This survey consisted of data collected from 23 beef harvest plants to document transportation procedures, management practices, and health assessments of market beef and dairy cows and bulls (about n ≅ 7,000 animals). Gooseneck/bumper-pulled trailers were used more often to transport dairy cattle than beef cattle to market whereas tractor-trailers were used more often to transport beef cattle than dairy cattle. All loads (n = 103) met the American Meat Institute Foundation guidelines for spacing. Loads where more than 3% of the cattle slipped during unloading were observed in 27.3% of beef loads and 29.0% of the dairy loads. Beef loads had numerically greater usage of electrical prods (32.4%) versus dairy loads (15.4%) during unloading and were more likely to have a variety of driving aids used more aggressively on them. Fewer cattle had horns, brands, and mud/manure contamination on hides than in the previous survey in 1999. The predominant hide color for beef cows was black (44.2%) whereas the predominant color for dairy cows was the Holstein pattern (92.9%). Fewer cattle displayed evidence of bovine ocular neoplasia (2.9%) than in previous surveys in 1994 (8.5%) and 1999 (4.3%). Knots on live cattle were found less in the round (0.5%) and more in the shoulder region (4.6%) than in 1999 (1.4% and 0.4%, respectively). Dairy cows were more frequently lame in 2007 (48.7%) than 1999 (39.2%) whereas beef cows had numerically less lameness (16.3% vs. 26.6%, respectively). Most beef cows (62.3%) and dairy cows (68.9%) received midpoint body condition scores (3, 4, and 5 for beef; 2 and 3 for dairy). Beef cows had higher numerical percentages of no defects present (72.0%) versus dairy cows (63.0%) when evaluated for a variety of reproductive, health, or management conditions. Continued improvements in several key factors related to transportation, management, and health were observed in this survey, which could result in increased value in market beef and dairy cows and bulls.
A survey was administered to Texas cattle feedyard employees (n = 111) from 31 different operations measuring stockperson perception, job satisfaction and socioeconomic status using Likert statements and multiple-choice questions. Differences among employment roles (manager, pen rider, processor, doctor) were evaluated using a Kruskal-Wallis test followed by a Multiple Comparison procedure. Managers more strongly agreed that “beef cattle are not dirty” than doctors (P = 0.03) and that “cattle behavior is affected by the way we treat them” than pen riders (P = 0.002) or processors (P = 0.01). Managers were less likely than doctors, pen riders, and processors to believe they have too many cattle to look after (P = 0.05, P = 0.006 and P = 0.01, respectively). Pen riders reported less confidence in performing euthanasia than doctors (P = 0.02) and managers (P = 0.02), and, along with processors, agreed that cattle were not always euthanized in a timely manner (P = 0.02 and P = 0.02, respectively). While all roles viewed Holstein cattle unfavorably (P < 0.001), processors viewed them more positively than pen riders (P = 0.05) and managers (P = 0.001). Socioeconomic results showed that Texas feedyards have a dedicated, passionate work force, with 43% of participants having worked in the industry for 9+ years and 49% of participants working at cattle feedyards because they enjoy working with animals. Unfortunately, it was evident that stockpeople are underpaid (57% of participants making between $10–15/hr) and overworked (76% of participants working 50+ hrs/wk). Survey responses identified critical role-dependent knowledge gaps and biases. A disconnect was observed among compensation, workload, and the duration of time stockpeople spend interacting with cattle. Increasing industry investment in feedyard employees and providing breed-specific and employee role-specific education may promote an encouraging workplace that ensures cattle experience good welfare.
A survey was administered to Texas cattle feedyard employees (n =111) from 31 different operations measuring stockperson perception, job satisfaction and socioeconomic status using Likert statements and multiple-choice questions. Differences among employment roles (manager, pen rider, processor (those who vaccinate and implant incoming calves), doctor (non-veterinarians)) were evaluated using a Kruskal-Wallis test followed by a Multiple Comparison procedure. Managers strongly agreed with the statement "beef cattle are not dirty" more than doctors (P = 0.03) and that "cattle behavior is affected by the way we treat them" than pen riders (P = 0.002) or processors (P = 0.01). Managers were less likely than doctors, pen riders and processors to believe they have too many cattle to look after (P = 0.05, P = 0.006 and P = 0.01, respectively). Pen riders reported less confidence in performing euthanasia than doctors (P = 0.02) and managers (P = 0.02) and, along with processors, agreed that cattle were not always euthanized in a timely manner (P = 0.02 and P = 0.02, respectively). While all roles viewed Holstein cattle unfavorably (P < 0.001), processors viewed them more positively than pen riders (P = 0.05) and managers (P = 0.001). Socioeconomic results showed that Texas feedyards have a dedicated, passionate work force, with 43% of participants having worked in the industry for 9+ years and 49% of participants working at cattle feedyards because they enjoy working with animals. Unfortunately, it was evident that stock people are underpaid (57% of participants making between $10-15/hr) and overworked (76% of participants working 50+ hrs/week). Survey responses identified critical role-dependent knowledge gaps and biases. A disconnect was observed among compensation, workload and the duration of time stock people spend interacting with cattle. Increasing industry investment in feedyard employees and providing breed-specific and employee role-specific education may promote an encouraging workplace that ensures feedlot cattle experience good welfare.
A survey was administered to Texas cattle feedyard employees (n = 111) from 31 different operations measuring stockperson perception, job satisfaction, and socioeconomic status using Likert statements and multiple-choice questions. Differences among employment roles (manager, pen rider, processor, doctor) were evaluated using a Kruskal-Wallis test followed by a Multiple Comparison procedure. Managers more strongly agreed that “beef cattle are not dirty” than doctors (P = 0.03) and that “cattle behavior is affected by the way we treat them” than pen riders (P = 0.002) or processors (P = 0.01). Managers were less likely than doctors, pen riders and processors to believe they have too many cattle to look after (P = 0.05, P = 0.006 and P = 0.01, respectively). Pen riders reported less confidence in performing euthanasia than doctors (P = 0.02) and managers (P = 0.02), and, along with processors, agreed that cattle were not always euthanized in a timely manner (P = 0.02 and P = 0.02, respectively). While all roles viewed Holstein cattle unfavorably (P < 0.001), processors viewed them more positively than pen riders (P = 0.05) and managers (P = 0.001). Socioeconomic results showed that Texas feedyards have a dedicated, passionate workforce, with 43% of participants having worked in the industry for 9+ years and 49% of participants working at cattle feedyards because they enjoy working with animals. Unfortunately, it was evident that stockpeople are underpaid (57% of participants making between $10–15/hr) and overworked (76% of participants working 50+ hrs/wk). Survey responses identified critical role-dependent knowledge gaps and biases. A disconnect was observed among compensation, workload, and the duration of time stockpeople spend interacting with cattle. Increasing industry investment in feedyard employees and providing breed-specific and employee role-specific education may promote an encouraging workplace that ensures cattle experience good welfare.
Use of remote delivery devices in non-restrained cattle has increased in the last few years, and it is unknown whether this route will result in subcutaneous delivery, appropriate drug levels, or tissue damage. The objectives were to assess the plasma disposition of labeled doses of tulathromycin, tildopirosin, and ceftiofur crystalline free acid (CCFA) delivered via dart and to determine impact on meat quality.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.