Comparison of time budgets of growing Hereford bulls in an uninsulated barn and in extensive forest paddocks

Self Cite

This study aimed at comparing the behaviour of finishing bulls raised in an uninsulated barn (UB) and at pasture (PAS). In experiment 1, dairy bulls were housed in an uninsulated barn (two groups of five bulls, 32 m2/pen) or at pasture (groups of four and five bulls, 5000 m2/paddock). In experiment 2, Hereford bulls were housed in an uninsulated barn (three groups of four or five bulls, 32 m2/pen) or at pasture (three groups of five bulls, 5000 m2/paddock). There were no differences in drinking, social licking, butting, other social behaviour, self-licking or idling between the UB and PAS bulls. The UB bulls spent more time in lying, ruminating, oral explorative and manipulative behaviour and rubbing and less time foraging and walking than the PAS bulls. The UB bulls performed more social licking and oral manipulation of objects and less mounting than the PAS bulls. These differences resulted most probably from the different feeding regimes and different space allowances.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time budgets of finishing bulls housed in an uninsulated barn or at pasture

Tuomisto¹,

Mononen²,

Martiskainen³

et al. 2015

Self Cite

“…Although we did not have the possibility of measuring distances that the bulls travelled daily, it is obvious that the energy expenditure in the uninsulated environment was clearly higher than that in the tie-stall. The behavioural study (Tuomisto et al 2008) showed that except for walking, bulls housed in uninsulated environments used time for other energy-demanding functions such as butting which was not possible for the animals in the tie-stall. In addition, it is possible that a small part of feed that was given to the UB and PAD bulls was wasted and not consumed since the feeding rack used outdoors was not optimal and it was more difficult to recover and weigh residues outdoors than in the IB.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal performance and carcass characteristics of growing Hereford bulls under insulated, uninsulated and outdoor housing conditions in Northern Finland

Huuskonen¹,

Tuomisto²,

Joki‐Tokola³

2008

The objective of the present study was to compare the performance of Hereford bulls in an insulated tie-stall, an uninsulated barn and a forest paddock in Northern Finland (Ruukki: 64°44'N, 25°15'E). In November 1999, thirty Hereford bulls (age 6.8±0.5 (mean±SD) months; live weight (LW) 285±35 kg) were divided into six groups of five animals according to their LW and the groups were randomly allotted to one of three treatments: tie-stall in an insulated barn (IB bulls, ten animals in individual stalls), pen in an uninsulated barn (UB bulls, 5 animals per pen, two pens) and forest paddock (PAD bulls, 5 animals per paddock, two paddocks). The experiment ended in October 2000, when the bulls were 18.3±0.5 months of age and 772±51 kg LW. During the entire experiment the live weight gain (LWG) of the UB bulls was 7% higher than that of the IB bulls (1436 vs. 1339 g d -1 , p<0.05) and there was a tendency that the LWG of the PAD bulls was 6% higher than that of the IB bulls (1414 vs. 1339 g d -1 , p<0.1). Carcass gain of the UB bulls was 8% higher than that of the IB bulls (812 vs. 751 g d -1 , p<0.05). The carcass conformation score of the PAD bulls was 23% higher than that of the IB bulls (7.6 vs. 6.2 EUROP conformation, p<0.05), but there were no significant effects of treatments on the dressing proportion or carcass fat score. The dry matter and energy intakes (g/kg W 0.75 and MJ/kg W 0.75) of the IB bulls were significantly lower than those of the UB and PAD bulls during both feeding periods (winter: from 2 November 1999 to 25 April 2000, summer: from 26 April 2000 to 16 October 2000) and during the entire experiment. According to this study, finishing beef bulls can be overwintered outdoors in Northern Finland without warm housing facilities. Compared with the tie-stall system, the energy expenditure of walking and other exercise increases in outdoor housing systems, which also means increasing energy intake.

“…However, compared with the tie-stall system, the energy expenditure of walking and other exercise increases in outdoor housing systems, which means increased energy intake and reduced feed conversion rates ). Behavioural studies (Tuomisto et al 2008) have shown that the time budgets and diurnal rhythms of the bulls housed in an uninsulated barn and in forest paddocks were quite similar. It seemed that season and/or age of the bulls had a greater impact on the bulls' behaviour than the housing environment itself.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meat quality and fatty acid profile of M. longissimus dorsi of growing bulls under insulated, uninsulated and outdoor housing conditions

Huuskonen¹,

Joki‐Tokola²,

Honkavaara³

2008

The objective of the present study was to compare the colour, chemical composition, meat quality and fatty acid profile of the longissimus dorsi (LD) muscle of growing bulls housed in an insulated tie-stall, an uninsulated barn or a forest paddock. Two housing experiments were conducted at the North Ostrobothnia Research Station of MTT Agrifood Research Finland in Ruukki (64°44N, 25°15E). The first experiment was conducted from November 1999 to October 2000 and comprised 30 Hereford bulls, the second from November 2000 to December 2001 with 30 Ayrshire bulls. In both experiments the bulls were divided into six groups of five animals according to live weight and the groups were randomly allotted to one of three treatments: tie-stall in an insulated barn (IB bulls, ten animals/individual stall), uninsulated barn (UB bulls, five animals/pen, two pens) and forest paddock (PAD bulls, five animals/paddock, two paddocks). Nine carcasses from experiment 1 (three/treatment) and twelve from experiment 2 (four/treatment) were randomly selected for meat quality analyses. After slaughter, the carcasses were cooled for 24h at 2 °C and LD samples were taken by complete cross-section between the 12th and 13th ribs. The results were calculated across the two experiments and analysed as one data. There were no differences between housing environments in temperature or pH of the LD or meat moisture, fat or protein composition of the LD. Instead, the myoglobin content of the LD was 21% higher in PAD bulls than in IB bulls (p < 0.05). Between IB and UB bulls there was no difference in meat myoglobin content and there were no significant (p < 0.05) differences between housing environments in the colour of the LD. However, the muscle tended to be 6% lighter (L-value) in IB bulls than in PAD bulls (p = 0.09). There were no significant differences in shear force or sensory analysis (tenderness, juiciness, overall flavour) between treatments. The LD of the PAD bulls contained a higher proportion of 18:2 and 18:3 fatty acids compared to that of IB bulls (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the saturated fatty acid (SFA) or monounsaturated fatty acid proportions of the LD between treatments. Instead, the polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) proportion of the LD was 34% higher in PAD bulls than in IB bulls (p < 0.05). The PUFA:SFA ratio was higher in PAD bulls than in IB bulls (p < 0.05) but there was no difference in the PUFA:SFA ratio between UB and IB bulls. In conclusion, there were no important effects of housing system on the meat quality characteristics of the LD, although according to meat fatty acid profiles, outdoor housed bulls produced meat with a higher PUFA:SFA ratio than tethered bulls in an insulated barn.;