Investing in stockpeople is an investment in animal welfare and agricultural sustainability

Daigle, Courtney L; Ridge, Emily E.

doi:10.1093/af/vfy015

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While feedlot cattle are inspected daily, the identification of ill health by stockpersons remains challenging (Rezac et al 2014). The effectiveness of stockperson training programs and observational skills in identifying sick or injured animals is, therefore, a predominant limiting factor to maintaining welfare (Weary et al 2009;Daigle and Ridge 2018). Morbidities within feedlot enterprises tend to be associated with bovine respiratory disease (Sackett et al 2006;Cusack et al 2007;Edwards 2010), metabolic disorders, particularly acidosis (Galyean and Rivera 2003), and heat stress (Hahn and Mader 1997;Hahn 1999;Entwistle et al 2000;Sackett et al 2006).…”

Section: Physical Factors Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare of beef cattle in Australian feedlots: a review of the risks and measures

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rising global demand for animal protein is leading to intensification of livestock production systems. At the same time, societal concerns about sustainability and animal welfare in intensive systems is increasing. This review examines the risks to welfare for beef cattle within commercial feedlots in Australia. Several aspects of the feedlot environment have the potential to compromise the physical and psychological welfare of cattle if not properly monitored and managed. These include, but are not limited to, animal factors such as the influence of genetics, temperament and prior health, as well as management factors such as diet, pen design, resource provision, pregnancy management, and stock-person attitudes and skills. While current industry and producer initiatives exist to address some of these issues, continuous improvements in welfare requires accurate, reliable and repeatable measures to allow quantification of current and future welfare states. Existing measures of welfare are explored as well as proxy indicators that may signal the presence of improved or reduced welfare. Finally, potential future measures of welfare that are currently under development are discussed and recommendations for future research are made.

show abstract

Section: Physical Factors Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare of beef cattle in Australian feedlots: a review of the risks and measures

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Youth raised in urban settings are gaining agriculture knowledge exclusively in classroom setting. Subsequently, a generational gap in knowledge acquisition is forming between the younger and the older, more experienced stock people, who were likely trained using hands-on, on-the-job training, or through being raised in an agricultural setting (Daigle and Ridge, 2018). However, despite the high level of experience and the increasing educational requirements, most participants are working well over 40 hrs/wk for less than $15/hr.…”

Section: Happy But Overworked and Underpaidmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Considering the survey results report that over half of the participants served as the sole source of income for their whole household, the low level of pay should be concerning from both a monetary and "employee retention" perspective. Relative to other occupations that interact with animals on a daily basis, stock people receive the lowest compensations, regardless of working long hours in adverse conditions (Daigle and Ridge, 2018).…”

Section: Happy But Overworked and Underpaidmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The survey also provided evidence that beef cattle stock people are overworked. Increased urbanization, fewer trained stock people in the livestock industry and the unrealistic work expectations of stock people are contributing to an overworked employee base in the industry (Daigle and Ridge, 2018). The average employed American works about 40.3 hrs/wk (USBLS, 2018c), yet 76% of survey feed yard employee participants work over 50 hrs/wk.…”

Section: Happy But Overworked and Underpaidmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Which can have positive ramifications for the employee unit and workplace culture. Therefore, investing in employees' satisfaction can not only have animal welfare impacts but also stockperson well-being and long-term sustainability for animal agriculture (Daigle and Ridge, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of the Texas Feed Yard Workforce: Survey of Stockperson Attitudes and Perceptions towards Euthanasia, Animal Care and Employee Value

Ridge

Gill²,

Daigle

2019

American Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Welfare of Beef Cattle in Intensive Systems

Salvin,

Schwartzkopf-Genswein,

Lee

et al. 2023

Animal Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investing in stockpeople is an investment in animal welfare and agricultural sustainability

Cited by 16 publications

References 12 publications

Welfare of beef cattle in Australian feedlots: a review of the risks and measures

Welfare of beef cattle in Australian feedlots: a review of the risks and measures

Evaluation of the Texas Feed Yard Workforce: Survey of Stockperson Attitudes and Perceptions towards Euthanasia, Animal Care and Employee Value

Welfare of Beef Cattle in Intensive Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About