Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:56:56.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the welfare challenges to out-wintered pregnant suckler cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2009

C. A. Morgan ,
K. McIlvaney ,
C. M. Dwyer  and
A. B. Lawrence
C. A. Morgan*
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
K. McIlvaney*
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
C. M. Dwyer*
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
A. B. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Out-wintering beef cows reduces annual housing costs and bedding requirements and there is less exposure to diseases associated with housing. However, to counter these benefits cows may be exposed to conditions that pose a significant challenge to welfare, and ways of assessing this are required. Two feeding treatments were applied to four groups of 10 cows (two groups/treatment), one to maintain condition score (H) and the other to allow a modest loss of condition score (L), which is commonly applied in farm practice. Cow groups were rotated around four paddocks in a Latin Square design of four periods each of 3 weeks, and they were weighed and condition was scored at the end of each period. Their behaviour and location was recorded at 30-min intervals with six 3-h sessions in each period. Ambient temperature, wind speed, rainfall and solar radiation were recorded every 30 min to enable calculation of cow lower critical temperature (LCT). The climatic conditions were wet at the start of the experiment with moderate wind speeds throughout (5 m/s) and relatively mild ambient temperature (5°C). Feeding treatment had no significant effect on any of the variables measured. Cows spent most of the observation sessions standing, particularly at the beginning of the experiment when the soil conditions were wettest. They sought sheltered locations when wind speeds were high and thus their calculated LCT was near or below ambient temperature. Nutritional models predicted periods of cold stress but the cows adapted their behaviour to counteract this, emphasising the need for a combined physical and behavioural approach to assessing welfare challenges.

Keywords

cowslower critical temperaturebehaviourwelfare
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 8 , August 2009 , pp. 1167 - 1174
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

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

Agriculture and Food Research Council 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. CAB, Slough, UK.Google Scholar
Ames, DR, Insley, LW 1975. Wind-chill effect for cattle and sheep. Journal of Animal Science 40, 161–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellows, RA, Short, RE 1978. Effects of precalving feed level on birth weight, calving difficulty and subsequent fertility. Journal of Animal Science 46, 1522–1528.Google Scholar
Bellows, RA, Short, RE, Richardson, GV 1982. Effects of sire, age of dam and gestation feed level on dystocia and postpartum reproduction. Journal of Animal Science 55, 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, KL 1962. The energy metabolism of ruminants. Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
Blaxter, KL 1977. Environmental factors and their influence on the nutrition of farm livestock. In Nutrition and the climatic environment (ed. W Haresign, H Swan and D Lewis), pp. 1–16. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Blaxter, KL, Wainman, FW 1964. The effect of increased air movement on the heat production and emission of steers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 62, 207–214.Google Scholar
Bruce, JM 1982. The effect of food level and environment on suckler cows. Animal Production 34, 395–396.Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 2005. 5 Freedoms. Retrieved June 2008, from http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htmGoogle Scholar
Fregonesi, JA, Veira, DM, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Weary, DM 2007. Effects of bedding quality on lying behaviour of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 5468–5472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, G 2006. Cattle outwintering demonstration year 2. SAC Report to Quality Meat Scotland and Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department. SAC, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Jensen, MB, Pedersen, LJ, Munksgaard, L 2005. The effect of reward duration on demand functions for rest in dairy heifers and lying requirements as measured by demand functions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90, 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, JP, Blaxter, KL, Park, C 1966. The effect of natural outdoor environments on the energy requirements of sheep. Research in Veterinary Science 7, 342–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keys, JE, Smith, LW, Weinland, BT 1976. Response of dairy cattle given a free choice of free stall location and three bedding materials. Journal of Dairy Science 59, 1157–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren, EN, Olson, BE 2006. Thermal balance of cattle grazing winter range: model application. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1238–1247.Google Scholar
Krohn, CC, Konggaard, SP 1982. Investigations concerning feed intake and social behaviour among group-fed cows under loose housing conditions. V. Cortisol level in blood as a stress indicator in dairy cows. Beretning fra Statens Husdyrbrugs forsog 531, 1–19.Google Scholar
Lawrence, AB, Appleby, MC 1996. Welfare of extensively farmed animals: principles and practice. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowman, BG, Scott, NA, Somerville, SH 1976. Condition scoring of cattle. The East of Scotland College of Agriculture, Bulletin No. 6.Google Scholar
Metz, JHM 1985. The reaction of cows to a short-term deprivation of lying. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 13, 301–307.Google Scholar
Munksgaard, L, Jensen, MB, Pedersen, L, Hansen, SW, Matthews, L 2005. Quantifying behavioural priorities – effects of time constraints on behaviour of dairy cows, Bos Taurus. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council 1981. Effect of environment on nutrient requirements of domestic animals. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
National Research Council 2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Olson, BE, Wallander, RT 2002. Influence of winter weather and shelter on activity patterns of beef cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82, 491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, HD, Thompson, R 1971. Recovery of interblock information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58, 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russel, AJF, Peart, JN, Eadie, J, MacDonald, AJ, White, IR 1979. The effect of energy intake during late pregnancy on the production from two genotypes of suckler cow. Animal Production 28, 309–327.Google Scholar
The Meteorological Office 2008. Retrieved June 2008, from http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/edinburghGoogle Scholar
The Scottish Agricultural Colleges 1978. Feeding the farm animal – beef cattle. SAC Publication No. 44.Google Scholar
Tucker, CB, Rogers, AR, Ververk, GA, Kemball, PE, Webster, JR, Matthews, LR 2007. Effects of shelter and body condition on the behaviour and physiology of dairy cattle in winter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 105, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, SP, Dwyer, CM 2007. Welfare assessment in extensive animal production systems: challenges and opportunities. Animal Welfare 16, 189–192.Google Scholar
Wanderstock, JJ, Salisbury, GW 1946. The relation of certain objective measurements to weights of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 5, 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wassmuth, R, Wallbaum, F, Langholz, HJ 1999. Outdoor wintering of suckler cows in low mountain ranges. Livestock Production Science 60, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AFJ, Chlumecky, J, Young, BA 1970. Effects of cold environments on the energy exchanges of young beef cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 50, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, JR, Stewart, M, Rogers, AR, Verkerk, GA 2008. Assessment of welfare from physiological and behavioural responses of New Zealand dairy cows exposed to cold and wet conditions. Animal Welfare 17, 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, IA, Russel, AJF 1984. Partition of fat, body composition and body condition score in mature cows. Animal Production 38, 23–32.Google Scholar