Page 174 - The Welfare of Cattle

PrInCIPLes of handLInG faCILItY desIGn 151

before the pens are built. Cutting costs on dirt work and grading will result in a muddy feedlot
that does not drain. The pens should have a 2% to 3% slope away from the feedbunk (Mader and
Griffin, 2015).

BeeF CattLe FeD ON CONCrete Get SWOLLeN JOINtS

In the 1970s numerous companies built indoor beef cattle feedlots with floors constructed from
concrete slats. Many of these facilities are now abandoned because the cattle got swollen joints
from laying on the concrete slats. The author observed that if the cattle gain more than 400 lbs. on
the concrete floor, their joints became swollen. Today there are some producers who are going back
to these same types of facilities. Today one of the reasons people are going back to slatted floor
barns is to bring the cattle closer to large sources of wet distiller’s grain from corn ethanol plants.
Compared to dry kernel corn, this product is more expensive to ship to feedlots located in the drier
high plains. The problems the author observed with swollen joints in the 1970s are now appearing
on cattle housed in new concrete slatted floor facilities. Wagner (2016) has documented problems
with swollen joints. Installation of rubber mats slows down the development of swollen joints, but it
does not eliminate them. In the Midwest, some producers are housing beef cattle raised indoors on
a bedded pack. When this is done correctly, it results in clean cattle with no leg injuries. The main
problem that may occur with a bedded pack is failure to use sufficient straw, chopped cornstalks, or
other bedding materials to keep the animals clean.

aNIMaL-BaSeD OUtCOMe MeaSUre tO MONItOr
PrOBLeMS WIth hOUSING Or MaNaGeMeNt

To maintain standards for acceptable welfare, animals should be scored on the following
critical control points. Each bovine is scored with a numerical scale on the following variables: (1)
lameness (NAMI, 2015; Von Keyserlingk, et al., 2012; Zinpro, 2016), (2) body condition (Elanco,
2009; Wildman et al., 1982, Ferguson et al., 1994), (3) cleanliness (hygiene) (McKeith et al., 2015),
(4) swollen joints, and hock lesions (Fulwider et al., 2007), (5) coat condition, and (6) signs of heat
stress, such as open mouth panting (Gaughan et al., 2008; Mader and Griffin, 2015). Assessment
tools for scoring each one of these critical control points are readily available (Grandin, 2015;
Welfare Quality, 2009). There is often a big difference between the best and the worst producers
on lameness and hock lesions. For example, in high- producing dairies, the best producers had 2.8%
lame cows and the worst was 36% (Cook et al., 2016). A big advantage of scoring is that it enables
a producer to determine if they are getting better or becoming worse. There is also evidence that
benchmarking can help motivate producers to improve (von Keyserlingk, et al. 2012). When they
see how they rank compared to others, they are motivated to improve.
Providing a soft surface to lie on will help prevent lameness in dairy cows (Devries et al., 2015).
Fulwider et al. (2007) found that good management of the bedding surface helped reduce swollen
hocks. Dairy cattle kept in dirty free stalls are more likely to have hock lesions. Dirty cows also
have higher somatic cell count (Reneau et al, 2005).

DeSIGN OF BeeF CattLe haNDLING FaCILItIeS

There are two approaches to the design of facilities for handling beef cattle for veterinary work.
A facility can be built that is really economical, but it will require higher stockmanship skill to
handle cattle both effectively and safely. The alternative is more elaborate and expensive facility