No abstract

Animals are subjected to various events that cause physical exhaustion and psychological stress during transfer to slaughter. This can lead to defective meat quality. Some animals may be better able to withstand the stress of transfer, depending on their previous experience of transport and on their finishing conditions (mixing, farmers' attitudes). The objective of this study was to assess the impact of 1) the conditions of transfer to slaughter (including duration of the journey, waiting time at lairage, etc.); and 2) the bulls' previous history (including experience in transport, mixing during finishing, and the farmers' attitudes) on the reactions of bulls to transfer and on their meat quality. We conducted a survey in commercial conditions. The history of the bulls and the facilities on the farms were noted; farmers were questioned on their attitudes; the bulls' reactions to loading into and unloading from the truck were observed; journey-related data were collected; and cortisol concentration at slaughter and the pH of the LM and the rectus abdominis were measured. Our study confirmed that certain physical factors associated with transport can increase stress and limit the decline of meat pH. These factors include the absence of loading facilities on the farm, transport on a warm day, or a short waiting time at lairage. Social aspects also played a role; the presence of bulls from the same finishing group limited stress and improved the pH decline. Events and management before transfer were also of importance; the farmer awareness of the sensitivity of bulls to humans or to feeding schedules but the absence of a positive attitude toward close contacts with bulls were all likely to limit stress or its consequences on meat pH. Although these results need to be confirmed in controlled experiments, they suggest that good management of beef bulls before and during transfer is essential to meat quality.

Because of welfare concerns and increased labor efficiency, calves are increasingly housed in groups. To reduce variability in live weight within groups, farmers frequently regroup calves according to growth rate. We assessed the consequences of repeated regrouping and relocation on the welfare of 32 male Holstein calves housed in pairs. Animals of half of the pairs (regrouped calves) were placed in a new pen with a new partner once a week for 14 wk. Animals of the other half of the pairs (control calves) stayed in the same pen with the same partner. Behavior was observed for the 3 h following four mixings and for 24 h after all relocations were finished. The functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and of the sympathetic nervous system were assessed. Calves were weighed once a week, their health was assessed daily, and abomasa were inspected when the calves were slaughtered. Calves reacted to the first mixing by interacting with the new partner and increasing their general activity (sniffing the partner in regrouped calves vs controls: 5.5 vs 2.9, P < 0.01; percentage time stepping: 3.2 vs 1.3, P < 0.001). This effect disappeared by the ninth mixing. After all relocations were completed, regrouped calves were more active at the end of the day and less active at night (P < 0.05). Cortisol responses to exogenous ACTH were higher in regrouped calves (integrated response: 6,688 vs 5,508 ng x min/mL, P < 0.01). Basal cortisol levels, ACTH responses to corticotropin-releasing hormone, activities of catecholamine-synthesizing enzymes (tyrosine hydroxylase and phenylethanolamine N-methyl transferase), and the incidence of health problems and growth rates did not differ between the two groups. Regrouped calves had fewer abomasal ulcers. Apart from the increased sensitivity of the adrenal cortex of regrouped calves to ACTH and the modification in the daily rhythm of activity, there was no clear evidence that repeated regrouping and relocation stresses calves. Aggression between calves was rare, and calves seemed to habituate to repeated mixing.

Under temperate climates, cattle are often at pasture in summer and are not necessarily provided with shade. We aimed at evaluating in a temperate region (Belgium) to what extent cattle may suffer from heat stress (measured through body temperature, respiration rate and panting score, cortisol or its metabolites in milk, and feces on hot days) and at assessing the potential benefits of shade. During the summer of 2012, 20 cows were kept on pasture without access to shade. During the summer of 2011, ten cows had access to shade (young trees with shade cloth hung between them), whereas ten cows had no access. Climatic conditions were quantified by the Heat Load Index (HLI). In animals without access to shade respiration rates, panting scores, rectal temperatures, and milk cortisol concentrations increased as HLI increased in both 2011 and 2012. Fecal cortisol metabolites varied with HLI in 2011 only. When cattle had access to shade, their use of shade increased as the HLI increased. This effect was more pronounced during the last part of the summer, possibly due to better acquaintance with the shade construction. In this case, shade use increased to 65% at the highest HLI (79). Shade tempered the effects on respiration, rectal temperature, and fecal cortisol metabolites. Milk cortisol was not influenced by HLI for cows using shade for > 10% of the day. Therefore, even in temperate areas, cattle may suffer from heat when they are at pasture in summer and providing shade can reduce such stress.