Balking Behavior in Cattle: Current Research Michelle L. Thomas PhD Student University of Arkansas Center for Food Animal Wellbeing October 17, 2012
Challenges Economics maintaining line speed Behavioral animals vs. inanimate objects Animal welfare Human factors training reinforcement auditing Environment location design
Balking behavior Previous studies 5 studies Terminology Ease of entry Stubbornness Degree of force No consistent balking score scale
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?
Facility designs Processing plants Feedlots Sale barns Farms http://www.grandin.com/design/b lueprint/commercial.plant.html
Materials and Methods 3 trials university cattle observations from weaning through processing feedlot observations processing plant observations
Breed-type predominance Based on hide color Physical characteristics Temperament generalities
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
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
Carcass Economics Processing Plant data: Dressing percentage Dark cutters University cattle Full carcass data
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
University cattle correlations; 3 observations over time W1 B1 C1 EV1 W2 B2 C2 EV2 W3 B3 C3 EV3 W1-0.26 0.97-0.31-0.30 0.92-0.26 B1 C1 0.31 0.35 0.41 EV1 0.71 0.50 W2-0.32 0.97-0.31 B2-0.29-0.33 C2 EV2 No correlation between balking, 0.68 W3 B3-0.37 0.32-0.33 C3 0.32 EV3 chute score, and exit velocity until age and weight increase Correlations at the significance level of P 0.05
Feedlots Balk score Chute score Exit velocity Weight Follow to processing plant for second balking observation and carcass info
Feedlot Observations Means for 2 Holstein groups and 1 Mexican cattle group Variable N Mean SD Min Max 90-d sort Balk 289 1.69 0.98 1.0 5.0 ~260 DOA Chute 290 1.46 0.68 1.0 4.0 EV 288 2.76 0.63 0.63 5.26 Weight 290 585.6 58.43 399.0 763.0 180-d sort Balk 268 1.51 0.96 1.0 5.0 ~350 DOA Chute 269 1.99 0.98 1.0 5.0 EV 265 2.60 0.59 0.70 4.3 Weight 266 982 69.61 650.0 1186 Mexican Balk 156 1.83 1.21 1.0 5.0 Chute 155 1.38 0.67 1.0 3.0 EV 148 3.36 0.72 1.4 5.4
Holstein Correlations Variables Balk Chute EV Weight Balk P value N -0.21 0.003 289-0.15 0.01 287 0.03 0.61 289 Chute P value N EV P value N ~ 260 days of age 0.11 0.06 288-0.06 0.27 290-0.03 0.65 288
Holstein Correlations Variables Balk Chute EV Weight Balk P value N 0.03 0.62 268 0.002 0.97 264-0.13 0.03 265 Chute P value N EV P value N ~350 days of age 0.08 0.22 265 0.10 0.11 266-0.14 0.03 263
Feedlot Correlations Variables Balk Chute EV Weight Holst Balk -0.21-0.15 260 DOA Holst 350 DOA Mex Balk Balk -0.13
2 observers Processing Plant Record color, characteristics, balking Line speed = challenge Evaluation of animal behavior, not handler Color Top line Facial markings
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).
Balk Rank High to Low Color name Abbr. n Balk score mean SE Holstein HOLS 322 2.75 a 0.14 Red-mottle face RMF 15 2.73 a 0.34 Spotted SPOT 32 2.16 ab 0.24 Yellow Y 121 2.09 ab 0.14 Red-white face RWF 84 2.01 ab 0.16 Black-white face BWF 93 1.88 b 0.15 Red R 184 1.85 b 0.11 White W 211 1.82 b 0.11 Yellow-white face YWF 31 1.82 b 0.24 Black B 1051 1.81 a 0.08 Black-mottle face BMF 65 1.81 b 0.18 Brown BRN 49 1.80 b 0.20 Brindle BRIN 50 1.79 b 0.19 Gray G 50 1.72 b 0.20 2358 ab Within a column, means without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).
No balk Rank Percentage per Balk Score Intense balk 1 2 3 4 5 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
No balk Intense balk 1 4 5 4 + 5 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
Correlations Balk Pen weight Dressing Percentage Balk -0.71 P = 0.0001 Pen weight Dressing Percentage Only 2 dark cutters out of 2375 observations
Correlations with Holsteins excluded Balk Pen weight Balk -0.49 P = 0.02 Dressing Percentage -0.58 P = 0.004 Pen weight 0.42 P =0.05 Dressing Percentage
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
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