be acquired and reviewed. One reviewer (RMP) read all full manufactures to make up one's mind study inclusion in the scoping review.
ii.iv. Coding and Appraisal
A standardized form was used to extract information from studies that were determined to be relevant to the inquiry topic. This course was designed to gather the following information: characteristics of the population, treatment details, features of the housing systems, types of measures recorded and outcomes. The significance level used for this paper was p < 0.05. In the outcome that a measurement was significant, the level of significance was recorded. Iv reviewers extracted the information at this stage of the process. The extraction procedure was piloted by having all reviewers lawmaking one study. Results were discussed after to ensure accuracy in data extraction between all reviewers. The remaining studies were divided as and randomly assigned to one reviewer to code. The Cochrane risk of bias tool, designed to decide the take a chance of bias in randomized controlled trials [ten,11], was used to evaluate the methodological quality inside the studies that were selected. A standardized form was created to assess each study. Ii reviewers completed the class for each study. Reviewers assessed all studies, therefore, whatever disagreements in results were discussed between reviewers and a decision was determined that most accurately represented the report.
iii. Results
3.ane. Study Option and Characteristics
From the search, 267 citations were found from iii dissimilar databases (CAB, AGRIS and Agricola), while 880 citations were found from other search approaches. In total, 1147 non-duplicate citations were screened for this scoping review. When inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied at the title and abstruse level, 853 manufactures were excluded based on title and abstract content. For the remaining 294 articles, inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied following the completion of a full text screening process. A total of 257 manufactures were excluded due to wrong population, wrong intervention or wrong outcomes. Therefore, afterward conducting search and report selection, forty studies were selected for inclusion. Run across PRISMA flowchart for numbers (Figure i).
PRISMA flowchart depicting article inclusion of beef cattle housing studies measuring beast welfare criteria.
Studies spanned beyond five unlike continents, with the majority conducted in Europe (26 studies) and Due north America (eight studies), followed by Asia (three studies), Africa (two studies) and Australia (i study). Experimental length of studies ranged from 22 days to ii years, with two studies not providing their timeline. The bulk of studies evaluated focused on the fattening phase (37 studies) with the remainder concentrating on veal calves (2 studies) and cow-calf (one study). These studies housed cattle in the following systems: feedlot pens (34 studies), pasture (six studies), barns (four studies) or crates/pens (2 studies). Studies were grouped into what housing feature they evaluated, which included the following: floor blazon (17 studies), housing organization (eight studies), shade (eight studies), infinite allowance (six studies) or miscellaneous (four studies; enrichment—2 studies, roofing and ventilation).
The number of animals used ranged from 8 to 2700, with the average number of animals used beingness 318. Over 30 breeds of cattle were represented, with eleven studies evaluating cattle that had a Charolais influence. Animals ranged in age from < 1 yr to seven years, the majority of studies evaluated animals < one yr of historic period, and 18 studies did non report the age of cattle used. The majority of studies evaluated bulls (17 studies) or steers (14 studies) followed by heifers (14 studies), veal bull calves (2 studies) and cows (one study; Table S1).
three.ii. Measures
Over 232 various measures were recorded across the 40 studies, which included 82 behavioral measures, 31 health measures, 67 physiological measures and 52 production measures. The measures discussed below were identified by the author (RMP) of the scoping review as pertinent to beef cattle welfare evaluation with regards to housing (Tabular array 2). Due to the number of measures, only those with significant results were included in Tables 4–seven and Table S2. Three studies did non have significant findings, or presented findings in a manner that results were not able to be synthesized and therefore volition non be discussed farther in this review [12,13,14].
Tabular array 2
Author-selected behavioral, health, physiological, and production measures that were extracted from the included beef cattle housing studies. The number beside each measure indicates how many studies in this scoping review reported that specific metric.
| Behavior | Health | Physiology | Production |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eating—23 | Hygiene scores—13 | Hemoglobin—vii | Live weight—29 |
| Lying—22 | Lesions / swellings—7 | Neutrophil—6 | Average Daily Gain (ADG)—19 |
| Standing—21 | Hoof lesions—half-dozen | Red blood jail cell—half-dozen | Feed efficiency a—12 |
| Allogrooming—16 | Hairless patches—5 | Cortisol—5 | Carcass external fatty b—12 |
| Headbutt—xiii | Torso Status Score (BCS)—4 | Lymphocyte—5 | Dry Matter Intake (DMI)—11 |
| Cocky-grooming—xiii | Bursitis—four | Platelet—5 | Carcass conformation score c—10 |
| Mounting—12 | Lameness score—four | Basophil—4 | Carcass fatty score—nine |
| Drinking—eleven | % culls—four | Eosinophil—4 | Carcass internal fatty d—nine |
| Ruminating—11 | Panting score—three | Fibrinogen—iv | Carcass weight—ix |
| Agonistic / Assailment—half-dozen | Nasal belch—3 | Haptoglobin—iv | Dressing %—8 |
| Walking—half dozen | Abnormal breathing—1 | Hematocrit (%)—4 | Impale-out proportion—7 |
| Inactive—5 | Abrasions—1 | Leukocyte—4 | Marbling score—5 |
| Tongue rolling—5 | Cough—ane | Monocyte—4 | Hot Carcass Weight (HCW)—4 |
| Utilizing shade—5 | Articulation swelling—1 | Water intake—iii | |
| Intentions to lie down—4 | Ocular discharge—1 | ||
| Licking / manipulating objects—4 | Mortality (%)—1 | ||
| Slipping—4 | Treatments (%)—1 | ||
| Avoidance Distance at Feedrack (ADF)—3 | |||
| Abnormal lying sequence—two | |||
| Deportation—2 | |||
| Interaction with enrichment—two | |||
| Grazing—2 | |||
| Temperament score—1 |
3.3. Housing Systems
Overall, eleven unlike housing systems were evaluated from eight separate studies. Definitions of overall housing systems are provided in Table iii. Come across Table 4 for comparing of overall housing systems treatments and their impacts on beefiness cattle welfare. Cattle housed in tie-stalls had reduced welfare compared to those in loose housing, equally is reflected in the greater concentrations of physiological indicators. Veal calves experienced negative behavioral, physiological, and performance consequences when housed in individual wooden crates, compared to group pens. Pregnant findings indicated detrimental impacts on cattle behavior for animals housed in a bars feedlot, compared to having access to pasture or being raised in pasture, besides as in comparison to cattle housed in a hoop befouled. However, housing cattle on pasture, compared to a feedlot, may have a mixed impact on welfare, every bit demonstrated by changes in physiological indicators. Compared to pasture-housed cattle, cattle housed in a loose barn compared to pasture excelled in some areas of welfare, as indicated through performance and physiological based measures, however, had mixed behavioral responses.
Table 3
Overall housing system definitions used by systematic review authors. These are not equivalent to housing systems' treatments, which are defined by the original study authors, just are used to draw the housing systems throughout the systematic review.
| Overall Housing System | Definition |
|---|---|
| Feedlot | A pen that provides a predefined area of space, where cattle tin can move freely throughout the pen. Can be indoors or outdoors. |
| Hoop barn | A structure consisting of steel arches fastened to wooden side walls, covered with a UV-resistant polyvinyl tarp. |
| Loose housing / barn | An open up barn, with a dedicated lying area, where cattle can move freely throughout the structure. |
| Pasture | A predefined area of land that houses cattle and provides suitable forage for grazing. |
| Necktie stalls | Animal is tethered to a specific stall inside a barn. |
Table four
Overview of the effect of unlike housing system types on beef cattle beliefs, productivity, product quality and physiology. Housing systems are reported in the same language as they were presented by original study authors. Inclusion of meaning results was adamant at p < 0.05.
| Metric Evaluated | Housing System | Reference, Location | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bars Feedlot (CF) | Loose Barn (LB) | Feedlot with Shelter (FS) | Pasture (P) | Individual Wooden Crates (I) | ||
| Behavior | ||||||
| Allogrooming | ||||||
| Duration | - | <P | - | - | - | [15] thou, Republic of finland |
| Frequency | - | - | - | - | <GP a | [sixteen] f, Italy |
| Feeding | ||||||
| Duration | - | >P | - | - | - | [17] f, [xv] 1000, Italian republic, Finland |
| Foraging | ||||||
| Duration | - | <P | - | - | - | [fifteen] chiliad, Republic of finland |
| Lying | ||||||
| Duration | - | <P | <HB b | - | - | [18] e, [xv] f, USA, Finland |
| Mounting | ||||||
| Duration | - | <P | - | - | - | [15] thousand, Republic of finland |
| Negative social behaviors | >CFP c and P | >P | - | - | [19] f, Uruguay | |
| Rumination | ||||||
| Duration | - | <P | - | - | - | [fifteen] g, Finland |
| Cocky-training | ||||||
| Frequency | - | - | - | - | >GP | [20] f, Italy |
| Sham rumination | ||||||
| Frequency | - | - | - | - | <GP | [20] f, Italy |
| Standing | ||||||
| Duration | - | >P | >HB | - | - | [eighteen] e, [fifteen] f, Usa, Finland |
| Tongue play | ||||||
| Frequency | - | - | - | - | >GP | [20] f, Italian republic |
| Vocalization | ||||||
| Duration | - | <P | - | - | - | [17] f, Italy |
| Waking | ||||||
| Duration | - | <P | >HB | - | - | [18] e, [fifteen] f, USA, Finland |
| Productivity | ||||||
| ADG | - | >P | - | - | - | [17] f, Italy |
| BCS | - | >P | - | - | - | [17] f, Italy |
| Concluding live weight | - | >P | - | - | - | [17] f, Italy |
| Product quality | ||||||
| Colour scores | - | - | - | - | <GP | [20] f, Italia |
| Cooking weight loss (%) | - | - | - | - | >GP | [20] f, Italy |
| EUROP scores | - | - | - | - | <GP | [xx] f, Italian republic |
| Flavour score | - | - | - | - | <GP | [20] f, Italian republic |
| Tenderness score | - | - | - | - | <GP | [20] f, Italy |
| Physiology | ||||||
| Alkaline phosphate | - | - | - | <CF and CFP | - | [19] f, Uruguay |
| Blood urea nitrogen levels | - | - | - | >CF and CFP | - | [nineteen] f, Uruguay |
| Calcium levels | - | - | - | - | - | [17] f, [15] g, Italia, Finland |
| Cortisol (fecal, serum) | - | <TS d | - | - | - | [21] f, Italy |
| Hemoglobin | - | - | - | - | <GP | [twenty] f, Italy |
| Lysozyme | - | <TS | - | - | - | [21] f, Italy |
| Packed cell volume (%) | - | - | - | - | <GP | [20] f, Italia |
| Serum poly peptide | - | <TS | - | - | - | [21] f, Italia |
3.4. Space Allowance and Flooring
A comparing of infinite allowance demonstrated that smaller space allowances can negatively bear upon welfare (e.g., decrease in lying, ruminating, and positive social beliefs, reduced feed efficiency and productivity, greater concentrations of stress hormones), whereas larger space allowances can positively impact welfare (eastward.1000., reduced frequency of abnormal behaviors, greater body weights, and lower stress hormone concentrations). There is an exception to this when examining cattle provided 3.0mii per animal, compared to those provided 1.5mii per animal, as the responses observed suggest that the impact of space resource allotment on cattle welfare was mixed (Table five). Beyond the half-dozen studies that investigated space allowance, the boilerplate initial live weight of animals ranged from 466 kg to 590 kg, with the exception of the study conducted past Ruis-Heutinck et al. (2000) [22], where cattle were enrolled with an average initial alive weight of 217 kg and average terminal live weight ranged from 527 kg to 705 kg. One study [23] did not report final alive weight of animals and is not included in the average final live weight range. But one study [24] reported the average stocking density for each space allowance treatment, therefore this review tin can just compare space allowances of studies as expressed by thouii per animal. In total, 17 studies examined flooring type every bit a housing feature for beefiness cattle. Beyond these studies, 19 dissimilar floor types were evaluated (Table S2). Fourteen of these flooring types were examined in only one study each. A fully slatted concrete flooring was the most examined floor choice and was compared to 12 different flooring types beyond xi different studies. Fully slatted rubber flooring and deep litter were the next most examined flooring options, being used in iv different studies, respectively.
Table v
Overview of the event of different space allowances on beefiness cattle behavior, productivity and physiology. Infinite allowances evaluated include i.5, two.0, 2.5, three.0, iv.0, iv.two, 4.five and 6.0. Infinite allowances are reported in the same language as they were presented by original study authors. Inclusion of significant results was determined at p < 0.05.
| Metric Evaluated | Space Assart (m2/animate being) | Reference, Location | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| i.5 | two.0 | 3.0 | 4.5 | ||
| Behavior | |||||
| Aberrant behavior | |||||
| Frequency | - | >four.two | - | - | [22] b, Netherlands |
| Eating | |||||
| Duration | - | - | <1.5 and 2.5 | - | [23] due south, Republic of ireland |
| Lying | |||||
| Duration | <ii.0, two.5, three.0 and 4.0 | <2.5 and 3.0 | - | - | [23] a, [25] a, [26] a, [24] c, Republic of ireland |
| Proportion | - | <4.2 | - | - | [22] b, Netherlands |
| Positive social interactions | <three.0 and iv.0 | - | - | - | [23] a, [25] a, Ireland |
| Rumination | |||||
| Duration | <two.0 and 3.0 | - | - | - | [26] a, Ireland |
| Cocky-grooming | |||||
| Proportion | - | <ii.5 and 3.0 | - | - | [24] c, Republic of ireland |
| Productivity | |||||
| ADG | <2.0, ii.5 and 3.0 | <2.5 and 3.0 | - | >3.0 and 6.0 | [26] a, [24] c, [27] c, Republic of ireland |
| Carcass weight | <2.v, iii.0 and 4.0 | <2.5 and iii.0 | - | - | [23] a, [25] a, [26] a, [24] c, Ireland |
| Feed conversion ratio | >4.0 | >2.five, three.0 and four.0 | >4.0 | <3.0 and 6.0 | [23] a, [24] c, Ireland |
| Last trunk weight | <two.0, 2.v and three.0 | <2.5 and iii.0 | - | - | [25] a, [26] a, [24] c, Ireland |
| Impale out proportion | >2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 | >3.0 | - | - | [25] a, [26] a, [23] a, Ireland |
| Live weight | <3.0 | - | - | - | [25] a, Republic of ireland |
| Physiology | |||||
| Mean pre-ACTH cortisol concentration | <iii.0 | - | - | - | [25] a, Republic of ireland |
| Peak post-ACTH cortisol concentrations | <3.0 | - | - | - | [25] a, Ireland |
| Plasma NEFA concentrations | <3.0 | - | - | - | [25] a, Republic of ireland |
iii.five. Shade and Miscellaneous Housing Features
Studies evaluating shade were examined to determine the benefits and drawbacks of this intervention (Tabular array 6). Shade had a positive impact on beef cattle welfare every bit reflected in the behavioral, physiological and performance indicators reported. The remaining studies varied in which housing features were evaluated, including enrichment devices, covering types and ventilation. Primarily these interventions had positive or neutral impacts on the cattle studied. For instance, when tested for preference, cattle provided a brush interacted with this blazon of enrichment the about often and for the longest duration of time (Table 7). The presence of enrichment had no observed negative impacts on cattle health or operation.
Table 6
Overview of the effect of shade on beef cattle behavior, productivity, product quality and physiology. Studies are reported in the aforementioned language as they were presented by original report authors. Inclusion of significant results was adamant at p < 0.05.
| Metric Evaluated | Shade | Citation, Location |
|---|---|---|
| Behavior | ||
| Feeding | ||
| Proportion | >NS a | [28] c, Due south Africa |
| Mean panting scores | <NS | [29] d, [28] c, Australia, Southward Africa |
| Productivity | ||
| ADG | >NS | [29] d, Commonwealth of australia |
| DMI | >NS | [30] b, [29] d, [31] b, Us, Australia |
| Terminal live weights | >NS | [31] b, [29] d, [28] c, USA, Australia, South Africa |
| G:F | >NS | [29] d, Australia |
| Hip height | >NS | [29] d, Australia |
| Production quality | ||
| Dark cutting carcasses | <NS | [31] b, United states of america |
| Dressing per centum | >NS; <NS | [30] b, [29] d, Us, Australia |
| HCW | >NS | [29] d, [28] c, Australia, South Africa |
| USDA yield class | >NS | [31] b, USA |
| Physiology | ||
| Lymphocytes (%) | >NS | [31] b, USA |
| Neutrophils (%) | <NS | [31] b, USA |
| Neutrophil: Lymphocyte ratio | <NS | [31] b, The states |
| Respiration rate | <NS | [31] b, [32] b, Us |
Tabular array 7
Overview of the effect of enrichment devices on beef cattle behavior, productivity and physiology. Enrichments are reported in the aforementioned language every bit they were presented by original report authors. Inclusion of significant results was determined at p < 0.05.
| Metric Evaluated | Enrichments | Roofing | Ventilation | Citation, Location | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brush and Log (BL) | Milk-Scent Releasing Device (Dr.) | Rubbing Devices (RD) | Modified Roof | Ceiling Van | ||
| Beliefs | ||||||
| Aberrant animate | - | - | - | - | <CON a | [33] c, Italy |
| Eating | ||||||
| Duration | >CON | - | - | - | - | [34] d, Japan |
| Enrichment apply | ||||||
| Frequency | - | >LD b | >Physician and LD | - | - | [35] eastward, USA |
| Duration | - | - | >MD and LD | - | - | [35] e, United states |
| Mounting | ||||||
| Frequency | - | - | - | - | >CON | [33] c, Italy |
| Productivity | ||||||
| ADG | - | - | - | >CON | - | [36] f, Thailand |
| Physiology | ||||||
| Hygiene score | - | - | - | - | <CON | [33] c, Italy |
| Rectal temperature | - | - | - | <CON | - | [36] f, Thailand |
3.6. Cochrane Hazard of Bias
But randomized controlled trials were reviewed to assess for hazard of bias. All studies were evaluated utilizing the Cochrane risk of bias tool by two researchers [xi,37] (Effigy two). No studies were removed from the review due to their results from the Cochrane take a chance of bias analysis. All beef cattle housing studies selected evaluated a comprehensive suite of welfare metrics, as well as ensuring that animals assigned to the control treatment are assessed on the same outcomes as animals who were provided the treatment(s). However, these same studies failed to bullheaded the creature caretakers to the handling assignment. In all studies, it was unclear whether the person enrolling cattle into treatments was enlightened of the resource allotment sequence. Studies varied with regard to how animals were randomly allocated to treatments and whether at that place were deviations in data due to removal of animals from specific treatment groups.
Results of the Cochrane adventure of bias analysis conducted on all studies by two trained observers.
four. Discussion
4.ane. Summary of Primary Findings
Housing systems vary inside the beefiness cattle manufacture by phase of production and product outcome. Loose barn housing, compared to pasture housing, presents advantages and disadvantages to cattle welfare. Cattle housed in the loose barn had greater last live weights, ADG and BCS [17]. Loose befouled housed cattle also performed fewer mounting events [15], spent less time vocalizing [17], spent less time walking [fifteen,17] and spent more time engaged in lying behavior [xv]. However, loose befouled housed cattle spent more than time standing [17], engaging in agonistic interactions [17], and performing oral explorative and oral manipulative behaviors [15,17]. Stravaggi Cucuzza et al. (2014) [21] conducted a written report to compare loose housing to tie-stall housing. His research group demonstrated that tie-stall housing was stressful to cattle in the fattening stage, as animals housed in a tie-stall befouled had greater levels of total serum protein, serum lysozymes, fecal corticosterone, serum corticosterone and cortisol. From these findings, loose housing was considered more than favorable in comparison to necktie-stall housing.
Studies examining feedlot housed cattle observed that cattle in feedlots engaged in agonistic behaviors more often and for longer durations (eastward.k., headbutting, pushing, displacement) [19] compared to cattle with admission to pasture. Similarly, feedlot-housed cattle spent more time standing and walking, as well as engaged in lying for a shorter elapsing of time paralleled to cattle housed in a hoop befouled [18]. Environmental enrichment may be an effective ecology intervention that is designed to modify feedlot cattle behavior, as this may increase the multifariousness and appropriately distribute the cattle's behavioral repertoire. The intervention of environmental enrichment will be discussed in farther particular afterwards in this review. Although studies were express that examined veal calf housing, the findings provided overwhelming back up for group housing compared to individual crates. Housing veal calves in groups resulted in a greater expression of social behaviors [sixteen], a reduced expression of stereotypic behaviors [twenty] and improved carcass traits [20].
Cattle can benefit from an increased space assart in the feedlot. Feedlot environments that provided animals with three.0m2 to 4.5m2 per creature had greater live weight gains [25], every bit well equally greater ADG [27] and lower feed conversion rates [23]. These animals performed a greater amount of positive social behaviors [25], spent a higher percentage of their day lying [22] and performed fewer aberrant behaviors [22]. Even so, Fisher et al. (1997) [25] plant that cattle housed at a space allowance of three.0 m2 per animal, compared to those in an environment of 1.5m2 per animate being, had a greater hateful- and height-ACTH cortisol concentration. The authors of that study hypothesized that animals housed in the 1.5 1000ii per brute housing were restricted in movement, and therefore exposed to chronic overcrowding, which may have resulted in adrenal fatigue (e.grand., a reduction of responsiveness in the adrenal gland to ACTH). Overall, feedlots that provided cattle with one.5 m2 per animal fared the poorest. Cattle in this setting spent less time lying [23,24,25], indicating a decreased comfort state, equally this behavior is an indicator of cattle condolement and fauna managers have a goal of promoting lying equally part of good husbandry and to promote productivity. Hickey et al. (2003) [23] adamant that highly stocked cattle did not interact socially as oft equally cattle with greater infinite allowances. High stocking density too had a negative affect on productivity and performance. Cattle that were provided i.5 yard2 per animal had reduced ADG [26,27] and concluding trunk weights [26], and as well had college feed conversion ratios [23]. However, animals at this space assart did have greater kill-out proportions, or ratios of carcass weight to alive weight [25,26]. The findings from these studies indicate that the difference between providing two.five mtwo per animal to 3.0 mii per beast could be substantial regarding the improvement of cattle welfare. Even so, there is not a articulate understanding as to when increasing space allowances no longer provides additional benefits. Furthermore, future researchers investigating stocking density should consider providing the average space allowance in final weight per yard2 for all treatments, equally this could allow for more thorough comparisons of results moving forrard.
Rearing cattle for fattening in a feedlot requires consideration of how flooring surfaces impact cattle welfare. Concerns have been raised regarding the utilize of fully slatted concrete floors, as this flooring type has been viewed every bit suboptimal for the animals' welfare needs, particularly with regards to incidence of injuries [ane,2]. This claim is partially supported by the findings of this scoping review. Cattle housed on fully slatted physical floors performed greater frequencies of abnormal behaviors [22], had more than unsuccessful lying attempts [38] and had a higher prevalence of health issues (e.one thousand., skin lesions, locomotor disorders) [38,39] in comparing to fully slatted rubber mats. Fully slatted safe mats resulted in greater alive weight gains [38,forty], ADG [38,40], feed conversions [40] and fewer wellness issues [22,41]. Even so, cattle housed on fully slatted rubber mats performed more agonistic behaviors compared to those on fully slatted concrete floors, which may be attributed to the animal's hurting condition, every bit cattle in less pain possess the resource to engage in behaviors needed to establish and maintain a social structure [38]. Animals housed on fully slatted concrete floors, also as animals housed on fully slatted condom mats, displayed mixed results in comparing to specific mat conditions (e.chiliad., cream construction safety, natural rubber structure, partial cover of a solid mat, etc.), displaying both welfare advantages and disadvantages as indicated through behavioral, performance and health measures. For farther detail, see Tabular array 6. Cattle housed on harbinger had a greater frequency of lying behavior [22], improved hygiene scores [42] and enhanced functioning measures (eastward.k., improved feed conversion ratio, higher ADG, greater carcass weight) [27]. These results suggest that cattle housed on straw floors had an enhanced welfare state compared to those housed on apartment concrete, fully slatted concrete, or fully slatted rubber mats. This review highlights that there are advantages and disadvantages to all evaluated floor types.
The benefits of implementing shade outweigh any possible negative impacts, and the findings from this review strongly support the implementation of shade in the feedlot setting. Access to shade allows cattle to take a choice to reduce thermal stress, in a manner that does not compromise their performance or welfare. Cattle housed in an environs with shade take lower respiration rates [31,32], and lower panting scores [28,29] compared to their counterparts without shade. Animals provided shade were more willing to consume, as shade reduced the bear on of temperature highs during the middle of the day [28]. Cattle with admission to shade had numerous performance benefits, every bit well, including greater final torso weights [28,29,31], ADG [29], DMI [29,30,31] and Thou:F [29]. The sole negative impact institute of shade implementation was in conflict with another study. Gaughan et al. (2010) [29] found that shaded cattle had a lower dressing percentage, in contrast to Hagenmaier et al. (2016) [30], that showed that cattle in an environment with shade had greater dressing percentages. Therefore, the impact of shade on dressing percentage is unclear. As the EFSA Scientific Written report (2012) [2] recommended beef producers that housed cattle in bars houses or open feedlots implement structures to reduce the furnishings of thermal stress, the studies reviewed hither demonstrate that providing shade could be a realistic solution, as overall, the listed benefits of shade outweigh the possible negative impacts, which were limited.
Inclusion of environmental enrichment in beef cattle housing systems may be the next step to advancing cattle welfare, too as promoting a positive public perception of beefiness cattle production. Few studies were found that evaluated the impact of ecology enrichment on beef cattle, which is reflective of the scarcity of current literature available on the topic. However, the two studies that were evaluated demonstrated that environmental enrichment can take either a positive or neutral affect on cattle welfare. Ninomiya and Sato (2009) [34] provided feedlot steers with a log and brush and establish that steers with access to these items spent a greater percent of time eating, yet no positive impact on productivity was observed. In another written report, the impact of a grooming device was compared to different scent releasing (blank—no aroma, lavander and milk) devices on feedlot heifers. Heifers interacted most frequently and for the longest duration of fourth dimension with the rubbing device, followed by the milk-scent releasing device [35]. The findings of this review suggest that, inside a feedlot setting, environmental enrichment that allows animals to perform grooming behaviors may be biologically appropriate, as this is a behavior that cattle are highly motivated to perform and cattle willingly and regularly interact with a brush. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term welfare consequences of environmental enrichment in all stages of beef cattle product.
This scoping review succeeded in investigating multiple research databases to gather the greatest number of studies related to the topic. More notably, the author (RMP) took additional approaches to review studies, by examining all the articles that were cited by accepted studies, besides as articles that cited the accepted studies. The consultation between the author (RMP) and a systematic review librarian (MF) was the greatest strength of this review. The National Academies of Sciences, Technology and Medicine standard for systematic reviews calls for searches to be designed past information specialists and a contempo study has shown that searches designed by librarians for systematic reviews improve the quality of reviews [43,44]. Every bit the review was restricted to randomized controlled trials, at that place was the opportunity to assess the risk of bias for each individual study, which was viewed to be both an advantage and disadvantage. Conducting the chance of bias allowed for a more thorough analysis of these studies from a methodological standpoint, and it also assisted in determining features where beef cattle housing studies need improvement. Even so, this limited the review to only assessing randomized controlled trials, therefore excluding housing studies that did not fit the criteria of a randomized control blueprint, which may have differing results that were not taken into account.
Conducting the Cochrane risk of bias analysis demonstrated that researchers in this field running randomized controlled trials are doing well in reporting results on all the measures obtained, as well equally assessing animals on the same measures, regardless of what treatment they were allocated to. However, this assay likewise adamant areas in which beef cattle housing randomized controlled trials could improve. A statement of the random resource allotment of animals to treatment groups is inherent to randomized controlled trials and must be included in the advice of this inquiry. There cannot be an assumption that readers volition know that random allocation occurred. Additionally, researchers need to ensure the reader that there is not a deviation of data in the results due to the removal of animals from specific handling groups. There was a lack of clarity in the bulk of studies evaluated, as to whether animals were removed or non and if animals were removed, and no reference was made to how their removal impacted the study. Areas of the Cochrane risk of bias analysis that beef cattle housing studies did not excel in, and are not probable to ameliorate in, include both allotment concealment and blinding of participants and personnel. There was a consensus in that no studies reported on whether the person enrolling cattle into the treatment had knowledge of the handling allocation. In randomized controlled trials, knowledge of handling allocation is considered to exist choice bias. Nonetheless, ensuring that the person enrolling cattle in treatments does non know of which handling the beast are entering into would be difficult, due to the impossibility of blinding personnel to the treatments. In housing studies, the interventions were credible, e.g., a clear distinction betwixt fully slatted concrete floor and deep litter. The differences of treatments were visual and obvious. While researchers were not able to modify this concept in most housing studies, effort should be fabricated to ensure readers sympathise the reasoning backside a not-blinded study, also as knowledge of treatment allocation.
4.2. Limitations
From an evaluation standpoint, comparison results across studies was not possible, every bit individual studies differed greatly in the measures that they assessed. This review highlights that at that place is not a consensus among researchers of what measures should be assessed when evaluating the bear upon of housing on beef cattle welfare. This is an area that requires comeback from researchers, to determine how to efficiently measure out the animal's response to housing. Measuring the response on similar scales will assist in future comparison of research, leading to more thorough conclusions regarding the impact of housing systems and their features on the welfare of beef cattle. Including a justification for why a metric was included for evaluation of welfare will assist in this attempt. In addition to varying in measures, studies also varied in the housing evaluated. The majority of studies that were found and reviewed examined feedlot housing relative to the finishing stage. Therefore, this review was restricted in its power to cover all stages of beef production due to the lack of studies in this surface area. Research that examined how housing impacts calves and cows in all stages of production was lacking. Further enquiry is needed to conclude what the impacts of housing systems and features are on the welfare of these animals.
five. Conclusions
Beef cattle producers need to sympathize how the housing decisions they make impact the performance, health status, physiology, and behavioral repertoire of the cattle in their intendance. Optimal space allowance for finishing animals may be between 2.five m2 to three.0 mii per animal, while 1.five k2 per animal may not exist in the brute'southward best interest, as animals housed at this space allowance had compromised productivity and performed behaviors reflective of a poor welfare state. The dissimilar flooring types investigated demonstrated positive and negative impacts on welfare; however, straw bedded flooring was associated with combination of behavioral, production and hygiene metrics that propose this flooring has a positive touch on cattle welfare. Veal calves housed individually, compared to those housed in groups, demonstrated behavioral, physiological and performance metrics indicative of poor welfare. From this review, there is evidence that implementing progressive modifications to the feedlot cattle'southward environment (e.g., providing shade or environmental enrichment) can positively bear upon cattle welfare. Economic science ultimately influence last housing and environmental management decisions. However, the results from this review provide information regarding the long-term management, production quality, and economic consequences of different housing environments on beef cattle welfare that can exist used to facilitate current and futurity feedlot cattle management strategies.
Acknowledgments
The authors would similar to thank the following students from the Fauna Behavior & Welfare Laboratory at Texas A&K University for their assistance in data collection: Logan Papinchak, Theresa Nelson, Sarah Rico and Faryn Fort.
Supplementary Materials
The following are bachelor online at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/4/565/s1, Table S1: Population parameters of the studies evaluated. Shown are the descriptions or values provided by the original authors of the articles these studies were chosen from, Tabular array S2: Overview of the issue of different flooring types on beef cattle behavior, productivity, production quality, physiology and health. Floor treatments are reported in the same language as they were presented by original study authors. Inclusion of pregnant results was determined at p < 0.05.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, R.M.P. and C.L.D.; methodology, R.G.P. and M.F.; software, Grand.F. validation, R.M.P. and C.L.D. formal analysis, R.Chiliad.P.; investigation, R.Yard.P. and C.50.D.; resources, C.L.D. and M.F.; data curation, R.One thousand.P.; writing—original draft preparation, R.M.P.; writing—review and editing, R.M.P., C.L.D., M.F.; visualization, R.M.P.; supervision, C.50.D. and M.F.; project assistants, R.K.P. and C.L.D.; funding acquisition, C.50.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
one. Angrecka South., Herbut P., Nawalany Grand., Sokołowski P. The bear on of localization and barn blazon on insolation of sidewall stalls during summer. J. Ecol. Eng. 2017;eighteen:60–66. doi: ten.12911/22998993/74398. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Angrecka S., Herbut P. Impact of barn orientation on insolation and temperature of stalls surface. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2016;16:887–896. doi: x.1515/aoas-2015-0096. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
iii. Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW): The welfare of cattle kept for beefiness production. [(accessed on 19 October 2018)]; Available online: http://ec.europa.european union/nutrient/fs/sc/scah/out54_en.pdf
4. European Food Safety Authorization (EFSA) Console on Brute Health and Welfare Scientific opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and the welfare in intensive calf farming systems. EFSA J. 2012;10:ane–165. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
v. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Scientific Opinion of the Console on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW Panel) on a request from the European Commission on the risks of poor welfare in intensive calf farming systems. An update of the Scientific Veterinary Committee Written report on the Welfare of Calves. EFSA J. 2006;366:1–36. [Google Scholar]
six. Lonne Ingvartsen 1000., Refsgaard Anderson H. Infinite assart and type of housing for growing cattle: A review of performance and possible relation to neuroendocrine role. Acta Agric. Scand. 1993;43:65–80. doi: 10.1080/09064709309410147. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
vii. O'Connor A.M., Anderson K.M., Goodell C.K., Sargeant J.Thou. Conducting systematic reviews of intervention questions I: Writing the review protocol, formulating the question and searching the literature. Zoonoses Public Health. 2014;61:28–38. doi: 10.1111/zph.12125. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
viii. Sargeant J.Grand., O'Connor A.M. Conducting systematic reviews of intervention questions II: Relevance screening, data extraction, assessing risk of bias, presenting the results and interpreting the findings. Zoonoses Public Health. 2014;61:39–51. doi: 10.1111/zph.12124. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
ix. Broom D.M. Coping, stress and welfare. In: Broom D.M., editor. Coping with Claiming: Welfare in Animals including Humans. Dahlem University Press; Berlin, Germany: 2001. [Google Scholar]
x. Ouzzani One thousand., Hammady H., Fedorowicz Z., Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016;5:210. doi: x.1186/s13643-016-0384-4. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Higgins J.P.T., Altman D.M., Gøtzsche P.C., Jüni P., Moher D., Oxman A.D., Savović J., Schulz K.F., Weeks L., Sterne J.A.C., et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Bond T.E., Laster D.B. Influence of shading on production of Midwest feedlot cattle. Trans. ASAE. 1975;18:957–959. doi: 10.13031/2013.36717. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Tuomisto L., Ahola L., Martiskainen P., Kauppinen R., Huuskonen A. Comparison of time budgets of growing Hereford bulls in an uninsulated barn and in extensive forest paddocks. Livest. Sci. 2008;118:44–52. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2008.01.011. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Van Iaer Due east., Moons C.P.H., Ampe B., Sonck B., Vandaele L., De Campeneere S., Tuyttens F.A.M. Effect of summer conditions and shade on behavioural indicators of thermal discomfort in Holstein dairy and Belgian Blueish beef cattle on pasture. Animate being. 2015;9:1536–1546. doi: ten.1017/S1751731115000804. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xv. Tuomisto L., Mononen J., Martiskainen P., Ahola L., Huuskonen A. Time budgets of finishing bulls housed in an uninsulated barn or at pasture. Agr. Food Sci. 2015;24:173–182. doi: 10.23986/afsci.51116. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xvi. Ferrante V., Canali E., Verga Yard., Mattiello Due south., Menti F., Gottardo F. Veal calves rearing: Behavioural, physiological and pathological indicators; Proceedings of the A.South.P.A. XII Congress; Piacenza, Italy. 21–24 June 1999; pp. 575–577. [Google Scholar]
17. Braghieri A., Pacelli C., De Rosa G., Girolami A., De Palo P., Napolitano F. Podolian beefiness production on pasture and in confinement. Animal. 2011;5:927–937. doi: ten.1017/S1751731110002685. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
eighteen. Johnson A., Lonergan S.G., Busby W.D., Shouse South.C., Maxwell D.L. Comparison of steer behavior when housed in a deep-bedded hoop befouled versus an open up feedlot with shelter. J. Anim. Sci. 2011;89:1893. doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-2877. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
nineteen. Blumetto O., Ruggia A., Morales Pyñeyrúa J.T., Villagrá García A. Social behavior and productive and stress parameters in Holstein steers fattened in three contrasting production systems. J. Agric. Sci. 2017;9:54–64. doi: 10.5539/jas.v9n5p54. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xx. Andrighetto I., Gottardo F., Andreoli D., Cozzi M. Event of type of housing on veal calf growth performance, behaviour and meat quality. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1999;57:137–145. doi: x.1016/S0301-6226(98)00170-v. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Starvaggi Cucuzza L., Riondato F., Macchi East., Bellino C., Franco G., Biolatti B., Cannizzo F.T. Haematological and physiological responses of Piedmontese beefiness cattle to dissimilar housing conditions. Res. Vet. Sci. 2014;97:464–469. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Ruis-Heutinck L.F.M., Smits M.C.J., Smits A.C., Heeres J.J. Effects of floor blazon and floor area on behavior and carpal joint lesions in beef bulls. Improv. Wellness Welf. Anim. Prod. 2000;102:29–36. [Google Scholar]
23. Hickey M.C., Earley B., Fisher A.D. The effect of floor type and space allowance on welfare indicators of finishing steers. Ir. J. Agric. Food Res. 2003;42:89–100. [Google Scholar]
24. Keane M.P., McGee M., O'Riordan East.G., Kelly A.G., Earley B. Performance and welfare of steers housed on concrete slatted floors at fixed and dynamic (allometric based) space allowances. J. Anim. Sci. 2018;96:880–889. doi: 10.1093/jas/sky007. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Fisher A.D., Crowe Thousand.A., Prendiville D.J., Enright W.J. Indoor space assart: Effects on growth, behaviour, adrenal and immune responses of finishing beefiness heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 1997;64:53–62. doi: 10.1017/S135772980001554X. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Fisher A.D., Crowe M.A., O'Kiely P., Enright Westward.J. Growth, behaviour, adrenal and allowed responses of finishing beef heifers housed on slatted floors at ane.5, two.0, 2.five or 3.0 mtwo space allowance. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1997;51:245–254. doi: x.1016/S0301-6226(97)00052-three. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Keane M.P., McGee Thou., O'Riordan E.One thousand.O., Kelly A.Yard., Earley B. Outcome of space assart and floor type on performance, welfare and physiological measurements of finishing beef heifers. Animal. 2017;xi:2285–2294. doi: 10.1017/S1751731117001288. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Blaine One thousand.L., Nsahlai I.V. The effects of shade on performance, carcass classes and behaviour of heat-stressed feedlot cattle at the finisher stage. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2010;43:609–615. doi: 10.1007/s11250-010-9740-x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Gaughan J.B., Bonner Due south., Loxton I., Mader T.L., Lisle A., Lawrence R. Effect of shade on body temperature and functioning of feedlot steers. J. Anim. Sci. 2010;88:4056–4067. doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-2987. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
thirty. Hagenmaier J.A., Reinhardt C.D., Bartle S.J., Thomson D.U. Event of shade on animal welfare, growth operation, and carcass characteristics in large pens of beef cattle fed a beta agonist in a commercial feedlot. J. Anim. Sci. 2016;94:5064–5076. doi: 10.2527/jas.2016-0935. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Mitlöhner F.M., Galyean Thousand.L., McGlone J.J. Shade effects on performance, carcass traits, physiology, and behavior of estrus-stressed feedlot heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 2002;eighty:2043–2050. doi: 10.2527/2002.8082043x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Brown-Brandl T.M., Eigenberg R.A., Nienaber J.A., Hahn G.Fifty. Dynamic response indicators of heat stress in shaded and non-shaded feedlot cattle, part 1: Analyses of indicators. Biosyst. Eng. 2005;xc:451–462. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2004.12.006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Brscic M., Gottardo F., Tessitore Eastward., Guzzo L., Ricci R., Cozzi G. Assessment of welfare of finishing beef cattle kept on different types of floor after curt- or long-term housing. Animal. 2015;ix:1053–1058. doi: 10.1017/S1751731115000245. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Ninomiya S., Sato S. Effects of "Five Freedoms" environmental enrichment on the welfare of calves reared indoors. J. Anim. Sci. 2009;fourscore:347–351. doi: ten.1111/j.1740-0929.2009.00627.10. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Wilson S.C., Mitlöhner F.M., Morrow-Tesch J., Dailey J.W., McGlone J.J. An cess of several potential enrichment devices for feedlot cattle. Appl. Anim. Beh. Sci. 2002;76:259–265. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00019-9. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Cozzi G., Ricci R., Dorigo 1000., Zanet D. Growth performance, cleanliness and lameness of finishing Charolais bulls housed in littered pens of different designs. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2005;four:251–253. doi: 10.4081/ijas.2005.2s.251. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Da Costa B.R., Beckett B., Diaz A., Resta N.One thousand., Johnston B.C., Egger M., Jüni P., Armijo-Olivo South. Effect of standardized preparation on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a prospective study. Syst. Rev. 2017;6:44. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0441-7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Brscic M., Ricci R., Prevedello P., Lonardi C., De Nardi R., Contiero B., Gottardo F., Cozzi Thou. Synthetic rubber surface every bit an alternative to concrete to improve welfare and functioning of finishing beef cattle reared on fully slatted flooring. Animal. 2015;9:1386–1392. doi: 10.1017/S1751731115000592. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. Platz Due south., Ahrens F., Bahrs Eastward., Nüske S., Erhard M.H. Association between flooring type and behaviour, skin lesions, and claw dimensions in grouping-housed fattening bulls. Prev. Vet. Med. 2007;80:209–221. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.02.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. Keane Grand.P., McGee Yard., O'Riordan E.G., Kelly A.K., Earley B. Effect of floor type on hoof lesions, dirt scores, immune response and production of beef bulls. Livest. Sci. 2015;180:220–225. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2015.08.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Elmore M.R.P., Elischer Chiliad.F., Claeys M.C., Pajor Due east.A. The effects of different flooring types on the behavior, health and welfare of finishing beefiness steers. J. Anim. Sci. 2005;93:1258–1266. doi: 10.2527/jas.2014-8399. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Lowe D.E., Steen R.W.J., Beattie V.E., Moss B.W. The effects of flooring type systems on the performance, cleanliness, carcass composition and meat quality of housed finishing beefiness cattle. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2001;69:33–42. doi: 10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00246-3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Institute of Medicine (U.S.) Finding What Works in Wellness Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. National Academies Press; Washington, DC, Usa: 2011. Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research. [Google Scholar]
44. Rethlefsen K.50., Farrell A.Chiliad., Osterhaus Trzasko L.C., Brigham T.J. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2015;68:617–626. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.eleven.025. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Manufactures from Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
cassityovelinterst.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7222360/
0 Response to "Housing and Environment of Beef Cattle"
Post a Comment