Cattle behaviours and stockperson actions related to impaired animal welfare at Swedish slaughter plants

Abstract

At a slaughter plant, cattle are sometimes exposed to rough handling which may reduce animal welfare (AW). In an observational study at four Swedish commercial slaughter plants, AW-related behaviours of cattle and actions of abattoir stockpersons handling the same animals were recorded simultaneously. The objective was to estimate the occurrence of different behaviours and actions related to negative AW during driving and stunning at largescale cattle abattoirs, assess associations between such behaviours and actions, and analyse differences between plants and animal categories (dairy cows, beef cows, adult bulls and heifers/bullocks). Direct continuous observations of focal animals were made using laptops either in a section of the driving race to the stun box (132 animals) or in the stun box (313 animals), generating a total of 14.5 h of observations. The animals were stunned using a penetrating captive bolt gun or a rifle. Counts per animal of 14 behaviours and 16 stockperson actions were calculated. Sixteen percent of the observed animals displayed total behaviour counts >5 in the driving race, and 2% did so in the stun box; 32 and 8% of the observed animals received total counts >5 of stockperson actions in the race and stun box, respectively. We estimated that two-thirds of the animals were processed without displaying/receiving any of the behaviours/actions associated with severely negative AW. AW scores were acquired by adding together all observed behaviour counts (and action counts, separately) weighted by expert-assessed ratings denoting the degree of impaired AW. Spearman rank correlation was used to analyse associations between behaviour counts, action counts and AW scores. Only three moderate to strong correlations (ρ ≥ 0.4, P ≤ 0.001) between single behaviours/actions were found ("slapping rear" and "slapping front"; "prodding" and "shouting"; and "prodding" and "beating rear" in the driving race). The correlation between AW scores based on behaviours and actions was statistically significant but rather weak both in the driving race (ρ = 0.37, P < 0.0001) and stun box (ρ = 0.22, P = 0.0002). The effects of slaughter plant and animal category on behaviour counts and AW scores were estimated using standard or zeroinflated negative-binomial regression. The risks of most behaviours related to negative AW differed considerably between plants. In the stun box, adult bulls had a 2.5 times higher risk of "struggling-kicking" (P = 0.016) and a 2.0 times higher risk of displaying "backingturning" (P = 0.016) than had dairy cows, indicating poorer welfare for the bulls.

Pre-slaughter cattle welfare indicators for use in commercial abattoirs with voluntary monitoring systems: A systematic review

“…Slaughter plants are designed based on conventional architectural criteria, such as space optimization or the facilitation of human activities, but do not normally consider the behavioral needs of animals (Miranda-de la . Complete measurements of animal welfare require observations from unloading to unconsciousness, including at the unloading bay, during lairage, moving the cattle to the stun box and at bleeding out (Hultgren, Wiberg, Berg, Cvek, & Lunner Kolstrup, 2014). Reactions to certain aspects of slaughter procedures could have consequences for subsequent slaughter stages, so improving one stage may have positive effects on subsequent stages (Bourguet et al, 2011).…”

“…On the other hand, it should be taken into account that both the facilities available during those stages and the handling by the stockpersons will also influence animal behaviour. Several authors suggest the measurement of falls, aggression/fight, slips, jumps, baulks, reversing, mounting and vocalizations (Van de Water et al, 2003;Minka & Ayo, 2007;Bourguet et al, 2011;Hultgren et al, 2014), since they are indicators (events) associated with fear-related behavioral responses and might reflect the efficiency with which the animals are handled upon arriving at the slaughter plant (Hemsworth et al, 2011;Miranda-de la Lama et al, 2012). Loading and unloading conditions will influence the quality of lairage time; however, lairage under poor conditions will also affect animal behaviour.…”

“…The tests used to evaluate animal fear, in the human-animal relationship (HAR), can divided into three categories: 1) evaluation of the reactions to the presence of a stationary person, 2) evaluation of the reactions to a person in movement, and 3) reactions to management (Lensink et al, 2001;Bourguet et al, 2010;Waiblinger, Menke, Korff, & Bucher, 2004). At the abattoir, these tests should normally be quite brief (Hultgren et al, 2014) and carried out on groups cattle, to eliminate stress due to social isolation, which can affect the results. This methodology has been useful to identify problems related to the design of the slaughter plants, deficiencies in selection and training of personnel responsible, staff attitude and the emotional state of the animals evaluated (Hemsworth, 2003;Hultgren et al, 2014;Romero et al, 2017).…”

Livestock-handling assessments to improve the welfare of cattle, pigs and sheep

“…Numerical scoring systems have been developed for detecting problems during handling (Grandin 1998a;Maria et al 2004;NCBA-BQA Feedlot Audit 2009;Welfare Quality Network 2009;Edwards et al 2010;Hulgren et al 2014). This makes it possible to determine whether handling has improved or become worse.…”

Key issues in the welfare of dairy cattle

“…In some abattoirs, electric prods are used extensively. and Hultgren et al (2014) found cattle stress reactions to be associated with rough handling at the abattoir. Atkinson et al (2013) evaluated stun quality following stunning with a cartridge-driven penetrating captive bolt gun, and found signs of consciousness indicative of inadequate stun in 6.5% of the cows, steers and calves, and in 17% of the bulls.…”