This study aimed to evaluate the effect of using different floor types to accommodate growing and finishing beef cattle on lameness. In all, 80 dairy origin bulls were blocked according to live weight and breed into 20 groups, and randomly allocated within groups to one of four treatments. The floor types studied were fully slatted flooring throughout the entire experimental period (CS); fully slatted flooring covered with rubber strips throughout the entire experimental period (RS); fully slatted flooring during the growing period and then moved to a solid floor covered with straw bedding during the finishing period (CS-S) and fully slatted flooring during the growing period and then moved to fully slatted flooring covered with rubber strips during the finishing period (CS-RS). The total duration of the study was 204 days. The first 101 days was defined as the growing period, with the remainder of the study defined as the finishing period. During the growing period, there was a tendency for bulls accommodated on CS to have a higher locomotion score compared with those accommodated on RS (P=0.059). However, floor type had no significant effect on locomotion score during the finishing period. There was also no significant effect of floor type on digital dermatitis during both the growing or finishing period. Floor type had no significant effect on swelling at the leg joints at the end of the finishing period. Bulls accommodated on RS had the least probability of bruised soles during both the growing and finishing period (P<0.01). Growing bulls accommodated on CS had significantly greater front heel height net growth compared with those accommodated on RS (P<0.05). However, bulls accommodated on RS had a tendency to have greater front toe net growth compared with those accommodated on CS (P=0.087). Finishing bulls accommodated on CS-RS had the greatest front toe net growth (P<0.001). Heel height net growth was greatest in bulls accommodated on CS-S (P<0.001). Floor type had no significant effect on mean maximum hoof temperature during the growing period. Finishing bulls accommodated on CS-S had a significantly lower mean maximum hoof temperature compared with those accommodated on any other floor type (P<0.001). The study concluded that rubber flooring is a suitable alternative to fully slatted flooring, reducing the prevalence of bruised soles. Despite greater toe net growth in bulls accommodated on rubber flooring, there was no effect of floor type on locomotion score, suggesting that increased toe net growth does not adversely affect walking ability. In addition, although mean maximum hoof temperature was lowest in bulls accommodated on straw bedding, there was no evidence to suggest this is indicative of improved hoof health.
The present review compared features of the UK system for predicting energy requirements in beef cattle with a number of feeding systems developed from research institutes consortiums around the world. In addition, energy requirements for maintenance calculated from studies conducted at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) in Northern Ireland since the 1990s were compared with compiled data from recent peer-review papers published over the last decade (2009–2020). The mean metabolisable energy requirement for the maintenance (MEm) of growing cattle was 0.672 MJ/kg0.75 according to values obtained from calorimetry studies conducted at AFBI. This value is respectively 8.2 and 19.5% greater than the MEm values obtained by the Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC), and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) equations, but it is in close agreement with the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) approach, when assuming a Bos taurus bull (300 kg LW) and an efficiency for converting energy for maintenance (km) of 0.65. Most of the literature data on energy requirements for the maintenance for this animal category were obtained from studies conducted with Bos indicus animals and their crossbreds in Brazilian conditions with this confirming lower requirements of these animals when compared to pure Bos taurus cattle. A simulation of the total ME requirements calculated for an Angus × Friesian steer (LW = 416 kg) offered good quality grass silage, indicated that both AFRC and NASEM systems overestimate (38.5 and 20.5%, respectively) the observed efficiency of converting ME for growth (kg). When the total ME requirements (maintenance + growth) were assessed, both systems underpredicted total ME requirement in 15.8 and 22.1 MJ/d. The mean MEm requirements for suckler cows obtained from the literature (0.596 MJ/kg0.75) is on average 19.1% greater than predictions given by both AFRC and INRA (lactation) equations when considering a 550 kg cow and a km value of 0.72. Although no differences in net energy requirements for maintenance (NEm) were detected between dry and lactating suckler cows, as expected the later displayed greater variation as a result of differences in milk production. On this regard, the INRA model recognise increased NEm requirements for lactating animals compared to dry cows. The re-evaluation of the concept of diet metabolisability and the analysis of existing data on compensatory growth responses are recommended for future updates of the British system (AFRC) having in to account the particularities of grass-based systems in the UK.
Fully slatted concrete floors are prevalent in beef cattle housing. However, concerns have been raised about welfare of cattle accommodated on slats. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of diet and floor type on the intake, performance and cleanliness of dairy-origin bulls from a mean age of 8 months to slaughter at 15.5 months old. Forty-eight bulls, which had a mean initial live weight of 212 kg (SD = 23.7), were allocated one of four treatments which consisted of two floors and two diets, arranged in a 2×2 factorial design. The floors evaluated were a fully slatted concrete floor and a fully slatted concrete floor covered with rubber; while the diets offered were either a high concentrate diet or a grass silage-based diet supplemented with concentrates. Over the entire experimental period, floor type had no significant effect on intake. Interestingly, however, when bulls were offered concentrates ad libitum, those accommodated on rubber covered slats consumed more concentrates than those accommodated on concrete slats. No effect of floor type on intake was noted when bulls were offered the grass silage supplemented with concentrate diet. There were no significant interactions between floor and diet on animal performance. Animals accommodated on rubber covered slats had a significantly better performance than those accommodated on concrete slats, as assessed by live weight at slaughter and live weight gain/day (P < 0.01) and estimated carcass gain/day (P < 0.05). The diet offered had no significant effect on animal performance. Bulls accommodated on rubber covered slats were significantly cleaner than those accommodated on concrete slats on day 97 (P < 0.001), but there was no significant effect of floor type when measured at other time points in the experiment. It is concluded from this study that diet has an important role to play in assessing bulls’ responses in performance to the effect of covering concrete slatted floors with rubber. Bulls offered a high concentrate diet had a higher concentrate intake, higher performance but a similar feed conversion ratio (FCR) when accommodated on rubber covered slats compared to those accommodated on fully concrete slatted floors. Animals offered this intensive diet were less efficient (as measured by a higher FCR) than those offered a supplemented grass silage-based diet.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of using different floor types to accommodate growing and finishing beef cattle on their performance, cleanliness, carcass characteristics and meat quality. In total, 80 dairy origin young bulls (mean initial live weight 224 kg (SD=28.4 kg)) were divided into 20 blocks with four animals each according to live weight. The total duration of the experimental period was 204 days. The first 101 days was defined as the growing period, with the remainder of the study defined as the finishing period. Cattle were randomly assigned within blocks to one of four floor type treatments, which included fully slatted flooring throughout the entire experimental period (CS); fully slatted flooring covered with rubber strips throughout the entire experimental period (RS); fully slatted flooring during the growing period and moved to a solid floor covered with straw bedding during the finishing period (CS-S) and fully slatted flooring during the growing period and moved to fully slatted flooring covered with rubber strips during the finishing period (CS-RS). Bulls were offered ad libitum grass silage supplemented with concentrates during the growing period. During the finishing period, bulls were offered concentrates supplemented with chopped barley straw. There was no significant effect of floor type on total dry matter intake (DMI), feed conversion ratio, daily live weight gain or back fat depth during the growing and finishing periods. Compared with bulls accommodated on CS, RS and CS-RS, bulls accommodated on CS-S had a significantly lower straw DMI (P<0.01). Although bulls accommodated on CS and CS-S were significantly dirtier compared with those accommodated on RS and CS-RS on days 50 (P<0.05) and 151 (P<0.01), there was no effect of floor type on the cleanliness of bulls at the end of the growing and finishing periods. There was also no significant effect of floor type on carcass characteristics or meat quality. However, bulls accommodated on CS-S had a tendency for less channel, cod and kidney fat (P=0.084) compared with those accommodated on CS, RS and CS-RS. Overall, floor type had no effect on the performance, cleanliness, carcass characteristics or meat quality of growing or finishing beef cattle.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.