Benchmarking animal handling outcomes on cow-calf operations and identifying associated factors

Abstract The assessment of animal handling is commonly included in cattle care programs. The guidelines set in the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Beef Checkoff funded Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program are often used for assessing handling on feedlot, stocker, and cow-calf operations. There is limited information about animal handling on cow-calf operations. Thus, the objectives of this study were to: (1) quantify handling outcomes on cow-calf operations and compare them to national BQA program thresholds, and (2) investigate factors associated with handling outcomes. Researchers visited 76 operations across the United States to observe the following outcomes, adapted from the BQA program, during the processing of cows or yearling heifers: Prod Use, Miscatch, Vocalization, Jump, Slip/Stumble, Fall and Run. One hundred cows or less (depending on herd size) were observed moving through a restraint system at each operation. Other information specific to the animal type, facilities, and management were also gathered to be explored as potential predictors of handling outcomes. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics on an operation basis and analyzed with multi-predictor ANOVA or Kruskal–Wallis tests to assess the relationship between outcomes and possible explanatory factors. Predictors included in the final analyses were: BQA certification (BQA), animal temperament (TEMP), region (REGION), chute style (CHUTE), and visual contact with humans (VISUAL). The 76 operations were sampled in 24 states (Central, n = 17; East, 30; West, 29), with herd sizes ranging from 10 animals to more than 5,000 animals. A total of 4,804 animals were observed. There were a substantial number of operations exceeding BQA thresholds for Prod Use (34.0%, 26), Miscatch (46.0%, 35), and Fall (31.6%, 24); the averages of these outcomes also exceeded the BQA thresholds (< 10%, 0%, and 2%, respectively). There was an association between Prod Use and several explanatory factors, including SIZE (P = 0.072), TEMP (P = 0.001), VISUAL (P = 0.027), and BQA (P = 0.104). Miscatch, Vocalization, and Fall all had single associated factors (REGION, P = 0.019; REGION, P = 0.002; VISUAL, P = 0.002, respectively). The VISUAL and TEMP factors had an association with the majority of outcomes. The findings suggest an opportunity for improving handling outcomes, which could be achieved through education and training support regarding the importance of animal handling on-farm. Future work should consider additional aspects of facilities and management that could impact cattle handling outcomes.

[1]  P. Hemsworth,et al.  Costs and Benefits of Improving Farm Animal Welfare , 2021 .

[2]  X. Boivin,et al.  The Power of a Positive Human–Animal Relationship for Animal Welfare , 2020, Frontiers in Veterinary Science.

[3]  L. Brito,et al.  Incorporating temperament traits in dairy cattle breeding programs: challenges and opportunities in the phenomics era , 2020, Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture.

[4]  P. Hemsworth,et al.  The effects of herd size on the welfare of dairy cows in a pasture-based system using animal- and resource-based indicators. , 2019, Journal of dairy science.

[5]  Ronald M. Lewis,et al.  Temperamental cattle acclimate more substantially to repeated handling , 2019, Applied Animal Behaviour Science.

[6]  T. Grandin,et al.  Survey of cow-calf producer perspectives on management strategies and industry challenges. Part 2. Marketing and selection decisions1 , 2019, Translational animal science.

[7]  T. Grandin,et al.  Survey of cow-calf producer perspectives on management strategies and industry challenges. Part 1: handling practices, and health and industry challenges , 2018, Translational animal science.

[8]  M. V. Keyserlingk,et al.  Canadian dairy cattle veterinarian perspectives on calf welfare. , 2018, Journal of dairy science.

[9]  G. Tonsor,et al.  ANIMAL WELFARE PERCEPTIONS OF THE U.S. PUBLIC AND COW-CALF PRODUCERS , 2018, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[10]  G. Coleman Public animal welfare discussions and outlooks in Australia , 2018, Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture.

[11]  D. Weary,et al.  Perspectives of farmers and veterinarians concerning dairy cattle welfare , 2018, Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture.

[12]  L. Kogan,et al.  Changes in Affective and Cognitive Empathy among Veterinary Practitioners. , 2017, Journal of veterinary medical education.

[13]  T. Grandin,et al.  Compliance of large feedyards in the northern high plains with the Beef Quality Assurance Feedyard Assessment , 2016 .

[14]  C. Tucker,et al.  Assessing cow-calf welfare. Part 1: Benchmarking beef cow health and behavior, handling; and management, facilities, and producer perspectives. , 2016, Journal of animal science.

[15]  C. Tucker,et al.  Assessing cow-calf welfare. Part 2: Risk factors for beef cow health and behavior and stockperson handling. , 2016, Journal of animal science.

[16]  R. Larson,et al.  Reproductive Systems for North American Beef Cattle Herds. , 2016, The Veterinary clinics of North America. Food animal practice.

[17]  T. Grandin,et al.  How Farm Animals React and Perceive Stressful Situations Such As Handling, Restraint, and Transport , 2015, Animals : an open access journal from MDPI.

[18]  J. Friedrich,et al.  Genetics of cattle temperament and its impact on livestock production and breeding – a review , 2015 .

[19]  M. Kujala,et al.  Empathic veterinarians score cattle pain higher. , 2014, Veterinary journal.

[20]  D. Hodgins,et al.  Factors associated with morbidity, mortality, and growth of dairy heifer calves up to 3 months of age. , 2014, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[21]  A. C. Sant’anna,et al.  Validity and feasibility of qualitative behavior assessment for the evaluation of Nellore cattle temperament , 2013 .

[22]  Richard Bennett,et al.  Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling , 2012 .

[23]  T. Grandin Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants. , 2010, Meat science.

[24]  C. Croney,et al.  Engaging science in a climate of values: tools for animal scientists tasked with addressing ethical problems. , 2010, Journal of animal science.

[25]  C. Mason,et al.  Cattle handling and welfare standards in livestock markets in the UK , 2009, The Journal of Agricultural Science.

[26]  J. Mench,et al.  Farm animal welfare in the U.S.A.: Farming practices, research, education, regulation, and assurance programs , 2008 .

[27]  K. Uetake,et al.  Compliance rate of livestock vehicles with welfare standards, and behavior of feeder cattle at loading ramp , 2008 .

[28]  Alain Boissy,et al.  Genetic correlations between temperament and breeding traits in Limousin heifers , 2006 .

[29]  D. Fraser Animal welfare assurance programs in food production: a framework for assessing the options , 2006, Animal Welfare.

[30]  C. Stull,et al.  A comparison of three animal welfare assessment programs on California dairies. , 2005, Journal of dairy science.

[31]  H. Whay,et al.  Animal welfare assessment benchmarking as a tool for health and welfare planning in organic dairy herds , 2004, Veterinary Record.

[32]  J. Rushen,et al.  Can cows discriminate people by their faces , 2001 .

[33]  H. Burrow Variances and covariances between productive and adaptive traits and temperament in a composite breed of tropical beef cattle , 2001 .

[34]  C. Galina,et al.  Some effects of repeated handling and the use of a mask on stress responses in zebu cattle during restraint. , 2001, Applied animal behaviour science.

[35]  E. Paul,et al.  Veterinary education and students' attitudes towards animal welfare , 2000, Veterinary Record.

[36]  T. Grandin Behavioral agitation during handling of cattle is persistent over time , 1993 .

[37]  T. Grandin The importance of stockmanship to maintain high standards of handling and transport of livestock and poultry. , 2019, Livestock handling and transport.

[38]  D. Weary,et al.  How benchmarking promotes farmer and veterinarian cooperation to improve calf welfare. , 2019, Journal of dairy science.

[39]  L. Edwards-Callaway Human–animal interactions: Effects, challenges, and progress , 2018 .

[40]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[41]  X. Boivin,et al.  Effect of previous stroking on reactions to a veterinary procedure: Behaviour and heart rate of dairy cows , 2010 .

[42]  T. Grandin Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines Audit Guide , 2010 .

[43]  I. Casasús,et al.  Effect of age at weaning on the physiological stress response and temperament of two beef cattle breeds. , 2009, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[44]  S. Eicher Why should I know about animal welfare audits , 2006 .

[45]  P. Hemsworth,et al.  Human-animal interactions and animal stress. , 2000 .

[46]  X. Boivin,et al.  Beef calves react differently to different handlers according to the test situation and their previous interactions with their caretaker , 1998 .

[47]  T. Grandin,et al.  Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning practices at slaughter plants. , 1998, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[48]  G. Fordyce,et al.  The measurement of temperament in cattle and the effect of experience and senotype. , 1982 .