Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T11:48:36.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Positive attitudes of farmers and pen-group conservation reduce adverse reactions of bulls during transfer for slaughter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2008

L. Mounier ,
S. Colson ,
M. Roux ,
H. Dubroeucq ,
A. Boissy  and
I. Veissier
L. Mounier*
Affiliation:
UR 1213 Herbivores, Institut Nationale de Recherche Agronomique, Site de Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France Unité Gestion des élevages, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire de Lyon, 69280 Marcy-L’Etoile, France
S. Colson
Affiliation:
Unité d’Epidémiologie et Bien-Être en Aviculture et Cuniculture, Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments, Zoopôle Beaucemaine, 22440 Ploufragan, France
M. Roux
Affiliation:
Département des Productions Animales, Ecole Nationale d’Enseignement Supérieur Agronomique de Dijon D, BP 87999, 21079 Dijon Cedex, France
H. Dubroeucq
Affiliation:
UR 1213 Herbivores, Institut Nationale de Recherche Agronomique, Site de Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
A. Boissy
Affiliation:
UR 1213 Herbivores, Institut Nationale de Recherche Agronomique, Site de Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
I. Veissier
Affiliation:
UR 1213 Herbivores, Institut Nationale de Recherche Agronomique, Site de Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Transfer to slaughter may be very stressful for cattle and negatively affect their ultimate carcass pH. A potential link between farmers’ attitudes, farmers’ behaviour, responses of animals to handling and carcass pH in beef bull production was questioned. Whether carcass pH depends on experiences in handling and social mixing was analysed. We conducted a survey on commercial farms where we questioned farmers on their work and beliefs about bulls. Farmers’ behaviour with bulls during a test and bulls’ behaviour during loading in the truck for transport to the slaughterhouse were observed. The ultimate carcass pH was measured. Farmers tended to behave more gently with their bulls when they had positive attitudes towards gentle contacts with bulls (P = 0.07). The loading of bulls in the truck tended to be more difficult when the farmer was more ready to approach his bulls (P = 0.07). Carcass pH was higher for bulls that had not been transferred from a breeding to a finishing unit (P = 0.03). It tended to be higher when the farmer did not display a gentle behaviour (P = 0.09). The link between farmers’ attitudes and farmers’ behaviour and the lower meat pH resulting from a gentle farmers’ behaviour during finishing are consistent with previous findings in pig, veal or dairy productions. However, the present links were weaker than in the other productions, probably due to the low frequency of close contacts between farmers and beef bulls. When loading bulls into a truck, handlers use the tendency of animals to avoid people, hence overly positive behaviour with the animals during finishing may result in more difficulties at loading. In that case, use of alternative driving aids should be recommended. Our results on carcass pH suggest some habituation to transport among bulls transferred between breeding and finishing, even though the two experiences are several months apart. In view of our results, it seems that contacts with bulls, when they are needed, should be gentle.

Keywords

carcass pHmixingfarmer’s behaviourfinishing bullsloading
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 6 , June 2008 , pp. 894 - 901
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bayvel ACD 2004. The OIE animal welfare strategic initiative – progress, priorities and prognosis. Global conference on animal welfare: an OIE initiative. Paris, France, pp. 13–17.Google Scholar
Boissy, A, Bouissou, MF 1988. Effects of early handling on heifers’ subsequent reactivity to humans and to unfamiliar situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20, 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A, Le Neindre, P 1990. Social influences on the reactivity of heifers: implications for learning abilities in operant conditioning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25, 149–165.Google Scholar
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ 2003. The effect of positive or negative handling on the behavioural and physiological responses of nonlactating heifers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84, 3–22.Google Scholar
Broom, DM 2003. Transport stress in cattle and sheep with details of physiological, ethological and other indicators. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 110, 83–88.Google ScholarPubMed
Coleman, GJ, Hemsworth, PH, Hay, M 1998. Predicting stockperson behaviour towards pigs from attitudinal and job-related variables and empathy. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers 1991. Recommendations R (91) 7 of the Committee of Ministers to Members States on the slaughter of animals. 460th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.Google Scholar
European Commission 2002. The welfare of animals during transport (details for horses, pigs, sheep and cattle). Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. European Commission report C2.Google Scholar
European Commission 2005. Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Special eurobarometer 229. European Commission report.Google Scholar
European Commission 2007. Attitudes of EU citizens towards the welfare of farmed animals. Special eurobarometer 270. European Commission report.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M 1980. A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1979 (ed. HE Howe Jr and MM Page), pp. 65–116. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
Grandin, T 1997. Assessment of stress during handling and transport. Journal of Animal Science 75, 249–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grandin T 2007. http://www.grandin.com/behaviour/principles/prods.html. Visited the December, 20th, 2007.Google Scholar
Gregory, NG, Grandin, T 1998. Animal welfare and meat science. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH 2003. Human-animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 185–198.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL 1991. The effects of aversively handling pigs, either individually or in groups, on their behaviour, growth and corticosteroids. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 30, 61–72.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Hansen, C 1986. The influence of handling by humans on the behaviour, reproduction and corticosteroids of male and female pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15, 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Coleman, GJ, Hansen, C 1989. A study of the relationships between the attitudinal and behavioural profiles of stockpersons and the level of fear of humans and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23, 301–314.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Price, EO, Borgwardt, R 1996. Behavioural responses of domestic pigs and cattle to humans and novel stimuli. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P, Coleman, G, Barnett, J, Borg, S 2000. Relationships between human–animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 78, 2821–2831.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Hofmeyr, C, Coleman, GJ, Dowling, S, Boyce, J 2002. The effects of fear of humans and pre-slaughter handling on the meat quality of pigs. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 53.Google Scholar
Kent, JE, Ewbank, R 1983. The effect of road transportation on the blood constituents and behaviour of calves. I. Six months old. British Veterinary Journal 139, 228–235.Google Scholar
Lensink, J, Boissy, A, Veissier, I 2000a. The relationship between farmers’ attitude and behaviour towards calves, and productivity of veal units. Annales de Zootechnie: Animal Research 49, 313–327.Google Scholar
Lensink, J, Boivin, X, Pradel, P, Le Neindre, P, Veissier, I 2000b. Reducing veal calves’ reactivity to people by providing additional human contact. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1213–1218.Google Scholar
Lensink, J, Fernandez, X, Cozzi, G, Florand, L, Veissier, I 2001a. The influence of farmers’ behavior towards calves on animals’ responses to transport and quality of veal meat. Journal of Animal Science 79, 642–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensink, J, Raussi, S, Boivin, X, Pyykkonen, M, Veissier, I 2001b. Reactions of calves to handling depend on housing condition and previous experience with humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70, 187–199.Google Scholar
Mounier, L, Colson, S, Roux, M, Dubroeucq, H, Boissy, A, Ingrand, S, Veissier, I 2006a. Links between specialization in the finishing of bulls, mixing, farmers’ attitudes towards animals and the production of finishing bulls: a survey on French farms. Animal Science 82, 561–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mounier, L, Dubroeucq, H, Andanson, S, Veissier, I 2006b. Variations of meat pH of beef bulls in relation to conditions for transfer to slaughter and previous history of animals. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1567–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mounier, L, Veissier, I, Andanson, S, Delval, E, Boissy, A 2006c. Mixing at the beginning of fattening moderates social buffering in beef bulls. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raussi, S 2003. Human-cattle interactions in group housing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80, 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Taylor, AA, De Passillé, AM 1999. Domestic animals’ fear of humans and its effect on their welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 285–303.Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C, Coleman, G 2002. The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79, 195–219.Google Scholar
Warriss, PD 1990. The handling of cattle pre-slaughter and its effects on carcass and meat quality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28, 171–186.Google Scholar