Balking Behavior in Cattle: Current Research. Michelle L. Thomas PhD Student University of Arkansas Center for Food Animal Wellbeing October 17, 2012

Transcription

1 Balking Behavior in Cattle: Current Research Michelle L. Thomas PhD Student University of Arkansas Center for Food Animal Wellbeing October 17, 2012

2 Challenges Economics maintaining line speed Behavioral animals vs. inanimate objects Animal welfare Human factors training reinforcement auditing Environment location design

3 Balking behavior Previous studies 5 studies Terminology Ease of entry Stubbornness Degree of force No consistent balking score scale

4 Objectives Does balking behavior 1. have a breed-type predominance based on hide color? 2. differ between gender? 3. indicate temperament? 4. affect carcass economics?

5 Facility designs Processing plants Feedlots Sale barns Farms lueprint/commercial.plant.html

6 Materials and Methods 3 trials university cattle observations from weaning through processing feedlot observations processing plant observations

7 Breed-type predominance Based on hide color Physical characteristics Temperament generalities

8 Balking Score 1 = none; willing forward movement 2 = stops; then proceeds on own 3 = persuasion needed; shake of paddle/handling aid or manual tap on rump/tail area 4 = persistent balk; 2+ persuasion efforts needed to continue forward motion or 1 use of electric prod 5 = intense balk; electric prod 2 ± times required for continued forward motion Subjective; consistent observers

9 Temperament tests Chute Score-Subjective 1 = calm, no movement 2 = slightly restless 3 = squirming, occasionally shaking the squeeze chute 4 = continuous, very vigorous movement and shaking of the squeeze chute 5 = rearing, twisting of the body and struggling violently (Grandin 1993) Exit Velocity-Objective 1.83 m (distance) / time second (Burrow et al, 1988) = Faster out of chute

10 Carcass Economics Processing Plant data: Dressing percentage Dark cutters University cattle Full carcass data

11 University Cattle Weaning through processing Individuals with known breeding and genetics Balking score Chute score Exit velocity Weight Blood analyses Cortisol, prolactin, LDH, DNA markers for temperament, fear

12 University cattle correlations; 3 observations over time W1 B1 C1 EV1 W2 B2 C2 EV2 W3 B3 C3 EV3 W B1 C EV W B C2 EV2 No correlation between balking, 0.68 W3 B C EV3 chute score, and exit velocity until age and weight increase Correlations at the significance level of P 0.05

13 Feedlots Balk score Chute score Exit velocity Weight Follow to processing plant for second balking observation and carcass info

14 Feedlot Observations Means for 2 Holstein groups and 1 Mexican cattle group Variable N Mean SD Min Max 90-d sort Balk ~260 DOA Chute EV Weight d sort Balk ~350 DOA Chute EV Weight Mexican Balk Chute EV

15 Holstein Correlations Variables Balk Chute EV Weight Balk P value N Chute P value N EV P value N ~ 260 days of age

16 Holstein Correlations Variables Balk Chute EV Weight Balk P value N Chute P value N EV P value N ~350 days of age

17 Feedlot Correlations Variables Balk Chute EV Weight Holst Balk DOA Holst 350 DOA Mex Balk Balk -0.13

18 2 observers Processing Plant Record color, characteristics, balking Line speed = challenge Evaluation of animal behavior, not handler Color Top line Facial markings

19 Balk score means by sex Sex Balk score SE mean Mixed pen (n = 63) 2.4 a 0.20 Steers (n = 1341) 2.0 b 0.09 Heifers (n = 971) 2.0 b 0.09 ab Within a column, means without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).

20 Balk Rank High to Low Color name Abbr. n Balk score mean SE Holstein HOLS a 0.14 Red-mottle face RMF a 0.34 Spotted SPOT ab 0.24 Yellow Y ab 0.14 Red-white face RWF ab 0.16 Black-white face BWF b 0.15 Red R b 0.11 White W b 0.11 Yellow-white face YWF b 0.24 Black B a 0.08 Black-mottle face BMF b 0.18 Brown BRN b 0.20 Brindle BRIN b 0.19 Gray G b ab Within a column, means without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).

21 No balk Rank Percentage per Balk Score Intense balk G 78.0 SPOT 12.5 RWF 11.9 RMF 46.7 HOL 9.0 BRN 75.5 RWF 11.9 R 7.6 HOL 37.9 RMF 6.7 YWF 74.2 BMF 10.8 BWF 6.5 SPOT 28.1 Y 5.0 B 73.7 BRIN 8.0 YWF 6.5 Y 23.1 RWF 3.6 W 73.5 BWF 7.5 BRIN 6.0 BRN 22.4 B 2.3 R 69.0 Y 5.8 BMF 4.6 YWF 19.3 BWF 2.2 BWF 68.8 R 5.4 B 4.5 BRIN 18.0 G 2.0 BRIN 68.0 HOL 4.7 HOL 3.4 W 17.5 W 1.9 BMF 67.7 G 4.0 W 3.3 B 16.3 R 1.6 Y 63.6 W 3.8 SPOT 3.1 R 16.3 BMF 1.5 RWF 59.5 B 3.1 Y 2.4 G 16.0 BRIN SPOT 56.3 BRN 2.0 G BMF 15.3 BRN RMF 46.7 RMF BRN BWF 15.1 YWF HOL 45.0 YWF RMF RWF 13.1 SPOT 76.7% no prod 23.3% 1 or more prods 25 % Acceptable

22 No balk Intense balk G 78.0 RMF 46.7 HOL 9.0 HOL 46.9 BRN 75.5 HOL 37.9 RMF 6.7 RMF 53.4 YWF 74.2 SPOT 28.1 Y 5.0 Y 28.1 B 73.7 Y 23.1 RWF 3.6 SPOT 28.1 W 73.5 BRN 22.4 B 2.3 BRN 22.4 R 69.0 YWF 19.3 BWF 2.2 BWF 68.8 BRIN 18.0 G 2.0 BRIN 68.0 W 17.5 W 1.9 BMF 67.7 B 16.3 R 1.6 Y 63.6 R 16.3 BMF 1.5 RWF 59.5 G 16.0 BRIN SPOT 56.3 BMF 15.3 BRN RMF 46.7 BWF 15.1 YWF HOL 45.0 RWF 13.1 SPOT 76.7% no prod 23.3% 1 or more prods 25 % Acceptable

23 Correlations Balk Pen weight Dressing Percentage Balk P = Pen weight Dressing Percentage Only 2 dark cutters out of 2375 observations

24 Correlations with Holsteins excluded Balk Pen weight Balk P = 0.02 Dressing Percentage P = Pen weight 0.42 P =0.05 Dressing Percentage

25 Conclusions Is there a breed-type predominance effect? YES Is there a gender effect? NO Can balking behavior used as a temperament indicator? NOT REALLY Are there economic implications? YES

26 Much Gratitude Tyson Foods, Inc., Amarillo, TX Quien Sabe Feeders, Happy, TX West Texas A & M University, Canyon, TX My committee members: Dr. Yvonne Vizzier Thaxton, Center for Food Animal Wellbeing Dr. Kellye Pfalzgraf, Adjunct faculty, Tyson Foods, Inc. Dr. A. Hayden Brown, Beef Geneticist Dr. Charles Rosenkrans, Animal Physiologist