TY - JOUR
AU - Honeyman, M. S.
AB - ABSTRACT The use of hoop barns as an alternative housing system for beef cattle has not been widely researched. The objectives of this study were to determine the main effects of behavior of steers 1) over winter and summer, 2) when housed in either a hoop barn or a conventional feedlot, and 3) interactions between season and housing system. A total of 960 crossbred Bos taurus steers were used [August 2006 to April 2008 (2 winter and 2 summer trials)]. Steers were housed in either 1 deep-bedded hoop barn (n = 12 pens; 4.65 m2/steer) or 1 open feedlot with shelter (n = 12 pens; 14.7 m2/steer). Steers were ear tagged, implanted, and weighed (414 ± 36 kg) on arrival and allotted to treatments that were balanced for source, BW, and hide color. Behavioral data (3 postures and 2 behaviors) were collected using a 10-min live scan. The experimental unit for behavior was a pen of steers. Behavioral data were arcsine transformed to achieve a normal distribution. There were no (P > 0.05) differences for time spent at bunk or waterer for steers between housing treatments. Steers housed in an open feedlot with shelter spent less time lying and more time standing and walking (P < 0.05) compared with steers housed in a hoop barn. There were no (P = 0.32) differences between seasons for standing. Steers spent more time at the bunk (P < 0.0001) and waterer (P < 0.0001) in the summer compared with the winter. In the winter, steers engaged in more lying (P = 0.0002) and walking (P < 0.0001). Overall, steers stood less (P = 0.006) and spent more time lying (P = 0.024) when housed in a hoop barn than in the open feedlot with shelter regardless of season. Steers housed in the open feedlot with shelter walked more (P < 0.0001) than steers housed in the hoop barn and walked more (P < 0.0001) in winter than in summer months (6 vs. 3%). There were no (P > 0.05) differences in time spent at bunk and waterer between housing systems within season, but time spent at the waterer and bunk decreased (P < 0.05) for both housing systems during the winter. In conclusion, housing 40 steers per pen in a cornstalk-bedded hoop barn at 4.65m2/steer does not result in adverse behavioral alterations and can be considered as a housing alternative for finishing steers in the Midwestern United States when compared with steers fed in an open feedlot with shelter provided. INTRODUCTION In the Midwestern United States, there are many smaller beef cattle feedlots (<2,000 head) that usually are 1 of 3 types: 1) an earthen open lot with a windbreak fence and mounds (23.2 m2 per animal), 2) open lots with a shed or shelter (2.3 m2 of shelter and 20.9 m2 of open lot per animal), or 3) traditional confinement with slatted floors (2.3 m2 per animal; Lawrence et al., 2006; Honeyman et al., 2010). However, alternative systems for housing farm animals have been investigated. One example of such a facility is the deep-bedded hoop barn (Woodbury et al., 2002; Shouse et al., 2004; Moody et al., 2006). Hoop barns are a versatile alternative housing for livestock, particularly for swine (Honeyman et al., 2001; Honeyman and Harmon, 2003; Lammers et al., 2007) and dairy cattle (Kammel, 2004). Hoop barns consist of steel arches covered with polyvinyl fabric. The arches are attached to posts or concrete sidewalls. For beef cattle feeding, the cattle are confined in the hoop barn and bedding is used to absorb animal waste. To date there is limited information evaluating behavior of steers raised for beef production and housed in a deep-bedded hoop barn (Honeyman et al., 2008). Identifying alterations in cattle behavior when housed in different finishing systems could aid cattle producers when redesigning facilities to address environmental issues, economic requirements, or well-being considerations (Overton et al., 2002). The objectives of this study were to determine the main effects of behavior of steers 1) over winter and summer, 2) when housed in either a hoop barn or conventional feedlot, and 3) interactions between season and housing system. MATERIALS AND METHODS The project was approved by the Iowa State University's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, and steers were housed in accordance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching (FASS, 1999). Farm Location The experiment was conducted at the Iowa State University Armstrong Research and Demonstration Farm near Lewis, IA, Pottawattamie County (41°19′ N, 95°10′ W) from August 2006 to April 2008 (2 winter trials defined as “December through May,” and 2 summer trials defined as “August through November”). In-building temperatures were recorded using data loggers (Hobo Pro series 2-Channel Temperature, Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, MA). A data logger was suspended 3.1 m over each pen. Temperatures (°C) were recorded every 30 min during all trials. All temperatures were averaged on a trial basis and are provided for descriptive purposes (Table 1). Long-term temperature data (30-yr average) for this location were accessed from Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM, 2009). Rainfall for the site was approximately 71 cm annually. Table 1. Temperature (mean, minimum, and maximum) for the Iowa State University Armstrong Research and Demonstration Farm near Lewis, IA Temperature,1 °C  Long term2  Trial period 2006 to 20083  Annual4  Winter5  Summer6  Winter  Summer  Avg temperature  9.6  0.0  13.3  −0.6  14.1  Avg maximum temperature  15.9  5.9  19.8  4.6  19.8  Avg minimum temperature  3.4  −5.9  6.9  −5.8  8.3  Temperature,1 °C  Long term2  Trial period 2006 to 20083  Annual4  Winter5  Summer6  Winter  Summer  Avg temperature  9.6  0.0  13.3  −0.6  14.1  Avg maximum temperature  15.9  5.9  19.8  4.6  19.8  Avg minimum temperature  3.4  −5.9  6.9  −5.8  8.3  1 All temperatures were averaged on a trial duration basis and are provided for descriptive purposes. 2 Long term refers to 30-yr averages for this location. Information accessed from the Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM) 2009. 3 In-building temperatures were recorded using data loggers (Hobo Pro series 2-Channel Temperature, Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, MA). A data logger was suspended 3.1 m over each pen. Temperatures (°C) were recorded every 30 min during the experiment. 4 Ambient daily outdoor high and low temperatures were recorded at the IEM station. 5 Winter = December through May (daily). 6 Summer = August through November (daily). View Large Table 1. Temperature (mean, minimum, and maximum) for the Iowa State University Armstrong Research and Demonstration Farm near Lewis, IA Temperature,1 °C  Long term2  Trial period 2006 to 20083  Annual4  Winter5  Summer6  Winter  Summer  Avg temperature  9.6  0.0  13.3  −0.6  14.1  Avg maximum temperature  15.9  5.9  19.8  4.6  19.8  Avg minimum temperature  3.4  −5.9  6.9  −5.8  8.3  Temperature,1 °C  Long term2  Trial period 2006 to 20083  Annual4  Winter5  Summer6  Winter  Summer  Avg temperature  9.6  0.0  13.3  −0.6  14.1  Avg maximum temperature  15.9  5.9  19.8  4.6  19.8  Avg minimum temperature  3.4  −5.9  6.9  −5.8  8.3  1 All temperatures were averaged on a trial duration basis and are provided for descriptive purposes. 2 Long term refers to 30-yr averages for this location. Information accessed from the Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM) 2009. 3 In-building temperatures were recorded using data loggers (Hobo Pro series 2-Channel Temperature, Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, MA). A data logger was suspended 3.1 m over each pen. Temperatures (°C) were recorded every 30 min during the experiment. 4 Ambient daily outdoor high and low temperatures were recorded at the IEM station. 5 Winter = December through May (daily). 6 Summer = August through November (daily). View Large Animals and Husbandry A total of 960 steers were used for these trials. Cattle were crossbred steers of predominantly Angus breed and were acquired from area livestock markets. Cattle were kept in source groups and were acclimated about 2 wk before allotment. Steers weighed approximately 414 ± 36 kg at the beginning of the trials. Cattle were balanced by source, hide color, and BW and then randomly allotted to housing system treatment (hoop barn or open feedlot with shelter) and pens within treatment. On arrival at the farm, steers were ear tagged, vaccinated with Cattle Master Gold (Pfizer Animal Health, Lafayette, IN), and implanted with Synovex Choice (Fort Dodge Animal Health, Overland Park, KS). All steers were on a natural light cycle, and farm personnel observed all steers twice daily at 0900 and 1530 h. All steers in both treatments were fed daily (between 0700 and 0800 h) in a fenceline bunk using a mixer feeder wagon with 30.5 cm of bunk/steer in both housing systems. The diet was 78% whole-shelled corn, 17% ground hay (2/3 alfalfa and 1/3 bromegrass), and 5% supplement on a DM basis. Water was added to the diet to improve mixing. The amount fed was adjusted daily by pen to approach ad libitum intake. Average temperatures for the trial period August 2006 through April 2008 did not differ markedly from the long-term (30-yr) average temperatures. For both summer and winter trials, the overall average, average maximum, and average minimum temperatures did not differ more than 1.5°C from the 30-yr averages for this location (Table 1). Housing System Treatments Two housing systems were compared: a hoop barn (n = 12 pens) with 3 pens per trial vs. an open feedlot with shelter (n = 12 pens) with 3 pens per trial. A beef cattle hoop barn (15.24 m × 36.5 m) was erected in November 2004. The hoop barn has 3.05-m sidewalls, and the height of the roof is 7.92 m. The hoop barn was oriented north-south with ends open and a fenceline bunk along the east side. During the winter/spring, large round bales were stacked 3 high across the north and south ends of the hoop barn for a partial windbreak (approx 10 m in length and 3 m in height). There was an earthen feedlot with a shelter open to the south and a fenceline bunk under roof built in 1996. The pens were 12.2 × 48.2 m, which included 7.6 m that was sheltered by roof. The facilities are described in detail by Honeyman et al. (2008). Stocking densities were 4.65 m2 per steer in the hoop barn (Shouse et al., 2004) and 2.3 m2 per steer under roof in the open lot with shelter plus 12.4 m2 per steer earthen lot area. Each pen contained 40 steers. Manure and bedding management was distinct for the 2 housing systems. The hoop barn pens were bedded weekly by placing large round bales of cornstalks on end. Bales were placed in the end of the pen away from the fenceline bunk, and cattle were allowed to spread the bedding. As described by Honeyman et al. (2008), a 6.1-m-wide concrete alley in the pens ran the length of the hoop barn along the feed bunk. The alley was scraped weekly with a tractor and loader. The scrapings were stockpiled and composted for later field application. After the cattle were marketed, the entire hoop barn bedding pack was removed. In the open feedlot with shelter system, the roofed area was bedded as needed during December through May. When pens became excessively wet, pens were cleaned and cornstalk bedding was added. During June through November, the roofed areas were dry enough not to require bedding. The unroofed pen areas were maintained as needed depending on weather conditions. When the cattle in the open feedlot with shelter were sold, the pens were scraped and manure removed. Behavioral Measures Two behaviors (head in bunk defined as the steer had its head in or immediately over the bunk, and head in waterer defined as head in the water bowl) and 3 postures (lying defined as the main body of the steer in contact with the ground, lying laterally or sternally; walking defined as the steer on all 4 legs in motion when moving within the pen; and standing defined as not moving, with all 4 legs in contact with ground, but no main body contact with the ground) were recorded. All categories were mutually exclusive. Between 0700 to 1600 h at the beginning of each month, 2 observers scanned all pens and recorded the behavior or posture of each steer every 10 min. Statistical Analysis The experiment consisted of 4 trials (2 over summer and 2 over winter) comparing 2 treatments (hoop barn vs. open feedlot with shelter). The experimental unit for all measures was a pen of steers (n = 40). All behavioral data were expressed as percentages and were subjected to an arcsine square root transformation process to achieve a normalized distribution, and normality was checked using the Means and Univariate procedures (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). Data from summer (n = 2) and winter (n = 2) trials were combined, and the statistical data were analyzed as a mixed model with repeated measures for parametric data. Season (summer and winter), treatment (hoop and feedlot), pen (n = 12 pens per treatment), and day were used in the class statement. The statistical model main plot included the variables of interest (head in bunk, head in waterer, lying, walking, and standing), and the subplot included all 2-way interactions. Pen nested within treatment was included as a random effect in the model. A value of P < 0.05 was considered significant, and differences between least squares means were established using the preplanned pairwise contrasts (PDIFF). RESULTS There were no (P > 0.05) differences for time spent at bunk or time spent at waterer for beef steers when housed in a hoop barn or open feedlot with shelter. There were differences (P < 0.05) for percentage of steers standing, lying, and walking, with steers housed in an open feedlot with shelter spending less time lying and more time standing and walking compared with steers housed in the hoop barn (Table 2). There were no (P = 0.32) differences in standing between seasons (summer and winter). There were (P < 0.05) differences for time at bunk, time at waterer, lying, and walking. Steers spent more time at the bunk (P < 0.0001) and waterer (P < 0.0001) in the summer. In the winter, steers engaged in more lying (P = 0.0002) and walking (P < 0.0001; Table 3). Steers stood less (P = 0.006) and laid more (P = 0.024) when housed in a hoop barn than the open feedlot with shelter regardless of season. Steers housed in the open feedlot with shelter walked more (P < 0.0001) than steers housed in the hoop barn and walked more in winter than summer months (6 vs. 3.5%). There were no (P > 0.05) differences in time spent at bunk and waterer between housing systems within season, but time spent at the waterer and bunk decreased over the winter compared with the summer months (Table 4). Table 2. Steer postures and behaviors least squares means (±SE) from live observations between 0700 and 1600 h Measure  Treatment1  P-value  Hoop  Feedlot  No. of pens  12  12    No. of steers  460  460    Postures,2 %         Standing  32.3 ± 1.2  39.8 ± 1.2  0.006   Lying  42.5 ± 0.3  32.7 ± 1.3  0.003   Walking  2.0 ± 0.2  4.8 ± 0.2  0.001  Behaviors,2 %         Time at bunk  22.1 ± 0.6  21.4 ± 0.6  0.66   Time at waterer  0.9 ± 0.4  1.3 ± 0.4  0.12  Measure  Treatment1  P-value  Hoop  Feedlot  No. of pens  12  12    No. of steers  460  460    Postures,2 %         Standing  32.3 ± 1.2  39.8 ± 1.2  0.006   Lying  42.5 ± 0.3  32.7 ± 1.3  0.003   Walking  2.0 ± 0.2  4.8 ± 0.2  0.001  Behaviors,2 %         Time at bunk  22.1 ± 0.6  21.4 ± 0.6  0.66   Time at waterer  0.9 ± 0.4  1.3 ± 0.4  0.12  1 Steers were housed in a deep-bedded hoop barn vs. an open feedlot with shelter at the Iowa State University Armstrong Research and Demonstration Farm, near Lewis, IA, from August 2006 to April 2008. Two housing systems were compared: a hoop barn with 3 pens (n = 12) vs. an open feedlot with shelter with 3 pens (n = 12). Stocking densities for the steers were 4.65 m2 per steer in the hoop barn (Shouse et al., 2004) and 2.3 m2 per steer under roof in the open lot with shelter plus 12.4 m2 per steer earthen lot area. 2 Two behaviors and 3 postures were recorded, and all categories were mutually exclusive. Two observers scanned all pens and recorded the behavior or posture of each steer every 10 min. Percentages presented note the total time that all steers in all pens across each housing system were engaging in these postures and behaviors between 0700 and 1600 h. View Large Table 2. Steer postures and behaviors least squares means (±SE) from live observations between 0700 and 1600 h Measure  Treatment1  P-value  Hoop  Feedlot  No. of pens  12  12    No. of steers  460  460    Postures,2 %         Standing  32.3 ± 1.2  39.8 ± 1.2  0.006   Lying  42.5 ± 0.3  32.7 ± 1.3  0.003   Walking  2.0 ± 0.2  4.8 ± 0.2  0.001  Behaviors,2 %         Time at bunk  22.1 ± 0.6  21.4 ± 0.6  0.66   Time at waterer  0.9 ± 0.4  1.3 ± 0.4  0.12  Measure  Treatment1  P-value  Hoop  Feedlot  No. of pens  12  12    No. of steers  460  460    Postures,2 %         Standing  32.3 ± 1.2  39.8 ± 1.2  0.006   Lying  42.5 ± 0.3  32.7 ± 1.3  0.003   Walking  2.0 ± 0.2  4.8 ± 0.2  0.001  Behaviors,2 %         Time at bunk  22.1 ± 0.6  21.4 ± 0.6  0.66   Time at waterer  0.9 ± 0.4  1.3 ± 0.4  0.12  1 Steers were housed in a deep-bedded hoop barn vs. an open feedlot with shelter at the Iowa State University Armstrong Research and Demonstration Farm, near Lewis, IA, from August 2006 to April 2008. Two housing systems were compared: a hoop barn with 3 pens (n = 12) vs. an open feedlot with shelter with 3 pens (n = 12). Stocking densities for the steers were 4.65 m2 per steer in the hoop barn (Shouse et al., 2004) and 2.3 m2 per steer under roof in the open lot with shelter plus 12.4 m2 per steer earthen lot area. 2 Two behaviors and 3 postures were recorded, and all categories were mutually exclusive. Two observers scanned all pens and recorded the behavior or posture of each steer every 10 min. Percentages presented note the total time that all steers in all pens across each housing system were engaging in these postures and behaviors between 0700 and 1600 h. View Large Table 3. Steer postures and behaviors least squares means (±SE) from live observations between 0700 and 1600 h over summer and winter Measure  Season1  P-value  Summer  Winter  No. of pens  12  12    No. of steers  460  460    Postures,2 %         Standing  36.3 ± 1.0  35.9 ± 1.0  0.32   Lying  34.9 ± 1.2  40.2 ± 1.2  0.0002   Walking  2.8 ± 0.2  4.0 ± 0.2  <0.0001  Behaviors,2 %         Time at bunk  24.6 ± 0.5  19.1 ± 0.5  <0.0001   Time at waterer  1.4 ± 0.1  0.8 ± 0.1  <0.0001  Measure  Season1  P-value  Summer  Winter  No. of pens  12  12    No. of steers  460  460    Postures,2 %         Standing  36.3 ± 1.0  35.9 ± 1.0  0.32   Lying  34.9 ± 1.2  40.2 ± 1.2  0.0002   Walking  2.8 ± 0.2  4.0 ± 0.2  <0.0001  Behaviors,2 %         Time at bunk  24.6 ± 0.5  19.1 ± 0.5  <0.0001   Time at waterer  1.4 ± 0.1  0.8 ± 0.1  <0.0001  1 Trials conducted at the Iowa State University Armstrong Research and Demonstration Farm, near Lewis, IA, from August 2006 to April 2008. Summer = August through November. Winter = December through May. 2 Two behaviors and 3 postures were recorded, and all categories were mutually exclusive. Two observers scanned all pens and recorded the behavior or posture of each steer every 10 min. Percentages presented note the total time that all steers in all pens across each housing system were engaging in these postures and behaviors between 0700 and 1600 h. View Large Table 3. Steer postures and behaviors least squares means (±SE) from live observations between 0700 and 1600 h over summer and winter Measure  Season1  P-value  Summer  Winter  No. of pens  12  12    No. of steers  460  460    Postures,2 %         Standing  36.3 ± 1.0  35.9 ± 1.0  0.32   Lying  34.9 ± 1.2  40.2 ± 1.2  0.0002   Walking  2.8 ± 0.2  4.0 ± 0.2  <0.0001  Behaviors,2 %         Time at bunk  24.6 ± 0.5  19.1 ± 0.5  <0.0001   Time at waterer  1.4 ± 0.1  0.8 ± 0.1  <0.0001  Measure  Season1  P-value  Summer  Winter  No. of pens  12  12    No. of steers  460  460    Postures,2 %         Standing  36.3 ± 1.0  35.9 ± 1.0  0.32   Lying  34.9 ± 1.2  40.2 ± 1.2  0.0002   Walking  2.8 ± 0.2  4.0 ± 0.2  <0.0001  Behaviors,2 %         Time at bunk  24.6 ± 0.5  19.1 ± 0.5  <0.0001   Time at waterer  1.4 ± 0.1  0.8 ± 0.1  <0.0001  1 Trials conducted at the Iowa State University Armstrong Research and Demonstration Farm, near Lewis, IA, from August 2006 to April 2008. Summer = August through November. Winter = December through May. 2 Two behaviors and 3 postures were recorded, and all categories were mutually exclusive. Two observers scanned all pens and recorded the behavior or posture of each steer every 10 min. Percentages presented note the total time that all steers in all pens across each housing system were engaging in these postures and behaviors between 0700 and 1600 h. View Large Table 4. Steer postures and behaviors least squares means (±SE) from live observations between 0700 and 1600 h over summer and winter Measure  Summer1  Winter  Season × TrtP-value  Hoop2  Feedlot2  Hoop  Feedlot  Postures, %                  Standing  32.8 ± 1.4a  39.7 ± 1.4b  31.8 ± 1.4a  40.0 ± 1.4b  0.006   Lying  38.8 ± 1.7a  31.0 ± 1.7b  46.1 ± 1.7c  34.4 ± 1.7d  0.024   Walking  2.1 ± 0.3a  3.5 ± 0.3b  1.9 ± 0.3c  6.0 ± 0.3d  <0.0001  Behaviors, %             Time at bunk  24.7 ± 0.8a  24.4 ± 0.8a  19.5 ± 0.8b  18.6 ± 0.8b  0.007   Time at waterer  1.3 ± 0.1a  1.6 ± 0.1a  0.6 ± 0.1b  0.9 ± 0.1b  0.008  Measure  Summer1  Winter  Season × TrtP-value  Hoop2  Feedlot2  Hoop  Feedlot  Postures, %                  Standing  32.8 ± 1.4a  39.7 ± 1.4b  31.8 ± 1.4a  40.0 ± 1.4b  0.006   Lying  38.8 ± 1.7a  31.0 ± 1.7b  46.1 ± 1.7c  34.4 ± 1.7d  0.024   Walking  2.1 ± 0.3a  3.5 ± 0.3b  1.9 ± 0.3c  6.0 ± 0.3d  <0.0001  Behaviors, %             Time at bunk  24.7 ± 0.8a  24.4 ± 0.8a  19.5 ± 0.8b  18.6 ± 0.8b  0.007   Time at waterer  1.3 ± 0.1a  1.6 ± 0.1a  0.6 ± 0.1b  0.9 ± 0.1b  0.008  a–d Least squares means with different superscript letters differ within a row (P ≤ 0.05). 1 Summer = August through November. Winter = December through May. 2 Steers were housed in a deep-bedded hoop barn vs. an open feedlot with shelter at the Iowa State University Armstrong Research and Demonstration Farm, near Lewis, IA, from August 2006 to April 2008. Two housing systems were compared: a hoop barn with 3 pens (n = 12) vs. an open feedlot with shelter with 3 pens (n = 12). Stocking densities for the steers were 4.65 m2 per steer in the hoop barn (Shouse et al., 2004) and 2.3 m2 per steer under a roof in the open lot with shelter plus 12.4 m2 per steer earthen lot area. View Large Table 4. Steer postures and behaviors least squares means (±SE) from live observations between 0700 and 1600 h over summer and winter Measure  Summer1  Winter  Season × TrtP-value  Hoop2  Feedlot2  Hoop  Feedlot  Postures, %                  Standing  32.8 ± 1.4a  39.7 ± 1.4b  31.8 ± 1.4a  40.0 ± 1.4b  0.006   Lying  38.8 ± 1.7a  31.0 ± 1.7b  46.1 ± 1.7c  34.4 ± 1.7d  0.024   Walking  2.1 ± 0.3a  3.5 ± 0.3b  1.9 ± 0.3c  6.0 ± 0.3d  <0.0001  Behaviors, %             Time at bunk  24.7 ± 0.8a  24.4 ± 0.8a  19.5 ± 0.8b  18.6 ± 0.8b  0.007   Time at waterer  1.3 ± 0.1a  1.6 ± 0.1a  0.6 ± 0.1b  0.9 ± 0.1b  0.008  Measure  Summer1  Winter  Season × TrtP-value  Hoop2  Feedlot2  Hoop  Feedlot  Postures, %                  Standing  32.8 ± 1.4a  39.7 ± 1.4b  31.8 ± 1.4a  40.0 ± 1.4b  0.006   Lying  38.8 ± 1.7a  31.0 ± 1.7b  46.1 ± 1.7c  34.4 ± 1.7d  0.024   Walking  2.1 ± 0.3a  3.5 ± 0.3b  1.9 ± 0.3c  6.0 ± 0.3d  <0.0001  Behaviors, %             Time at bunk  24.7 ± 0.8a  24.4 ± 0.8a  19.5 ± 0.8b  18.6 ± 0.8b  0.007   Time at waterer  1.3 ± 0.1a  1.6 ± 0.1a  0.6 ± 0.1b  0.9 ± 0.1b  0.008  a–d Least squares means with different superscript letters differ within a row (P ≤ 0.05). 1 Summer = August through November. Winter = December through May. 2 Steers were housed in a deep-bedded hoop barn vs. an open feedlot with shelter at the Iowa State University Armstrong Research and Demonstration Farm, near Lewis, IA, from August 2006 to April 2008. Two housing systems were compared: a hoop barn with 3 pens (n = 12) vs. an open feedlot with shelter with 3 pens (n = 12). Stocking densities for the steers were 4.65 m2 per steer in the hoop barn (Shouse et al., 2004) and 2.3 m2 per steer under a roof in the open lot with shelter plus 12.4 m2 per steer earthen lot area. View Large DISCUSSION Extensive research has addressed cattle behavior, performance, and overall well-being in feedlots. Areas that have been addressed include strategies to reduce heat stress (Davis et al., 2003; Mader et al., 2006), seasonal effects (Ray and Roubicek, 1971), system design (Sowell et al., 1998), and management practices within the home pen (Mitlöhner et al., 2001). The hoop barn housing system differs from the open feedlot with shelter, space allowance, bedding requirements, and the amount of shade-to-shelter ratio. These differences, may in turn affect the behavioral repertoire of steers and their ability to adapt (Fisher et al., 1997; Ruis-Heutinck et al., 2000). Access and the amount of space per animal for feed bunks and waterers are of particular importance when designing a new housing system because farm animals form social hierarchies (Bouissou, 1965; Anderson and Lindgren, 1987). When steers were initially allocated to 1 of these 2 housing systems, all animals were able to access the bunk at the same time and were provided the same amount of feed bunk space (30.5 cm/steer), which facilitated cattle feeding and drinking patterns (Mitlöhner et al., 2001). As steers grew, they were unable to access the feed bunk at the same time. Previous work in feedlots has reported that steers have already formed their hierarchy by this time, and therefore aggression around the feed bunk does not increase and overall performance is not detrimentally affected (Stricklin, 1987). In this study, steers spent more time at the waterer (1.5%) and bunk (24%) in the summer compared with winter (0.8 vs. 19%, respectively), but the housing systems within season did not differ, indicating that steers were able to access key resources in both housing systems equally. Mogensen et al. (1997) observed that wild ungulates may spend 40 to 50% of their time lying and that the event of lying is a necessary physiological function because it allows for rumination of previously ingested feedstuffs, may help to reduce lameness, and also provides rest. In agreement with Mogensen et al. (1997), steers in the hoop barn spent 43% of their time lying, but this was less for steers that had an open feedlot with shelter (33%); steers that had an open feedlot with shelter stood and walked more. These differences noted in lying, walking, and standing between housing systems may be a function of space allowance and bedding. Previous work by Hickey et al. (2003) addressed space allowance (1.5 to 4 m2/animal) and floor type (slats vs. straw) for finishing steers and reported that time spent lying was reduced at space allowances less than 2 m2/animal, but steers lay longer on straw beds compared with steers housed on slats when the space allowance was held constant at 3 m2/animal. Hoop barn steers in this study were housed at 4.65 m2; therefore, space allowance should be a critical consideration for producers thinking about implementing this system successfully. Season affected the behavioral repertoire of steers, with steers lying and walking more in the winter, but time at bunk and waterer increased in the summer. Feedlot cattle can be expected to exhibit behavioral and physiological responses to increasing temperature and relative humidity (Blackshaw and Blackshaw, 1994; Mitlöhner et al., 2001; Davis et al., 2003). Cattle will preferentially seek shade, engage in more drinking behaviors to disperse internal heat load, and shift grazing patterns if possible. Therefore, during the summer, steers may have employed 2 heat-reducing techniques; the first technique was to increase their time at the bunk (provided shade in the open feedlot with shelter system), and the second was to consume more water. It would be beneficial to consider future work on steer location, shade use, and length and number of drinking/eating patterns between seasons and across these housing systems. When comparing season within the housing system, steers in both systems lay more in the winter (46% hoops and 34% open feedlot with shelter) compared with the summer (39% hoops and 31% open feedlot with shelter), although there was a remarkable difference in their lying time budget for steers in the open feedlot compared with the hoops (36% difference). Steers in the open feedlot with shelter walked more in both the summer (3.5%) and winter (6%) compared with hoop barn steers (2%), and this may be a function of thermoregulation for steers housed in open feedlot with shelter during the colder winter months of Iowa because they have the ability to move freely around their environment and physically have more space to move, whereas steers in hoop barn are physically confined in a smaller pen. In conclusion, hoop barns with bedding where the cattle are confined inside the barn are a viable alternative housing system for feeding beef cattle. Key housing designs for the hoop barn were 1) number of steers per pen, 2) stable groups, 3) access to feed bunk at placement, and 4) a space allowance of 4.65 m2/steer. With these key factors implemented, housing steers in a hoop barn did not result in adverse behavioral alterations. Therefore, hoop barns can be considered by beef producers as a viable housing alternative for finishing steers in the Midwestern United States. LITERATURE CITED Anderson J. A. Lindgren K. 1987. Effects of restricted access to drinking at feeding and social rank on performance and behaviour of tied up dairy cows. Swed. J. Agric. Res.  17: 77– 83. Blackshaw J. K. Blackshaw A. W. 1994. Heat stress in cattle and the effect of shade on production and behaviour; a review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric.  34: 285– 295. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Bouissou M. F. 1965. Observation sur la hierarchie sociale chez les bovines domsetiques. Ann. Biol. Anim. Biochim. Biophys.  5: 327– 339. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Davis M. S. Mader T. L. Holt S. M. Parkhurst A. M. 2003. Strategies to reduce feedlot cattle heat stress: Effects on tympanic temperature. J. Anim. Sci.  81: 649– 661. [PubMed] Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  FASS 1999. Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching.  1st rev. ed. Fed. Anim. Sci. Soc., Champaign, IL. Fisher A. D. Crowe M. A. O'Kiely P. Enright W. J. 1997. Growth, behaviour, adrenal and immune responses of finishing beef heifers housed on slatted floors at 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 or 3.0 m2 space allowance. Livest. Prod. Sci.  51: 245– 254. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Hickey M. C. Earley B. Fisher A. D. 2003. The effect of floor type and space allowance on welfare indicators of finishing steers. Ir. J. Agric. Food Res.  42: 89– 100. Honeyman M. S. Busby W. D. Lonergan S. M. Johnson A. K. Maxwell D. L. Harmon J. D. Shouse S. C. 2010. Performance of beef cattle in bedded hoop barns. J. Anim. Sci.  88: 2797– 2801. [PubMed] Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Honeyman M. S. Harmon J. D. 2003. Performance of finishing pigs in hoop structure and confinement during winter and summer. J. Anim. Sci.  81: 1663– 1670. [PubMed] Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Honeyman M. S. Harmon J. D. Kliebenstein J. B. Richard T. L. 2001. Feasibility of hoop structures for market swine in Iowa: Pig performance, pig environment, and budget analysis. Appl. Eng. Agric.  17: 869– 874. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Honeyman M. S. Harmon J. D. Shouse S. C. Busby W. D. Maxwell D. L. 2008. Feasibility of bedded hoop barns for market beef cattle in Iowa: Cattle performance, bedding use, and environment. Appl. Eng. Agric.  24: 251– 256. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM) 2009. Iowa State University Department of Agronomy.  Accessed May 1, 2008. http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/agclimate/hist/dailyRequest.php. Kammel, D. 2004. Hoop barns for dairy cattle. AED 51.  MidWest Plan Service, Iowa State Univ., Ames. Lammers P. J. Honeyman M. S. Mabry J. W. Harmon J. D. 2007. Performance of gestating sows in bedded hoop barns and confinement stalls. J. Anim. Sci.  85: 1311– 1317. [PubMed] Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Lawrence, J., S. Shouse, E. Edwards, D. Loy, J. Lally, and R. Martin 2006. Beef feedlot systems manual. PM1867.  Iowa Beef Center, Iowa State Univ., Ames. Mader T. L. Davis M. S. Brown-Brandl T. 2006. Environmental factors influencing heat stress in feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci.  84: 712– 719. [PubMed] Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mitlöhner F. M. Morrow J. L. Dailey J. W. Wilson S. C. Galyean M. L. Miller M. F. Mcglone J. J. 2001. Shade and water misting effects on behavior, physiology, performance, and carcass traits of heat stressed feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci.  79: 2327– 2335. [PubMed] Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mogensen L. Krohn C. C. Sørensen J. T. Hindhede J. Nielsen L. H. 1997. Association between resting behaviour and live weight gain in dairy heifers housed in pens with differ space allowance floor type. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.  55: 11– 19. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Moody, L. B., C. Pederson, R. T. Burns, and I. Khanijo 2006. Vegetative treatment systems for open feedlot runoff: Project design and monitoring methods for five commercial beef feedlots.  Paper No. 064145, ASABE, St. Joseph, MI. Overton M. W. Sischo W. M. Temple G. D. Moore D. A. 2002. Using time-lapse video photography to assess dairy cattle lying behavior in a free-stall barn. J. Dairy Sci.  85: 2407– 2413. [PubMed] Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Ray D. E. Roubicek C. B. 1971. Behavior of feedlot cattle during two seasons. J. Anim. Sci.  33: 72– 76. [PubMed] Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Ruis-Heutinck, M., C. J. Smits, A. C. Smits, and J. J. Heeres 2000. Effects of floor type and floor area on the behaviour and carpal joint lesions in beef bulls. Pages 29– 36 in Proc. Eur. Assoc. Anim. Prod., Commission on Animal Management and Health.  H. J. Blokhuis, E. D. Ekkel, and B. Wechsler ed. Publication No. 102. Shouse, S., M. Honeyman, and J. Harmon 2004. Hoop barns for beef cattle. Agricultural Engineer's Digest. AED 50.  MidWest Plan Service. Sowell B. F. Bowman J. G. P. Branine M. E. Hubbard M. E. 1998. Radio frequency technology to measure feeding behavior and health of feedlot steers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.  59: 277– 284. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Stricklin, W. R. 1987. Some factors affecting feeding patterns of beef cattle.  Page 314 in Symposium Proc. Feed Intake by Beef Cattle.  F. N. Owens ed. Okla. Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. MP-121. Okla. State Univ., Stillwater. Woodbury B. L. Nienaber J. A. Eigenberg R. A. 2002. Operational evaluation of a passive beef cattle feedlot runoff control and treatment system. App. Eng. Agric.  18: 541– 545. Footnotes 1 This work was supported by Iowa State University Animal Science departmental funds, a USDA Special Grant, the Hatch Act, state of Iowa funds, the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa Cattlemen's Foundation, the Iowa Beef Center, the Wallace Foundation for Rural Research and Development, and personal donations of many western Iowa cattle feeders. The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of L. Sadler and R. Baker for technical assistance and K. J. Stalder (all from the Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames) for statistical guidance. American Society of Animal Science
TI - Comparison of steer behavior when housed in a deep-bedded hoop barn versus an open feedlot with shelter
JF - Journal of Animal Science
DO - 10.2527/jas.2010-2877
DA - 2011-06-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/comparison-of-steer-behavior-when-housed-in-a-deep-bedded-hoop-barn-o62CtsdEL8
SP - 1893
EP - 1898
VL - 89
IS - 6
DP - DeepDyve
ER -