Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T18:53:08.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing cubicle dimensions for finishing bulls based on animal behaviour and cleanliness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

L. Gygax ,
H. Schulze Westerath ,
J. Kuhlicke ,
B. Wechsler  and
C. Mayer
L. Gygax*
Affiliation:
Centre for Proper Housing of Ruminants and Pigs, Swiss Federal Veterinary Office, Agroscope FAT Tänikon, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland
H. Schulze Westerath
Affiliation:
Centre for Proper Housing of Ruminants and Pigs, Swiss Federal Veterinary Office, Agroscope FAT Tänikon, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland
J. Kuhlicke
Affiliation:
Centre for Proper Housing of Ruminants and Pigs, Swiss Federal Veterinary Office, Agroscope FAT Tänikon, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland
B. Wechsler
Affiliation:
Centre for Proper Housing of Ruminants and Pigs, Swiss Federal Veterinary Office, Agroscope FAT Tänikon, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland
C. Mayer
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Federal Agricultural Research Centre, Dörnbergstrasse 25 and 27, 29223 Celle, Germany
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Finishing bulls need increasingly large cubicles throughout their growth, and optimal cubicle dimensions may differ from those used for dairy cows. The space requirements of finishing bulls was investigated by observing standing-up and lying-down behaviour, lying duration and number of lying bouts, as well as the cleanliness of cubicles and animals before and after increasing cubicle size at four different points in time. Lying area in the cubicles measured 120 × 70 cm at the start and 185 × 110 cm at the end of the finishing period (approx. at 160 and 550 kg, respectively). Twenty animals kept in four groups were observed at weights of approximately 220, 330, 380 and 500 kg before and after cubicle dimensions were increased. The proportion of standing-up events with more than one head lunge decreased with enlargement of the cubicles (P = 0·01). As cubicle size increased, bulls hit the partition rails less on standing up, except at 220 kg weight where the pattern was inverted (interaction: P = 0·001). Partitions were also hit less on lying down as cubicle size increased, except at 220 kg weight with an inverse pattern (interaction: P = 0·01). The number of exploratory head sweeps before lying down did not change with cubicle enlargement (P > 0·5). Bulls slipped more often with cubicle enlargement, except at 380 kg where the difference was inverted (interaction: P = 0·03). They never fell and never turned around in the cubicles. In general, both animals and cubicles were very clean. On average, lying duration decreased (P < 0·01) while the number of lying bouts tended to increase (P = 0·052) with enlargement of the cubicles but the absolute differences were small. Consequently at each point in time, the smaller cubicles still seemed to provide sufficient lying space for the bulls. If the impacts with the partitions were minor and did not represent a serious welfare concern, as suggested by qualitative observations, the cubicle dimensions used could be considered suitable for housing the type of finishing bulls used in this study.

Keywords

behaviourbullscubicleshygieneloose housing
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 81 , Issue 3 , December 2005 , pp. 423 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2005

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

Anderson, N. 2003. Free stall dimensions. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. http: //www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/dairy/facts/info_fsdimen. htmGoogle Scholar
Andreae, U. 1979. [Activity of .nishing bulls kept on fully slatted floors.] Landbauforschung Völkenrode 48: (Special issue) 89–94.Google Scholar
Andreae, U. and Papendieck, T. 1971. [Behaviour of dairy cows when choosing a cubicle in loose housing systems.] Der Tierzüchter 15: 432–435.Google Scholar
Bartussek, H., Leeb, C. and Held, S. 1996. Animal needs index for cattle, TGI 35L/2000 – cattle. BAL Gumpenstein, Irdning. http: //www.gumpenstein.at/publikationen/ignreport/ani35lc.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bickert, W. G. 1999. Building and remodeling freestall housing for cow comfort. Proceedings of the Western Canadian Dairy seminar, http: //www.wcds.afns.ualberta.ca/Proceedings/1999/chap29.htmGoogle Scholar
Bickert, W. G. 2000. Milking herd facilities. In Dairy freestall, housing and equipment, MWPS-7 (ed. Bickert, W. G., Holmes, B., Janni, K.Kammel, D.Stowell, R. and Zulovich, J.), pp. 27–46. MidWest Plan Service MWPS, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Bockisch, F.-J. 1991. [Quantification of interactions between dairy cows and their housing environment; fundamentals for the improvement of housing systems and their economic judgement.] Habilitation. Verlag der Feber'schen Universitäts-Buchhandlung, GiessenGoogle Scholar
Ceballos, A., Sanderson, D., Rushen, J. and Weary, D. M. 2004. Improving stall design: use of 3-D kinematics to measure space use by dairy cows when lying down. Journal of Dairy Science 87: 2042–2050.Google Scholar
Commission Internationale du Génie Rural. 2002. Design recommendations of beef cattle housing. Bundesanstalt für alpenländische Landwirtschaft, Gumpenstein.Google Scholar
Faye, B. and Barnouin, J. 1985. [An objective score of the cleanliness of dairy cows and housing systems.] Bulletin Technique, Centre de Recherches Zootechniques et Vétérinaires de Theix, INRA 59: 61–67.Google Scholar
Frickh, J., Karall, P., Stanek, C., Troxler, J., Keller, M., Hinterhofer, C. and Spergser, J. 2000. [The effect of housing and feeding on behaviour, claw health and production of Holstein bulls.] Der Förderungsdienst 48: 369–374.Google Scholar
Graf, B. 1984. [The effect of different loose housing systems on the behaviour of finishing oxen.] Dissertation, ETH Zürich.Google Scholar
Grandle, G., Bowling, R., Buschermohle, M., Crist, W., Hunter, D., Sliger, R., Trimble, R., and Turner, L. 1996. Milking herd feeding and housing facilities. In UT Extension. Sustainable dairy systems planning manual, pp. 1–28. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA.Google Scholar
Hanselmann, D. 2004. [Larger and larger?] Zuchtwahl und Besamung 151: 1–3.Google Scholar
Hartmann, H. and Schlichting, M. C. 1990. [Behaviour of finishing bulls in loose housing systems with electronic feeding.] KTBL-Schrift 342: 197–207.Google Scholar
Hilty, R. 2001. [Dimensions of housing systems.] Agroscope FAT Tänikon. http://www.fat.admin.ch/e/ (publications, recommendations)Google Scholar
Holmes, B. 2000. Replacement housing. In Dairy freestall, housing and equipment, MWPS-7 (ed. Bickert, W. G., Holmes, B., Janni, K., Kammel, D., Stowell, R. and Zulovich, J.), pp. 1–26. MidWest Plan Service MWPS, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Hörning, B. and Tost, J. 2002. [Multivariate analysis of factors influencing the resting behaviour of dairy cows in cubicle housing systems.] KTBL-Schrift 407: 139–151.Google Scholar
Jauschnegg, H. 1994. [Weight and body size of cattle.] Diploma thesis, Österreichisches Kuratorium für Landtechnik, Vienna.Google Scholar
Keil, N., Gisiger, E. and Stauffacher, M. 2004. [Evaluation of the dimensions of cubicles for cattle based on the lying behaviour of dairy cows of varying body size]. KTBL-Schrift 431: 115–121.Google Scholar
Konrad, S. 1988. [Evaluation of housing systems for finishing bulls based on indicators.] KTBL-Schrift 323: 214–230.Google Scholar
Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft. 1991. [Cubicles for dairy cows and growing cattle.] KTBL-Arbeitsblatt 1002, http://www.ktbl.de/KTBLPUBFORM/DDW?W=(BESTELLNUMMER=‘21002’)Google Scholar
Lidfors, L. 1989. The use of getting up and lying down movements in the evaluation of cattle environments. Veterinary Research Communications 13: 307–324.Google Scholar
Lowe, D. E., Steen, R. W. J., Beattie, V. E. and Moss, B. W. 2001. The effect of floor type systems on the performance, cleanliness, carcass composition and meat quality of housed finishing beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 69: 33–42.Google Scholar
McFadden, V. J., Lorimor, J., Kohl, K. and Wells, G. 1995. Freestall housing for livestock. Iowa State University. http: //www.extension. iastate.edu/Publications/PM1610. pdfGoogle Scholar
Mayer, C., Schrader, L., Fietz, D. and Schulze Westerath, H. 2002. [Animal protection issues in finishing cattle – a comparison of different housing systems.] In Tagung der Fachgruppen Tierschutzrecht und Tierzucht, Erbpathologie und Haustiergenetik in Verbindung mit der Fachhochschule Nürtingen (ed. Deutsche Veterinärmedizinische Gesellschaft), pp. 129–135.Google Scholar
Meier, T., Schulze Westerath, H., Mayer, C. and Gygax, L. 2004. [Optimal inclination of the lying area in cubicles for fattening bulls.] KTBL-Schrift 431: 122–128.Google Scholar
Minonzio, G., Gloor, P. and Huber-Hanke, R. 1992. [Straw-floor systems for cattle.] FAT-Schriftenreihe 35: 1–104.Google Scholar
Mogensen, L., Krohn, C. C., Sørensen, J. T., Hindhede, J. and Nielsen, L. H. 1997. Association between resting behaviour and live weight gain in dairy heifers housed in pens with different space allowance and floor type. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 11–19.Google Scholar
Müller, P. 1994. [Housing systems for growing cattle.] KTBL-Arbeitsblatt 1095. http: //www.ktbl.de/ab/ab1095/ab1095.htmGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, J. C. and Bates, D. M. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Ruis-Heutinck, L. F. M., Smits, M. C. J., Smits, A. C. and Heeres, J. J. 2000. Effects of floor type and floor area on behaviour and carpal joint lesions in beef bulls. In Improving health and welfare in animal production (ed. Blokhuis, H. J.Ekkel, E. D. and Wechsler, B.), EAAP publication no. 102, pp. 29–36.Google Scholar
Sambraus, H. H. 1971. [Lying behaviour of ruminants.] Züchtungskunde 43: 187–198.Google Scholar
Schulze Westerath, H., Gygax, L. and Mayer, C. 2005. [Lying behaviour of fattening bulls kept in cubicles with soft lying mats.] KTBL-Schrift 437: 42–50.Google Scholar
Schulze Westerath, H., Mayer, C. and Bollhalder, H. 2002. Automated registration of cubicle occupation in a cubicle housing system. Bornimer Agrartechnische Berichte 29: 169–172.Google Scholar
Schulze Westerath, H., Meier, T., Gygax, L. and Mayer, C. 2004. Optimising the inclination of the lying area in cubicles for fattening bulls. Proceedings of the 38th international congress of the ISAE 2004, p. 128.Google Scholar
Schulze Westerath, H., Meier, T. and Mayer, C. 2003. [Loose housing system with cubicles as an alternative for finishing bulls.] In Bau, Technik und Umwelt in der landwirtschaftlichen Nutztierhaltung, pp. 405–408. KTBL, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Süss, M. 1994. [Housing systems for growing cattle.] KTBL-Arbeitsblatt 1096. http: //www.ktbl.de/ab/ab1096/ab1096.htmGoogle Scholar
Tucker, C. B., Weary, D. M. and Fraser, D. 2004. Free-stall dimensions: effects on preference and stall usage. Journal of Dairy Science 87: 1208–1216.Google Scholar
Veissier, I., Capdeville, J. and Delval, E. 2004. Cubicle housing systems for cattle: comfort of dairy cows depends on cubicle adjustment. Journal of Animal Science 82: 3321–3337.Google Scholar
Venables, W. N. and Ripley, B. D. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S, fourth edition. Springer, New York.Google Scholar