Open versus closed barn and individual versus group-housing for bull calves destined for beef production

Livestock Production Science, 37 (1994) 261-270

261

Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam

Open versus closed barn and individual versus group-housing for bull calves destined for beef production W.J.A. Hanekamp a, A.C. Smits b and H.K.

Wierenga c

aResearch Station for Cattle, Sheep and Horse Husbandry (PR), Lelystad, Netherlands blnstitute of Agricultural Engineering (IMAG-DLO), Wageningen, Netherlands CResearchInstitute for Animal Production 'Schoonoord' (IVO-DLO), Zeist, Netherlands (Accepted 28 May 1993 )

ABSTRACT A barn for rearing bull calves for beef production was divided into an open naturally ventilated part (O) and a closed-off part ventilated mechanically and with optional heating (C). Calves were kept individually (I) or in group pens (G) during the first 3 months. All calves were group-housed from 4-6 months of age. Growth rates (g/day) were respectively 671 (O), 656 (C), 677 (I), 650 (G) during the first 3 months and 991 (O) and 979 (C) during the second 3 months. However, arrears in growth were made good during the finishing period. There were no great differences in feed conversion and incidence of respiratory disorders. The mortality rates during the 6 months were 4.4% (O) and 6.3% (C). In both I and G there were 5.6% dead plus culled calves during the first 3 months. The incidence of respiratory disorders was 38.5% for I and 60.0% for G. The impact of tethering on preputial sucking was studied in the group-housed calves. Calves tethered for the first 2 weeks displayed no preputial sucking. It is concluded that calves for beef production can be reared in an open barn. Group-housing is attractive in terms of animal welfare, although it requires more farmer involvement. Key words: Calf rearing; Housing system; Preputial sucking; health

INTRODUCTION

In the Netherlands the current system for producing beef bulls involves keeping the animals indoors from start to slaughter. On specialized beef production farms, calves are bought in from various sources. They are often transported over large distances and brought together within a short period. It is commonly believed that in the first months after birth calves require an ambient temperature of 10-15 ° C and a relative humidity of 60-80% (Dechamps and Nicks, 1984). These requirements can only be met by a wellCorrespondence to."W.J.A. Hanekamp, Research Station for Cattle, Sheep and Horse Husbandry ( P R ) , Runderweg 6, 8219 P K Lelystad, the Netherlands.

0301-6226/94/$07.00 © 1994 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. SSDI 0 3 0 1 - 6 2 2 6 ( 9 3 ) E 0 0 5 7 - Y

262

W.J.A. H A N E K A M P ET AL.

insulated and mechanically ventilated closed barn, which has to be heated in cold periods. However, calves for breeding have been reared successfully in open barns (Mc Knight ( 1978 ); Smits ( 1981 ); Webster ( 1981 ); Harte et al. ( 1982); Kunz (1988) ). Van 't Ooster ( 1991 ) calculated that veal calves can be reared in naturally ventilated housing. Therefore a natural ventilation system could probably also be applied when rearing bull calves for beef production. Calves are usually started off in individual pens and transferred to group pens later (Boucque et al, 1992 ). In terms of animal welfare, group-housing from the outset is desirable because it promotes social contact and allows free movement (Metz et al, 1986). The efficacy of group-housing for veal calf production has been studied (van der Mei, 1987; Smits et al, 1991 ). Grouphoused veal calves had more diseases and a higher culling percentage than calves kept individually in pens. There were no differences in growth rate and feed conversion. Group-housed calves may develop non-feeding sucking, which may result in preputial sucking. This can impair the health of the animals. Non-feeding sucking is probably a consequence of a need to suck which is not adequately satisfied if the milk is provided in buckets (Hafez and Lineweaver, 1967 ). Various authors have found that veal calves have to be tethered for at least six weeks to prevent preputial sucking (De Wilt, 1985; Smits and Ham, 1988). In our experiments we compare the growth rate, feed intake, mortality and health of open versus closed housed beef bull calves during a rearing period of 6 months, both with individual and with group-housing during the first 3 months. The efficacy of different tethering systems was compared within the group-housed calves. MATERIAL AND METHODS

Experimental set-up From 1981 to 1985 13 batches of 80 red-and-white bull calves (MRY breed ) for beef production were bought in at intervals of 3½ months and at an age of one to two weeks. The experimental scheme is presented in Scheme 1. During the rearing period of 6 months each batch of calves was divided into two groups, one of which was kept in an open barn and the other in a closed barn. Within each barn 20 calves were kept individually and 20 calves were kept in groups during the first 3 months. Each calf was fed a total of 50 kg milk replacer in 10 weeks. The calves were bucket-fed twice daily. Water was available via drinking nipples. In the second week some hay was given and from the third week onwards calves were fed maize silage ad libitum and concentrates up to 1 kg per calf per day. After 3 months, up to an age of 6 months, all calves were kept in groups. Calves in poor condition (weight and/or health) after 3 months were removed from the experiment (cullers). During this second 3-month period the

OPEN VERSUS CLOSED BARN AND INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP-HOUSING

263

SCHEME 1 Experimental scheme for 13 batches o f 80 red-and-white bull calves ( M R Y - b r e e d ) for beef production bought in at intervals o f 3 ½ m o n t h s during 1981-1985 Period (months) 0-3

4-6 > 6-finished

Batches

System

Barn

1... 13 1... 13 1...8 1...8

building housing tethering floor

9... 13 1... 12

housing

open group x concrete + straw wooden group

1,3, 7, 9... 13

building housing

open group

individual

individual

closed group x concrete + straw wooden group open group

calves were fed maize silage ad libitum and concentrates up to 2 kg per calf per day. Batch 13 had to be kept elsewhere after the first 3 months, because the building was being altered. In total, 8 batches were finished with ad libitum maize silage and up to 3 kg of concentrates on the same experimental farm in an open barn (batches 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 ). The other calves were sold at an age of 6 months because of lack of housing capacity. Open vs. closed barn The closed barn was insulated and mechanically ventilated and could be heated up to 15 ° C in winter. The open barn had a 1.80 m high solid side wall with 0.80 m high space boarding as an inlet for ventilation below the roof. The open ridge was provided with a transparent cover. The water pipes were protected against frost by heating strips. The volume capacity was 13 m 3 per animal in the open barn, and 8 m 3 in the closed one, in concordance with practice. The side walls of the closed barn were only 2.25 m high. Individual vs. group pens During the first 3 months the calves were kept either in individual or in group pens. The individual pens were 1.65 m long and 0.65 m wide. Group pens were 2 m wide and 3 m deep, and each accommodated five animals ( 1.2 m z per animal) and had tombstone feeding barriers. Straw litter was provided in the group pens for the first 8 batches and in the individual pens in the open barn too, during cold weather. After batch 8 in the group pens the concrete slatted floors with straw bedding were replaced by wooden slats without straw.

264

W.J.A. HANEKAMP ET AL.

Tethering system During the first 8 batches the calves in the group pens were tethered for periods varying in length. The 40 group-housed animals of the first batch were not tethered from the outset. In subsequent batches different tethering systems were compared: not tethered, tethered only when feeding milk, tethered during the initial two or four weeks. From batch 9 onwards, all the calves in group pens were tethered for four weeks.

Data collection and analysis The animals were weighed every 4 weeks. During the first 3 months feed intake was measured per group of 20 calves and thereafter per pen of 10 calves. Net energy intake was expressed by the Dutch VEVI method ( 1000 VEVI = 6.9 MJ Net Energy). For the first 8 and the last 5 batches analyses of variance were made separately and jointly using the Genstat procedure (Payne and Lane, 1987 ). Batches were used as a block factor and data on average growth per pen were used; data on calves in 5 individual pens were combined. Feed intake was analyzed per group (first 3 months) or per pen (second 3 months). Incidence of respiratory disorders during the first 3 months were recorded for the first 5 batches. The number of calves that died was recorded. A binomial distribution was used for the statistical analysis of respiratory disorders and mortality rates. These two figures were expressed as a percentage of the initial number of calves per three months. Sucking of the prepuce was monitored during the first 8 batches. In the first six weeks, regular checks were made for the incidence of preputial sucking for one hour after feeding. RESULTS Statistical analysis showed no significant interactions ( P > 0.05 ) between type of building and type of housing. Therefore the results are presented per type of building and type of housing. Statistically significant differences ( P < 0.05 ) between type of building or type of housing are noted in the tables. A distinction has been made between the first and the second periods of 3 months in each type of building.

Open vs. closed barn Table 1 shows the results per type of building. Growth rate during the first 3 months was statistically significantly higher in the open barn than in the closed bam, however, feed intake was also higher although not statistically significantly. There were no differences in feed conversion. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality rate although it was statistically significantly lower in the open barn during the last batches. In total, fewer calves in the open barn died or were culled. No differences were found in incidence of respiratory disorders. During the second 3 months the growth

OPEN VERSUSCLOSEDBARNAND INDIVIDUALVERSUSGROUP-HOUSING

265

TABLE 1 Mean daily liveweight gain, feed intake, feed conversion, mortality rate and percentage of respiratory disorders per type of building Type of building

Open

Batches

1-8

0-3 months Number of calves Daily liveweight gain (g) Feed intake (VEVI) Feed conversion (kVEVl/kg growth) Mortality (%) Cullers (%) Respiratory disorders (%) ( 1 ) 4-6 months Number of calves (2) Daily liveweight gain (g) Feed intake (VEVI) Feed conversion (kVEVI/kg growth ) Mortality (%)

Closed 9-13

320 676a 671 a

208 664 857

0.99 3.4 2.2 47.5

303 983a 3801a

1.29 0.9a 3.4

159 1009 3858

3.94 2.0

3.84 1.9

Overall

528 671a 743

1-8

320 653b 645b

1.11 2.5 2.7

462 991 3822a

0.98 2.2 3.4 51.0

301 973b 3623b

3.91a 2.0

3.76 2.0

9-13

Overall

208 662 884

528 656b 737

1.34 4.7b 1.9

156 991 3787 3.83 5.7

1.12 3.2 2.9

457 979 3678b 3.78b 3.3

Different letters indicate statistically significant differences (P< 0.005 ) ( 1 ) First 5 batches (2) Excluding batch 13

TABLE 2 Mean growth rate (g/day) per building (for the 8 batches finished) Type of building

Number of calves 0-6 months 6 months to delivery 0 months to delivery

Open

Closed

307 852 1124 1055

300 836 1139 1056

rate of the calves kept in an open barn was higher, although only statistically significantly in the first 8 batches. Feed intake was statistically significantly higher and feed conversion was statistically significantly worse, especially during the first 8 batches. In an open barn mortality rate was lower, although not statistically significantly. From the results in Table 1 it can be calculated

266

W.J.A. HANEKAMP ET AL.

that mortality rate during the first 6 months was 4.4% in the open barn and 6.3% in the closed barn. Data on the growth rate of the calves which were finished on the experimental farm ( 8 batches) are presented in Table 2. Any arrears in growth during the rearing period were made good during the finishing period. Therefore from start till delivery there were no differences in growth between calves reared in an open or a closed barn. Individual vs. group-housing Table 3 shows the results per type of housing. The growth rate and feed intake of bull calves kept individually in pens were statistically significantly higher, than of calves kept in groups. Only during the first eight batches was TABLE3 Mean daily liveweight gain, feed intake, feed conversion, mortality rate and percentage of respiratory disorders per type of housing in the first three months of the rearing period Type of housing

Individual

Batches

1-8

9-13

Overall

1-8

9-13

Overall

Number Daily liveweight gain (g/day) Feed intake (VEVI) Feed conversion kVEV1/kg growth Mortality (%) Cullers (%) Respiratory disorders (%) ( 1 )

320 681a 662

200 671 890a

520 677a 750a

320 647b 655

216 655 851b

536 650b 730b

0.97a 2.5 3.4 38.5

Group

1.32 1.5 3.5a

l.l 1 2. l 3.5

1.01b 3.1 2.2 60.0

1.31 4.2 1.8b

1.13 3.5 2.1

Different letters indicate statistically significant differences (P< 0.05 ) ( 1 ) first 5 batches TABLE 4 Mean number of calves with preputial sucking by bull calves for beef production in group pens during the first 6 weeks in a one-hour period after milk feeding (per batch 40 calves; - relevant treatment during particular batch was not included in the investigations) Batch number

Treatment Never tethered Tethered during feeding Tethered during initial four weeks Tethered during initial two weeks

1

2

3

4

14

3

0

.

0

0

5

1

-

-

0 -

-

5

7

8

-

-

-

0

0

0

0

-

0

0

0

.

6

.

.

.

OPEN VERSUS CLOSED BARN AND INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP-HOUSING

267

feed conversion statistically significantly better for the calves kept individually. Group-housing always resulted in higher mortality rates but lower percentage of cullers than individual pens. Furthermore, the incidence of respiratory disorders was greater in group pens.

Tethering system The effects of different tethering periods on preputial sucking are presented in Table 4. Preputial sucking was observed in untethered calves or calves tethered only during milk feeding. No preputial sucking was observed in animals for the initial two or four weeks. DISCUSSION

Open vs. closed barn From the results of this experiment it can be concluded that bull calves destined for beef production can be reared in an open barn. Growth rate in the open barn is higher than in the closed barn but the arrears are made good during the finishing period of the bulls (Table 2 ). There is a tendency for the mortality rate to be less in the open barn than in the closed barn. Kelly et al. (1984) compared three types of open barns with a closed one. The mortality rate in the closed barn was twice that of the open barns. In an open barn climate changes occur gradually and the calves can adapt to them. Webster (1981) stated that transport of calves does not produce great stress in the calves, although it ensures that nearly all calves are infected. Therefore it may be expected that in an open barn calves also get respiratory disorders, but these are less serious and therefore the mortality rate is lower than in a closed barn (Table 1 ). This can be attributed to the better ventilation in the open barn. Groth (1988), also stressed this benefit. Individual vs. group housing The results of this experiment show that group-housing during the first 3 months is less favourable than individual pens (Table 3 ). Growth rate was lower in group pens. The same percentage of calves dropped out in individual and group pens. The incidence of respiratory disorders was higher for grouphousing. In an experiment with 3 batches of finishing veal calves on 5 working farms Van der Mei ( 1987 ) showed that there were clear indications that management could influence differences in the incidence of respiratory diseases between individual and group-housing. He concluded that the skill of the farmer seems to determine the success of group-housing. Group-housing requires even more attention from the farmer. Groth (1988) also points out the farmer's influence on the results. But in feasibility studies Kasper et al (1989) established that group-housing is more financially attractive. In an open barn a good micro-climate for the calves is important. It is es-

268

W.J.A. H A N E K A M P ET AL.

pecially important, to exclude draughts. In cold periods straw litter should be provided (Webster 1981; Groth 1988; Rawson et al, 1988).

Tethering system Preputial sucking was successfully prevented by tethering group-housed beef bull calves for at least two weeks at the outset. This is a remarkable difference compared with veal calves. Preputial sucking appeared to occur much less frequently in beef bulls than has been reported in veal calves. There are no indications that preputial sucking by beef bulls results in less liveweight gain. It might be that supplying forage and concentrates to beef bulls reduces the problem of preputial sucking. This suggests that roughage should be given immediately after the calves receive their milk, in order to distract them. Providing veal calves with straw pellets did not appear to reduce preputial sucking (Vermeer et al, 1988 ). Perhaps preputial sucking is less of a problem in red-and-white beef bulls than in black-and-white veal calves. Tethering animals to prevent preputial sucking has two disadvantages. First, it frustrates the calves' need to suck, secondly, tethering is incompatible with the principle of group-housing. From the point of view of the young beef bulls' welfare, a two-week period of tethering does not seem to be very inconvenient. Further research should be done on the options for developing an alternative method of preventing preputial sucking. REFERENCES Boucque, Ch.V., Geay Y. and Fiems L.O., 1992. Bull beef production in Western Europe. In: Beef Cattle Production. Editors: R. Jarrige and C. B6ranger, Elsevier, Amsterdam, p. 307321. Dechamps, P. and Nicks, B., 1984. Exigences climatiques et modes de logement des veaux d'6levage. Ann. M6d. V6t., 128, p. 597-614. Groth, W. 1988. Die Bedeutung der Haltungsbedingungen f/Jr die Erhaltung der Gesundheit yon K~ilbern und Ferkeln. Tier~irtz. Umschau, 43, p. 584-594. Hafez, E.S.E. and Lineweaver J.A., 1967. Suckling behaviour in natural and artificially fed neonate calves. Z. Tierpsychol. 25: 187-198. Harte, F.J. and Fallon, R.J., 1982. Effect of various environments on calf performance. In: J.P. Signoret (Editor), Welfare and husbandry of calves. Proc. CEC Seminar 9-10 July, 1981 Brussels. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, p. 196-208. Kasper, G.J., Giesen J.H.J. and Smits A.C., 1989. Veal calves in an economic perspective. Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Wageningen. Report 106, 56 pp. (in Dutch). Kelly, T.G., Dodd, V.A., Ruane, D.J., Fallon R.J. and Tuite P.J., 1984. An assessment of the influence of some housing designs and environmental factors on calf performance. J. Agri. Eng. Res., 30: 175-184. Kunz, P.L., 1988. Climatic conditions and their relation to health and performance of calves in hutch housing. In: Proc. VIth Int. Congr. Animal Hygiene. Environment and animal health 14-17 June, Skara, Sweden. p. 298-302. McKnight, D.R. 1978. Performance of newborn dairy calves in hutch housing. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 58: 517-520. Mei, J. van der 1987. Health aspects of welfare research in veal calves. In: Welfare aspects of

OPEN VERSUS CLOSED BARN AND INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP-HOUSING

269

housing systems for veal calves and fattening bulls. Editors: M.C. Schlichting and D. Smidt. CEC, EUR 10777 EN, p. 99. Metz, J.H.M., Wierenga, H.K., Grommers F.J. and Bur6 R.G., 1986. The wellbeing of cattle under practical management conditions (English summary). Werkgroep Welzijn Rundvee. Veterinaire Dienst, Ministerie van Landbouw en Visserij, Den Haag, 104 pp. Payne, R.W. and Lane., P.W., 1987. Genstat 5. Reference Manual (eds), Clarendon Press, Oxford. Ooster, van 't, A. 1991. Applicability of natural vertilation in veal-calf houses: a theoretical approach. In: New Trends for Veal Calf Production. Proc. Int. Symp. Veal Calf Production. Editors: J.H.M. Metz and C.M. Groenstein. EAAP Publication No. 52, p. 85-94. Rawson, R.E., Good, A.L., Bates, D.W., Serfass, R.C., Dziuk, H.E., Anderson J.F. and Ruth, G.R., 1988. Health of newborn calves housed in hutches in severe cold. In: Proc. the Vlth Int. C o n g . Animal Hygiene. Environment and animal health. 14-17 June, Skara, Sweden. p. 316-320. Smits, A.C. 198 I. Comparative research into open and closed houses for breeding calves. Supplementary papers CIGR Section II Seminar 1981, Aberdeen p. 28-31. Smits, A.C. and Ham P.J.M., 1988. Group housing of veal calves on commerical farms. Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Wageningen. Report 105, 40 pp. (in Dutch). Smits, A.C. and de Wilt J.G.,, 1991. Group-housing of veal calves. In: New trends in veal calf production. Proc. Int. Symp. Veal Calf Production. Editors: J.H.M. Metz and C.M. Groenstein. EAAP Publication No. 52, p. 61-66. Vermeer, H.M., Wierenga, H.K., Metz, J.H.M., Mekking P. and Smits, A.C., 1988. The use of a waterteat for the prevention of preputial sucking in veal calves. Research Institute for Animal Production "Schoonoord", Zeist, report B-323, 42 pp. Webster, A.J.F. 1981. Optimal housing criteria for ruminants. In: Environmental aspects of housing for animal production. Editor: J.A. Clark. University of Nottingham. Butterworths, London, p. 217-232. Wilt, J.G. de 1985. Behaviour and welfare of veal calves in relation to husbandry systems. Thesis Agricultural University, Wageningen, 137 pp. RI~SUMI~ W.J.A. Hanekamp, A.C. Smits et H.K. Wierenga, 1994. Stabulation ouverte vs stabulation ferm6e et logement individuel vs logement collectif de veaux m~les ~ l'engrais. Livest. Prod. Sci., 37: 261-270 (en anglais). Une 6table pour l'61evage de veaux mfiles ~ l'engrais a 6t6 divis6e en une aire ouverte a ventilation naturelle (O) et une aire couverte ~ ventilation m6canique avec chauffage d'appoint (C). Les veaux 6taient log6s en boxs individuels (I) ou en cases collectives (G) pendant les trois premiers mois. A partir de l'fige de 4 ~ 6 mois, tousles veaux 6taient log6s en groupe. Les gains de croissance (g/j) s'61evaient respectivement ~t 671 (O), 656 (C), 677 (I) et 650 (g) pendant les trois premiers mois et ~ 991 (O) et 979 (C) pendant les trois mois suivants. Les 6carts de poids se comblaient toutefois au stade de la finition. I1 n'y avaient pas de diff6rences sensibles de conversion alimentaire et d'incidence de troubles respiratoires. Sur six mois, les taux de mortalit6 s'61evaient/t 4,4% (O) et/t 6,3% (C). Dans les lots I e t G le taux de mortalit6 (y compris veaux r6form6s) repr6sentait 5,6% au cours des trois premiers mois. L'incidence de troubles respiratoires repr6sentait 38,5% pour le lot I e t 60% pour le lot G. L'effet de la mise au piquet sur la t6t6e pr6putiale a 6t6 6tudi6e. La raise au piquet des veaux pendant les deux premi6res semaines permettait d'6viter ce ph6nom6ne. La conclusion est tir6e clue le logement en bfitiment ouvert est possible pour les veaux mfiles

270

W.J.A. HANEKAMP ET AL.

/l l'engrais. Le logement collectif pr6sente des avantages au point de vue du bien-&re animal, mais exige des interventions plus fr6quentes de la part de l'61eveur. KURZFASSUNG Hanekamp, W.J.A., Smits, A.C. und Wierenga, H.K. 1994. Geschlossene St~ille im Vergleich zu Offenst~illen und Einzel- im Vergleich zu Gruppenhaltung bei for die Mast vorgesehene Bullenk~ilbern. Livest. Prod. Sci., 37:261-270 (auf englisch ). Von einem Stall ftir die Aufzucht von fiir die Mast vorgesehenen Bullenkiilbern wurde ein Teil als Offenstall mit nattirlicher Liiftung (O) und ein Teil als geschlossener Stall mit Zwangsbeliiftung und Heizm6glichkeit eingerichtet. Die Kiilber wurden in den ersten drei Monaten einzeln (I) oder in Gruppenbuchten (G) gehalten. Im Alter von vier bis sechs Monaten wurden alle Kiilber in Gruppen gehalten. Die Tageszunahmen beliefen sich in den ersten drei Monaten auf 671 g (O), 656 g (C), 677 g (I) und 650 g (G) und vom vierten bis zum sechsten Monat auf 990 g (O) und 979 g (C). RiJckst~inde im Wachstum wurden jedoch in der Endmast nachgeholt. Es gibt keine groBen Unterschiede in der Futterverwertung und im Auftreten von Krankheiten der Atmungsorgane. Die Sterberaten in den ersten sechs Monaten beliefen sich auf 4,4% (O) und 6,3% (C). In sowohl I u n d G gab es 5,6% tote und ausgemerzte Tiere. Krankheiten der Atmungsorgane kamen zu 38,5% bei I u n d zu 60,0% bei G vor. Der Effekt des Anbindens auf das Nabelsaugen wurde bei den in Gruppen gehaltenen K~ilbern untersucht. Nabelsaugen wurde nicht festgestellt bei in den ersten zwei Wochen angebundenen K~ilbern. Es wird festgestellt, dab ftir die Fleischproduktion vorgesehene K~ilber in einem Offenstall gehalten werden k6nnen. Aus der Sicht des Wohlbefindens der Tiere hat die Gruppenhaltung deutliche Vorteile, obwohl dabei die Tiere intensiver beaufsichtigt werden miissen.