Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Dec 27;15(1):44.
doi: 10.3390/ani15010044.

Brush Use in Lot-Fed Cattle Shows Continued Use and Positive Behaviour

Emma J Dunston-Clarke  1 , Catherine Stockman  2 , Josie Sinclair  2 , Teresa Collins  2
Affiliations

Brush Use in Lot-Fed Cattle Shows Continued Use and Positive Behaviour

Emma J Dunston-Clarke et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

Feedlot cattle were assessed for the consistency of enrichment brush use, higher incidence of natural behaviour, and less agonistic or abnormal behaviour compared to cattle without the brush. Cattle were assigned to one of two treatment pens, (1) access to a vertical grooming brush (EB; n = 89) or (2) no access control (CON; n = 80), for a period of 107 days. A Principal Component (PC) analysis was used on pen-side demeanour scores. Statistical analysis on pen-side behaviour and demeanour PCs tested for impact of treatment, day, and time. Frequency of brush use and the duration of each cow-brush interaction did not decrease over the assessment period. Self-grooming and allogrooming did not differ between treatments and were similar in frequency to brush grooming, resulting in total grooming being higher in the EB treatment group (p < 0.05). Cattle in the EB pen were scored as more content (PC 2; p < 0.05) and sociable (PC 3; p < 0.01), while CON cattle were scored as more anxious (PC 3; p < 0.05). Overall, this study suggests that the provision of a brush for enrichment enhanced lot-fed cattle wellbeing and permitted prolonged engagement, making it an effective enrichment device.

Keywords: affective state; cattle brush; environmental enrichment; ethogram; feedlot; temperament.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Feedlot design and brush placement and (b) vertical grooming brush (Cowscratcher Complete, Redpath 2022).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Average duration of time (minutes: seconds) cattle interacted with the enrichment brush in the EB pens during AM (0830 and 1030 h) or PM (1400 and 1600 h) timepoints on each study assessment day (±SE). Different letters indicate significant difference in time (AM or PM) and day.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Average percentage (±SE) of play behaviours of cattle per treatment during AM (0830 and 1030 h) or PM (1400 and 1600 h) timepoints. Different letters indicate significant difference for treatment × time effects.
Figure 4
Figure 4
(a) PC 2 and (b) PC 3 scores of cattle housed in pens either with environmental enrichment brush (EB; open box/circles) or without (CON; closed box/circles).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Daily maximum and minimum temperature, rainfall, and solar exposure (Mylup weather station) on study assessment days. Numbers indicate mean climate measures for the two consecutive days immediately prior to each of the study assessment days (Bunbury weather station).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

  • Welfare of beef cattle.
    EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Boklund A, Dippel S, Dorea F, Figuerola J, Herskin MS, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MA, Nannoni E, Nonno R, Riber AB, Stahl K, Stegeman JA, Thulke HH, Tuyttens F, Cozzi G, Knierim U, Martí S, Mullan S, Ashe S, Cecchinato G, Lima E, Mosbach-Schulz O, Vitali M, Zanna MB, Winckler C. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), et al. EFSA J. 2025 Jul 25;23(7):e9518. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9518. eCollection 2025 Jul. EFSA J. 2025. PMID: 40718745 Free PMC article.

References

    1. Phillips C.J.C., Wojciechowska J., Meng J., Cross N. Perceptions of the importance of different welfare issues in livestock production. Animal. 2009;3:1152–1166. doi: 10.1017/S1751731109004479. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Spain C.V., Freund D., Mohan-Gibbons H., Meadow R.G., Beacham L. Are They Buying It? United States Consumers’ Changing Attitudes toward More Humanely Raised Meat, Eggs, and Dairy. Animals. 2018;8:128. doi: 10.3390/ani8080128. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Salvin H.E., Lees A.M., Cafe L.M., Colditz I.G., Lee C. Welfare of beef cattle in Australian feedlots: A review of the risks and measures. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2020;60:1569–1590. doi: 10.1071/AN19621. - DOI
    1. Newberry R.C. Environmental enrichment: Increasing the biological relevance of captive environments. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1995;44:229–243. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(95)00616-Z. - DOI
    1. Mandel R., Whay H., Klement E., Nicol C. Invited review: Environmental enrichment of dairy cows and calves in indoor housing. J. Dairy Sci. 2016;99:1695–1715. doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-9875. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources