Page 163 - The Welfare of Cattle

140 the WeLfare of CattLe

from consumers and large meat buyers such as McDonald’s Corporation and Wendy’s International
(Grandin, 2000b, 2006).
A numerical scoring system developed by the author (Grandin, 1998a) made it possible to put
hard numbers on animal-handling practices. This enables people to determine if their practices
are getting better or becoming worse. Numerical scoring is now routinely used in slaughter plants,
feedlots, and ranches to evaluate handling practices (Bourquet et al., 2011; Dunn, 1990; Edge et al.,
2005; Edge and Barnett 2009; Grandin, 1998a, 1998b, 2010; NCBA, 2009; Simon et al., 2016;
Welfare Quality, 2009; Woiwode et al., 2016a). Some of the variables that are measured for beef
cattle are as follows:

• Percentage of cattle that fall during handling
• Percentage of cattle that slip or stumble
• Percentage that vocalize in a restraint device (squeeze chute)
• Percentage moved with an electric prod
• Percentage that run during handling
• Percentage that balk or turn back
• Percentage miscaught in a squeeze chute headgate

Numerical scoring of handling has also been used to evaluate handling of dairy cattle. The follow-
ing measures are used (Bertenshaw et al., 2008; Dotzi et al., 2011; Rouse et al., 2004; Waiblinger
et al. 2003).
• Percentage of cows kicking during milker attachment
• Percentage moved with aggressive handling such as slapping
• Flight zone or avoidance distance of the dairy cows from people
• Percentage of cows flinch stepping during attachment of the milker
• Percentage of cows yelled at.

traCKING IMPrOVeMeNtS IN haNDLING

When baseline scores were first collected at slaughter plants, the usage of electric prods was
high. In some places, each animal was poked more than once with an electric prod. Recent surveys
of large feedlots in Kansas, Colorado, and Nebraska indicate that the average electric prod use is on
5% or less of the cattle (Barnhardt et al., 2015; Woiwode et al., 2016a). People manage the things
that they measure. They are also motivated to change when a large customer requires it. Another
motivator is benchmarking where feedlot or meat plant managers can determine how they compare
to others. This has been effective for reducing lameness in dairy cows (VonKeyserlingk et al., 2012).
People are often motivated to be better than other producers.
Vocalization Scoring During Cattle Handling and Restraint—A high percentage of cattle
vocalizing that occurs while they are either moving through a chute (race) or held in squeeze chute
is an indicator of a severe welfare issue that must be corrected. Since this is a measure of handling,
vocalizations associated with a painful procedure such as branding, are not scored. The vocalization
score is recorded after the animal is fully restrained, before procedures are started. Vocalization
scoring is effective for identifying problems that are associated with electric prod use, excessive
pressure from a restraint device or sharp edges (Grandin, 1998a, 2001; Bourquet et al., 2011). When
handling and restraint at a packing plant or a feedlot is done well, the average vocalization score
will be 3% or less at the plant and under 2% at a feedlot (Barnhardt et al., 2015; Woiwode et al.,
2016a; Grandin, 2000a, 2005). The range in the feedlot survey was 0 to 6% of the cattle vocalizing
(Woiwode et al., 2016a). When problems start occurring, such as excessive pressure from a restraint
device or increased electric prod use, vocalization averages can rise to 23% (Grandin, 2001), 25%