Interacción Humano-Animal y Prácticas de Manejo Bovino en Subastas Colombianas

Abstract

RESUMENEl objetivo del estudio fue evaluar las interacciones humano-animal (IHA) y las prácticas de manejo en subastas de Medellín, Colombia. Se recopilaron datos de cuatro subastas ganaderas realizadas en junio de 2014. Se evaluaron 720 bovinos, los cuales, durante el pesaje y la conducción se subdividieron en 241 lotes y 28 grupos de lotes, respectivamente. Se caracterizaron los hallazgos en inspección veterinaria, así como las interacciones táctiles, auditivas y visuales de los manejadores y las respuestas conductuales en los bovinos. En la inspección veterinaria, en el 19.5% de los lotes se hicieron observaciones, con predominio de heridas abiertas (38.3%). En el área de pesaje se evidenciaron 824 interacciones, predominando las visuales (44.1%) sobre las táctiles (30.1%) y auditivas (25.8%); sin embargo, el 73.0, 66.4 y 88.4% de los animales no presentaron respuesta conductual a las interacciones visuales, táctiles y auditivas, respectivamente. En la conducción a corrales se registraron 214 interacciones, con predominio de las táctiles (42.5%) sobre las auditivas (30.8%) y visuales (26.6%); sin embargo, la mayoría de lotes solo presentó respuesta conductual a las interacciones táctiles (68%). Las interacciones positivas de manejo como el uso de silbidos, ondear el instrumento y alzar las manos generaron pocas respuestas conductuales y manejos más tranquilos de los animales. Por otro lado, golpear, punzar y gritar provocó mayor reactividad y comportamientos agonísticos en los animales.

Association between Attitude and Empathy with the Quality of Human-Livestock Interactions

“…Freezing is considered as a fear response by cattle, which makes them more skittish and difficult to handle [20]. In this study, auditory interactions generated limited responses in steers; similar results have been reported in cattle auctions [28]. In Colombia, auditory interactions such as shouting, which are considered negative by some authors [31], or neutral by others [34], did not affect the behavior in commercial Zebu young bulls, perhaps due to a process of habituation with this type of handling [22], taking into account that the use of human vocalizations and sounds is a common practice for the handling of commercial Zebu young bulls [12].…”

“…In this study, handlers used visual interactions such as hand raising, waving and blocking, which are consistent and accepted for minimally invasive handling of groups of cattle [2], and which are frequently used in cattle auctions in Colombia [28]. However, the study observed significant positive correlations between blocking and the behavioral responses of steers, such as slipping and falling, probably because driving represents a novel event for cattle which generates challenges, emotions and alertness [28,30].…”

“…In the study, behaviors considered to be abusive, such as tail twisting and the use of an electric pole (the latter not in use at the livestock market), were interactions with a very low frequency. Regarding tail twisting, it is considered to be a deeply rooted practice in the culture of cattle management in several countries such as Colombia [12,28], Chile [25] and Bangladesh [29], and several other Latin American countries [30]. The negative effect of the practice of tail twisting for cattle handling probably depends on the force used by the handler, therefore, the mere observation of this interaction does not allow one to distinguish between forceful and gentle tail twisting [31].…”

Behavior and Health Indicators to Assess Cull Cow's Welfare in Livestock Markets

“…NTI like hitting, poking, kicking, and even tail twisting have been often observed during handling at cattle markets as it has been reported in earlier studies in the United Kingdom (4, 9); in Bangladesh (28); in Colombia (29,30) and also in Chile (8,10,11). The most common NTI in the present study were hits and pokes, whereas kicking was uncommon ( Table 3).…”

Animal-Based Measurements to Assess the Welfare of Dairy Cull Cows during Pre-Slaughter

“…As regards interactions like whistling and speaking, various studies have concluded that they have a neutral effect on the cattle behavior [ 29 , 30 ]. We suggest that handling the cattle in this way can have a calming effect and alert the cattle that the handler is approaching, especially as these are common methods employed in Colombia; as has been shown in livestock abattoirs and auctions [ 32 ].…”