Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T04:22:51.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preferences of Housed Finishing Beef Cattle for Different Floor Types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

D E Lowe ,
R W J Steen  and
V E Beattie
D E Lowe*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Large Park, Hillsborough, County Down, Northern Ireland, BT26 6DR
R W J Steen
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Large Park, Hillsborough, County Down, Northern Ireland, BT26 6DR Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Newforge Lane, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT9 5PX The Queen’s University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT9 5PX
V E Beattie
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Large Park, Hillsborough, County Down, Northern Ireland, BT26 6DR Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Newforge Lane, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT9 5PX The Queen’s University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT9 5PX
*
†Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: denise.lowe@dardni.gov.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Six pairs of steers were allowed to choose between two types of floors in a paired choice test. The four floors tested were a fully slatted floor, a fully slatted floor covered with rubber mats, a solid floor with sawdust bedding, and a solid floor with straw bedding. All combinations of floor types were tested and the choices were repeated eight times, using naïve animals. The animals were allowed 17 days to habituate, and on days 18-21 their behaviour was recorded by video for 72 hours. Straw was the most preferred floor type, followed by sawdust, then mats, and finally slats. During a second test period, rubber mats were compared with rubber strips, and no significant preferences were found.

Keywords

animal welfarebeef cattlefloor typehousingpreference
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , November 2001 , pp. 395 - 404
Copyright
© 2001 UfAW, The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Herts ALA 8AN, UK

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

Beattie, V E, Walker, Ν and Sneddon, I A 1998 Preference testing of substrates by growing pigs. Animal Welfare 7: 27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom, H J M, van Tintelen, G, Baumans, V, van den Broek, J and Beynen, A C 1995 Development and application of a preference test system to evaluate housing conditions for laboratory rats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daelemans, J, Maton, A and Lambrecht, J 1981 The appraisal of some cubicle floors by cows. In: MacCormack, J A D (ed) Modelling, Design and Evaluation of Agricultural Buildings pp 231–235. SFBIU: Aberdeen, UKGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1990 From an animal’s point of view: motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 13: 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herlin, A H 1997 Comparison of lying area surfaces for dairy cows by preference, hygiene and lying down behaviour. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 27: 189–196Google Scholar
Irps, H 1983 Results of research projects into flooring preferences of cattle. In: Baxter, S H, Baxter, M R and MacCormack, JAD (eds) Farm Animal Housing and Welfare pp 200–215. Martin Nijhoff: Dordrecht, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Irps, H 1987 The influence of the floor on the behaviour and lameness of beef bulls. In: Wierenga, H K and Peterse, D J (eds) Cattle Housing Systems, Lameness and Behaviour pp 73–86. Martin Nijhoff: Dordrecht, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P, Recen, B and Ekesbo, I 1988 Preference of loosed housed dairy cows for two different cubicle floor coverings. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 18: 141–146Google Scholar
Lidfors, L 1989 The use of getting up and lying down movements in the evaluation of cattle environments. Veterinary Research Communications 13: 307–324CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowe, D E, Steen, R W J, Beattie, V E and Moss, B W 2001 The effects of floor type systems on the performance, cleanliness, carcass composition and meat quality of housed finishing beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 69: 33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mench, J A and Stricklin, W R 1990 Consumer demand theory and social behaviour. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 13: 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouttotou, N, Hatchell, F M and Green, L E 1999 Foot lesions in finishing pigs and their associations with the type of floor. The Veterinary Record 144: 629–632CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Natzke, R P, Bray, D R and Everett, R W 1982 Cow preference for free stall surface material. Journal of Dairy Science 65: 146–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanotra, G S, Vestergaard, K S, Agger, J F and Lawson, L G 1995 The relative preferences for feathers, straw, wood-shavings and sand for dustbathing, pecking and scratching in domestic chicks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 263–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C M 1998 Light intensity preferences of domestic male turkeys. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, H A, vanden Broek, FAR and Baumans, V 1996 Preference for different types of flooring in two rat strains. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46: 251–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierenga, H K 1987 Behavioural problems in fattening bulls. In: Schlicting, M C and Smidt, D (eds) Welfare Aspects of Housing Systems for Veal Calves and Fattening Bulls pp 105–122. Commission of the European Communities: LuxembourgGoogle Scholar