Welfare of fattening cattle: Preliminary field-based comparison between a conditioning centre and a conventional unit

Introduction Imported fattening cattle undergo long and stressful journeys, and the housing and management practicescadopted upon arrival can impact their welfare. They may be housed in a conditioning centre—where health checks, treatments and dietary adaptation occur before transferring to a fattening unit—or directly placed in a conventional fattening unit, where acclimatation, vaccinations and treatments are performed within the pen before starting the fattening phase. Objective The study aimed to compare the welfare level of two groups of Limousine beef cattle imported from France to Italy (live weight approx. 400 kg) and housed in different farming systems: a conditioning centre (“conditioned” animals, COND) or a conventional fattening unit (CONV). Materials and methods Cattle were observed once a week for five weeks. COND animals (N=58) were housed on straw bedding in pens of 11–12 animals (5.5–6 m²/head) with one water trough. CONV animals (N=60) were housed on slatted floors in pens of 6 animals (3.5 m²/head) with two bowl drinkers per pen. Data collection included nutritional, health, behavioural and housing indicators (animal- and resource-based), assessed according to the Welfare Quality® protocol (2009). Data were analysed by ANOVA, with the pen as the experimental unit. Statistical significance was set at p=0.05. No handling or procedures were performed on the animals, and data were collected during routine farm activities by the same operator. Results All animals reached an overall satisfactory welfare level. No differences were observed for the principle of “Good Feeding,” satisfactory in both groups. COND animals scored significantly higher (p<0.01) for “Good Housing” and “Appropriate Behaviour” (72.7 vs. 55.7 and 24.1 vs. 21.2, respectively). Conversely, they scored lower for “Good Health” (50.4 vs. 78.3). For “Good Housing”, better scores in the COND group were linked to greater ease of movement and resting comfort, likely due to more space and solid flooring. For “Appropriate Behaviour”, both groups initially showed fear of humans, but COND animals improved over time, likely due to better handling (dedicated alleys, intranasal vaccination, oral treatments). Although not significant, social behaviours showed opposite trends: COND cattle improved, while CONV animals worsened. It is possible that the less comfortable slatted floors reduced agonistic interactions immediately after arrival, when animals were not yet accustomed to the flooring. Emotional state also favoured COND animals. In the absence of painful procedures or skin lesions, the lower “Good Health” score in COND animals resulted from a higher prevalence of respiratory disease, apparently incidental and unrelated to housing, as no specific factor differentiating the two systems in terms of animal health was identified. Conclusion Housing and management practices clearly influenced the welfare of beef cattle. While both systems (CONV and COND) achieved satisfactory results, the conditioned group consistently showed better outcomes in terms of comfort, human-animal relationship, and emotional state. Therefore, conditioning can be regarded as a beneficial practice for improving the welfare of imported cattle in the early rearing phase, following the stress of transport and the abrupt transition to new housing and management conditions.