Welfare of beef cattle

Abstract

This Scientific Opinion provides an assessment of beef cattle welfare focusing on risks related to flooring, water access, nutrition and feeding, high environmental temperatures, lack of environmental enrichment, lack of outdoor access, minimum space allowance and mixing practices. In addition, risks related to pasture and feedlots, weaning of suckler calves, mutilations (castration, disbudding, dehorning and tail docking), and to breeding practices (hypermuscularity, dystocia and caesarean sections, polledness, maternal ability and temperament) are assessed. Decision-making criteria for the euthanasia of cull cows are also addressed. A selection of animal-based measures (ABMs) suitable for collection at slaughterhouses is proposed to monitor on-farm welfare of fattening cattle. Recommendations to improve the welfare of housed fattening cattle include increasing space allowance and feeding more roughage in relation to current practice, and promoting the use of well-managed bedded solid floors. Provision of enrichment such as brushes and roughage and an outdoor loafing area for housed cattle are recommended. Cattle kept outdoors should have access to a dry lying area and sufficient shade. Water should be provided ad libitum via large open water surfaces, and the use of nipple drinkers should be avoided. Mixing of unfamiliar cattle should be avoided and groups should be kept stable. Mutilations should be abstained from, but if carried out, a combination of analgesia and anaesthesia should be applied regardless of the calf's age. Early weaning of suckler calves should be avoided (< 6 months). Homozygous double-muscled animals should be excluded from breeding. Selected ABMs for collection at slaughterhouses to monitor some of the highly relevant welfare consequences experienced by fattening cattle on farm are body condition, carcass fat levels, carcass condemnation, lung lesions and skin lesions. Key data gaps identified are thresholds for dietary fibre, ABM thresholds for fitness for transport and potential long-term effects of mutilations on pain sensitisation.

Keywords: animal‐based measures; beef cattle; indoor; mutilations; welfare.

FIGURE 1

Assumptions made on the shape of the pen and on the relationship between cattle size and pen size parameters.

FIGURE 2

Distribution of eight animals in a pen following the model assumptions, i.e. an even distribution of cattle having all the same distance between heads to their neighbours and a head‐to‐head minimum inter‐individual distance.

FIGURE 3

Beef cattle housed in a pen with concrete slatted floor covered with rubber mats (© Giulio Cozzi).

FIGURE 4

Anti‐mounting devices in a beef cattle pen (© Florian Krottenthaler).

FIGURE 5

Animal distribution and pen dimensions estimated via the behavioural model for groups of eight animals. Assuming a median distance of 4.7 m between animals and a long‐to‐short pen side ratio of 1.15, this results in a pen of ~8 × 11 m (total area of 88 m²) for a pen keeping eight animals.

FIGURE 6

Cattle on pasture (© Luc Mounier).

FIGURE 7

Fattening cattle on outwintering pads (© Teagasc).

FIGURE 8

Feedlot system in the south of Portugal (© George Stilwell).

FIGURE 9

Decision tree on cull cows to be kept for fattening.

FIGURE 10

Decision tree on cull cows. Example of a cow with a broken leg.

FIGURE 11

Decision tree on cull cows. Example of old, mildly lame (score 2 out of 5) suckler cow that the farmer does not want to breed again.

FIGURE 12

Decision tree on cull cows. Example of a dairy cow with recurrent SCC ~200,000 despite treatments.

FIGURE 13

Decision tree on cull cows. Example of a cow that is clinically well but has a positive faecal test for Johne's (Stage 2) and removal from the herd is advised by a veterinarian.

FIGURE 14

Decision tree on cull cows. Example of a lame cow (score 4 out of 5) that has not responded to treatment.

FIGURE 15

Flowchart of the process leading to the selection of the ABMs that were considered to best reflect the AW in the farm. AM, ABMs measured ante‐mortem; LS, literature search; PM, ABMs measured post‐mortem.

FIGURE E.1

Distribution of three animals in a pen following the model assumptions, i.e. an even distribution of cattle having all the same distance between heads to their neighbours and a head‐to‐head minimum inter‐individual distance.

FIGURE E.2

Estimation of the relationship between minimum inter‐individual distance and necessary m²/animal assuming a rectangular pen.

FIGURE E.3

Planimetric surface of animals denoting w (with) and l (length) of the animal.

FIGURE E.4

Distribution of three animals in a pen following the model assumptions, i.e. an even distribution of cattle having all the same distance between heads to their neighbours and a head‐to‐head minimum inter‐individual distance. The highlighted red areas represent the additional inter‐individual space required beyond the physical boundaries of the pen.

FIGURE E.5

Illustration of the spatial arrangement for an animal, occupying a minimum required circular area of diameter d _min. The configuration accounts for additional spacing between individuals, represented by the correction factor α and highlights the need for 10% extra space due to geometric packing constraints.

FIGURE E.6

Estimation of the relationship between minimum inter‐individual distance and necessary m²/animal assuming a rectangular pen and a group of three animals.

FIGURE E.7

Distribution of 14 animals in a pen following the model assumptions, i.e. an even distribution of cattle having all the same distance between heads to their neighbours and a head‐to‐head minimum inter‐individual distance.

FIGURE E.8

Estimation of the relationship between minimum inter‐individual distance and necessary m²/animal assuming a rectangular pen and a group of 14 animals.

FIGURE E.9

Distribution of 20 animals in a pen following the model assumptions, i.e. an even distribution of cattle having all the same distance between heads to their neighbours and a head‐to‐head minimum inter‐individual distance.

FIGURE E.10

Estimation of the relationship between minimum inter‐individual distance and necessary m²/animal assuming a rectangular pen and a group of 20 animals.

FIGURE E.11

Estimation of the relationship between minimum inter‐individual distance and necessary m²/animal assuming a rectangular pen and differently sized groups of animals.