Comparison and reliability of techniques to estimate live cattle body weight

Wangchuk, Kesang; Wangdi, Jigme; Mindu, Mindu

doi:10.1080/09712119.2017.1302876

Cited by 43 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In beef cattle, common indicators of undernutrition are bodyweight or body condition score (BCS), although their use at slaughter level is limited since they vary in terms of animal age, sex and breed, mature size, stage of pregnancy or gut fill (Nicholson & Sayers, 1987;Morris, Kenyon, & Burnham, 2002;Coopman, De Smet, Laevens, Van Zeveren, & Duchateau, 2009;Tebug, et al, 2016;Wangchuk, Wangdi, & Mindu, 2017). Normally, at the slaughterhouse, weight loss is calculated in groups or batches, not individually.…”

Section: Morphometric Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal welfare has become an important subject of public, economic and political concern, leading to the need to validate indicators that are feasible to use at abattoirs. A systematic review was carried out, which identified 72 cattle welfare indicators (CWI) that were classified into four categories (physiological, morphometric, behavioral and meat quality). Their validity and feasibility for use in abattoirs were evaluated as potential measures of cattle welfare during transportation to the abattoir and at the abattoir itself. Several highly valid indicators were identified that are useful to assess welfare at abattoirs, including body condition score, human-animal interactions, vocalizations, falling, carcass bruising, and meat pH. In addition, some intermediate valid indicators are useful and should be investigated further. Information along the food chain could be used systematically to provide a basis for a more-risk-based meat inspection. An integrated system based on the use of key indicators defined for each inspection step with the setting of alarm thresholds could be implemented.

show abstract

Section: Morphometric Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was ensured that the same set of butchers were not used for two consecutive days. The live weight of the cattle was estimated just before slaughter using the body dimension method [7]. After slaughtering, the entire stomach and intestinal wastes, which were extracted manually by the butchers, were collected from each cattle and weighed using an electronic scale (XY200st, Zhejiang, China).…”

Section: Intestinal and Stomach Wastes Measurement And Characterizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Gaseous Emissions from Cattle Abattoir Wastes in Cameroon

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abattoirs are potentially a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. Measurements were conducted in a beef cattle abattoir located in Bamenda, Cameroon, to characterise waste production and quantify GHG emissions. A male and female cattle were randomly selected on each day for waste measurement over a period of two weeks. Waste from each cattle was quantified by collecting all the intestinal/stomach contents after slaughtering and determining the mass of dry matter (DM) and volatile solids (VS). Emissions from the outdoor solid waste storage heap was measured using flux chambers. The average cattle weight was 420 kg and the average intestinal/stomach waste was 37 ± 6 kg cattle−1, half of which was dumped outdoor in a heap, while the rest was discarded with wastewater into a stream. The DM produced was 4.19 ± 0.85 kg cattle−1, representing 11% of the wastes, and the VS produced was 3.42 ± 0.82 kg cattle−1. The average ratio of waste DM to cattle weight was 1.0%, while the ratio of waste VS to cattle weight was 0.8%. Modelled CH4 emissions from the total waste was estimated at 37.84 ± 8 g CH4 cattle−1 with a range of 27.57–56.03 g CH4 cattle−1. Measured GHG emission from the outdoor heap was 5.89 ± 4.78 mg CH4 m−2 min−1, 0.137 ± 0.151 mg N2O m−2 min−1, and 95 ± 83 mg CO2 m−2 min−1. The total GHG (CH4 + N2O) emission rate was 229 mg CO2e m−2 min−1, indicating that CH4 contributes 82% of the total GHG. Improved waste management strategies, such as anaerobic digestion for biogas production or using covers over waste heaps, would help abattoirs mitigate GHG emissions.

show abstract

“…69 Additionally, weight estimates based on body measurements of cattle (e.g. Schaeffer's 70 formula (Sastry et al, 1983)) or use of weigh tapes (Heinrichs et al, 2007) have been shown 71 to deviate from true weights (Wangchuk et al, 2017). More accurate measures can be 72 obtained from scales such as weigh crushes or weigh floors.…”

Section: Introduction 39mentioning

confidence: 99%

First data-driven approach to using individual cattle weights to estimate mean adult dairy cattle weight in the UK

Schubert

Wood

Reyher³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

9Introduction: Knowledge of accurate weights of cattle is crucial for effective dosing of 10 individual animals with medicine and for reporting antimicrobial usage metrics, amongst 11 other uses. The most common weight for dairy cattle presented in current literature is 600 kg, 12 but this is not evidenced by data. For the first time, we provide an evidence-based estimate of 13 the average weight of UK dairy cattle to better inform decisions by farmers, veterinarians and 14 the scientific community. 15Methods: We collected data for 2,747 dairy cattle from 20 farms in the UK, 19 using Lely 16 Automatic Milking Systems with weigh floors and 1 using a crush with weigh scales. These 17 data covered farms with different breed types, including Holstein, Friesian, Holstein-Friesian 18 and Jersey, as well as farms with dual purpose breeds and cross-breeds. Data were used to 19 calculate a mean weight for dairy cattle by breed, and a UK-specific mean weight was 20 generated by scaling to UK-specific breed proportions. Trends in weight by lactation number, 21 DIM and production level were also explored using individual cattle-level data. 22 Results: Mean weight for adult dairy cattle included in this study was 617 kg (standard 23 deviation (sd) 85.6 kg). Mean weight varied across breeds, with a range of 466 kg (sd=56.0 24 kg, Jersey) to 636 kg ( sd=84.1, Holsteins). When scaled to UK breed proportions, the 25 estimated mean UK dairy cattle weight was 620 kg. Overall, first-lactation heifers weighed 26 9% less than cows. Mean weight declined for the first 30 days post-calving, before steadily 27 increasing. For cattle at peak production, mean weight increased with production level. 28Conclusions: This study is the first to calculate a mean weight of adult dairy cattle in the UK 29 based on on-farm data. Overall mean weight was higher than that most often proposed in the 30 literature (600 kg). Evidence-informed weights are crucial as the UK works to better monitor 31 and report metrics to monitor antimicrobial use and are useful to farmers and veterinarians to 32 inform dosing decisions. 33 34

show abstract

Comparison and reliability of techniques to estimate live cattle body weight

Cited by 43 publications

References 16 publications

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

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

Assessment of Gaseous Emissions from Cattle Abattoir Wastes in Cameroon

First data-driven approach to using individual cattle weights to estimate mean adult dairy cattle weight in the UK

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About