Compost barn system and its influence on the environment, comfort and welfare of dairy cattle

G.L. Nepomuceno¹, D. Cecchin¹*, F.A. Damasceno², P.I.S. Amaral³, V.R. Caproni², G. Rossi⁴, G. Bambi⁴ and P.F.P Ferraz²

¹Federal Fluminense University, Department of Agricultural Engineering and Environment, Street Passo da Pátria, n. 156, Boa Viagem, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
²Federal University of Lavras, Agricultural Engineering Department, Campus Universitário, PO Box 3037, CEP 37200-000 Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brazil
³José do Rosário Vellano University, Department of Veterinary Medicine,
Rodovia MG-179 km 0, s/n - Bairro Trevo, BR 37130-000 Alfenas, Minas Gerais, Brazil
⁴University of Florence, Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry, Via San Bonaventura, IT13-50145 Firenze, Italy
*Correspondence: daianececchin@id.uff.br

Abstract:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the thermal environment on behavioral and physiological parameters of crossbred cows of different productivity levels confined in a compost barn system. For this, air temperature (T_db) and relative humidity (RH) data were measured using sensors/registers and wind speed (Vair) was recorded with the aid of an anemometer. Subsequently, these data were used to calculate the Temperature and Humidity Index (THI). Bedding material variables (pH and humidity) were also evaluated. The animals were evaluated for physiological variables (respiratory rate – RR and surface temperature – ST), scores (body condition, locomotion and dirt) and behavior. The analyses were carried out on two groups of cows (Group 1: high production vs. Group 2: medium and low production). The average pH of the bedding material was 8.5, within the recommended range. In the case of the physiological responses of the cows, the respiratory rate (RR) of Group 1 indicated better conditions of thermal comfort in the morning vs. the afternoon. The system was efficient in both groups based on body condition score, indicating favorable conditions for the health of the animals. Regarding the behavioral evaluation, Group 1 and 2 were statistically similar and had the longest rumination times, in relation to the other evaluated behaviors. Regarding active periods, medium production were the most active. Regarding idle time, low production spent more time idle than the other animals.

Key words:

animal welfare, dairy cattle, installations