Page 164 - The Welfare of Cattle

oPtIMaL huMan anIMaL InteraCtIons 141

table 13.1 Maximum acceptable and excellent Scores for handling on Published Industry Guidelines
on Cattle handling in Slaughter Plants and Beef Feedlots
Falls Slip/Stumble Vocalization electric Prod Use
NaMI Slaughter Plants
excellent 0% 3% 1% 5%
acceptable 1% 5% 25%

BQa/NCBa Feedlot and ranch
excellent no excellent score
acceptable 2% 10% 10% 10%
National Cattle Feeders association Canadian Feedlot assessment
excellent no excellent score
target Less than 1% 5% 15% 10%

(Bourquet et al., 2011), and 57% (Hayes et al., 2015). Woiwode et al. (2016a) clearly showed that
feedlots could easily achieve the published cutoff points for vocalization, electric prod use, fall-
ing and stumbling. The Beef Quality Assurance Feedlot Assessment Guide allows 2% falls, 10%
electric prod use, and 5% vocalization. Simon et al. (2016) conducted a survey of 25 ranches in
California. They did numerical scoring of cattle being moved through chutes into squeeze chutes.
Average scores for vocalization and falling were similar to the feedlot surveys. Vocalization in the
squeeze chute ranged from 0 to 20% with an average score of 5.2% (Simon et al., 2016). One area
where the ranchers need to improve is reducing electric prod use. It averaged 25% of the cattle.
Cattle that vocalize during restraint have higher cortisol levels and lower average daily gain (Dunn,
1990; Hemsworth et al., 2011; Woiwode et al., 2016b) (Table 13.1).
U.S. and Canadian slaughter plants can easily comply with these limits (Grandin, 2005, 2006).
Many European plants can also comply. Plants in Mexico and Columbia need to work on improv-
ing. One plant in Colombia had a 42% electric prod score, 11% vocalization, and 8% falls (Romero
et al., 2017). The falls were due to a poorly designed 45° unloading ramp. In the stunning area of a
plant in Mexico, the vocalization score was 10%. Sixty-seven percent of the cattle were moved with
an electric prod (Minanda et al., 2012).
A kosher slaughter plant that was not audited by major customers had 47% of the cattle vocal-
izing (Hayes et al., 2015). This was probably due to both restraint equipment problems and electric
prod use. Well-run kosher plants can achieve 5% or less vocalization scores (Grandin, 2012). Taken
together, these figures show that when an abattoir has problems, the vocalization scores will clearly
reflect them.
Positive Attitude is Important—The use of numerical scoring can prevent bad welfare. To
achieve the highest level of animal welfare requires stock people who have positive attitudes and
really like animals. Coleman et al. (2014), Fukasawa et al. (2016), and Noffsinger and Locatelli
(2004) have all clearly shown that people who like animals have more productive animals. If cattle
are afraid of people, and have a large flight zone, they will have lower milk production, higher
somatic cell count or lower weight gain (Fulwider et al., 2007; Rushen et al., 1999; Waiblinger et al.,
2002). Breuer et al. (2000) found that negative handling by a stock person who yelled at cows and
hit them lowered milk production. The science is clear, good stockmanship improves both welfare
and animal performance. There is a need in animal agriculture to put the “husbandry” back into
animal science.
W.D. Mumford wrote A Tribute to the Stockman (Upson and Garrigus, 1995). A major building
at University of Illinois Animal Science Department was named after him. Dr. Mumford’s words
emphasize the art of stockmanship when he writes, “Behold the Stockman, Artist, and Artisan.”