Housing systems and environmental features can influence beef cattle welfare. To date, little information has been synthesized on this topic. The aim of this scoping review was to examine the relationship between housing and welfare status, so that beef cattle producers and animal scientists can make informed decisions regarding how their housing choices could impact beef cattle welfare. Housing features were categorized by floor type, space allowance and shade availability, as well as the inclusion of enrichment devices or ventilation features. Evaluation of space allowances across feedlot environments determined behavioral and production benefits when cattle were housed between 2.5 m² to 3.0 m² per animal. Over 19 different flooring types were investigated and across flooring types; straw flooring was viewed most favorably from a behavioral, production and hygiene standpoint. Veal calves experience enhanced welfare (e.g., improved behavioral, physiological, and performance metrics) when group housed. There is evidence that the implementation of progressive housing modifications (e.g., shade, environmental enrichment) could promote the behavioral welfare of feedlot cattle. This review presents the advantages and disadvantages of specific housing features on the welfare of beef cattle.

Stockpeople are the stewards of our food animals and play a critical role in agricultural sustainability. Yet, there is a disconnect between the value that is placed upon their role in animal agriculture, their compensation, and the scope of impact they can have on the animal’s productivity, public perception of animal agriculture, and animal welfare (Hemsworth and Coleman, 2011) in the United States and abroad (Table 1). The daily care, long-term health, and productivity of our food animals are the responsibility of the stockperson. Stockpeople are usually regarded as itinerant and unskilled which can result in managers making minimal investments into their development as employees, and producers are increasingly reporting difficulties in identifying qualified applicants. However, because of the critical role the stockperson plays in animal production and welfare, the human resources devoted to selecting, training, and managing these employees need to reflect modern employee management found in other occupations (Hemsworth and Coleman, 2011). Stockmanship is a representation of animal welfare itself, where the entirety of the animal, its physiological, behavioral, and emotional state is managed by their human caretaker, and thus requires a complex and deep skill set to properly implement.

The effects of 2 exercise regimes on cattle productivity, immune function, and behavior were evaluated against a control (n = 4 pens/treatment) using weaned Bos indicus–cross calves (n = 203) housed in drylots (16–18 calves/single sex pens). Three treatments were applied 3 times per week for 4 wk: 1) programmatic exercise (PRO), in which cattle and a stockperson walked in the alleyway behind their home pen for 20 min; 2) free exercise (FREE), in which cattle were moved into the drovers alley for 60 min, not exercised by a stockperson, and were allowed free access to their home pen and alleyway; and 3) control (CON), in which calves were removed from their home pen only for routine husbandry. Behavior observations were conducted on d −2 and −1 relative to treatment implementation (d 0) and on d 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, and 27. Instantaneous scan sampling was used to create behavioral profiles for cattle (posture: stand, lie, and walk; and behavior: feed, drink, and ruminate). Focal observations recorded the incidence of social behaviors (allogrooming, social play, and agonistic interactions) and animal–environment interactions (AEI; fencepost licking, rock eating, tongue rolling, and cross-suckling). Body weights, exit velocities, and antibody titers to a bovine viral diarrhea virus type 1b vaccine were measured on d −10, 10, and 28. A linear mixed model (PROC MIXED) was used to evaluate the impact of exercise treatment, sex, time, and their interactions on cattle behavior, health, and productivity. Statistical differences were not observed (P = 0.11) for overall ADG among cattle receiving FREE (1.00 kg ± 0.04) PRO (0.85 kg ± 0.04), or CON (0.86 kg ± 0.05) exercise treatments. Allogrooming (P = 0.05), lying (P < 0. 01), AEI (P < 0.01), rumination (P < 0.01), and agonistic interactions (P < 0.01) increased over time. Comfort-related behaviors (e.g., lying, rumination) increased over the evaluation period, suggesting that calves became acclimated to the environment. Exercise did not alter behaviors or vaccine response and did not reduce the performance of production-critical (e.g., feeding, resting, ruminating) behaviors. Copyright © 2017. American Society of Animal Science .

Pregnancy and parturition in all mammals is accompanied with physical, psychological, social, and hormonal shifts that impact the mother physically and psychologically. Pre-weaning piglet mortality continues to be a major welfare and economic issue in U.S. swine production, running at 12–15% with crushing by the sow the major cause. Much research has focused on farrowing environment design, yet the fact that little progress has been made emphasizes that psychosocial factors may impact rates of postpartum disorders (PPD). There is a mismatch between evolved adaptations and contemporary psychosocial and management practices. Many factors associated with the development of PPD in humans are mirrored in sows that perform piglet crushing. These factors include poor mental welfare (anxiety, difficulty coping with stress), a lack of experience, a lack of social support, and individual differences in their sensitivity to hormone concentrations. Understanding what strategies are effective in preventing PPD in humans may have welfare and production benefits for sows—and sows may be a possible model for better understanding PPD in humans.