The impact on bulls of the conditions during transport to slaughter and of the bulls’ previous history.
Survey in production of fattening bulls

A survey of 88 commercial farms (involving 1073 bulls) was carried out to assess the impact on bulls of the conditions during transport to slaughter and of the bulls’ previous history of reactions to transport and meat quality. The history of the bulls, including experience during transport and farmers’ attitudes) and the facilities on the farms were noted. Farmers were questioned on their attitudes. Bulls’ responses to loading and unloading from the truck were observed. Journey-related data were collected, and cortisol concentration at slaughter and the pH of two muscles (the Longissimus Dorsi and the Rectus Abdominis) were measured. Our study confirms that certain factors associated with transport can increase stress and limit the decline of meat pH: absence of loading facilities on the farm, transport on a warm day, or short waiting time at lairage. Social aspects also play a role, with the presence of bulls from the same finishing group, limiting stress and improving meat pH. Events and management before transport are also of prime importance: the experience of previous transport, a high feed level until transport, farmer’s positive awareness of the sensitivity of bulls (to humans or to feeding schedules) but an absence of a positive attitude towards close contacts with bulls, are all likely to limit stress or its implications for meat pH. Although these results need to be confirmed in controlled experiments, they suggest that good management of beef bulls before and during transport is essential to animal welfare and meat quality.

Survey in pig production
600 Dutch farmers were asked to return a completed questionnaire, including technical questions, but also statements regarding farmer’s ‘attitude’, ‘behaviour’ and ‘empathy’ towards pigs. Subsequently, 37 farms were visited and blood samples collected from the pigs. Whilst sampling, the behaviour of the animals and the farmer were observed. On a number of these 37 farms the behaviour of pigs in a human approach test was observed, and the statements of the questionnaire were answered by the farmer.

A total of 124 of the 600 farmers returned the questionnaire. Farmers rated ‘animal oriented activities’ equal to ‘management-related activities’ (score 0.38, on a scale from unpleasant (-1) to enjoyable (+1)). Differences in dealing with handling problems became apparent (such as entering and exiting a farrowing crate, training gilts to use an electronic sow feeder), but the majority of farmers claim not to have any difficulties in handling their animals. There was limited variation in the responses to the attitudes, behaviour and empathy statements. The data from the farm visits did not indicate a relationship between farmers’ responses to the statements and animals’ responses to the human approach tests. However, farmers’ responses to statements on ‘behaviour’ correlated with the behaviour of pigs towards the handler during blood collection, to the way the handler approached the pigs and tended to relate to the behaviour of the group whilst sampling took place. Statements regarding ‘attitude’ also related to the behaviour of pigs towards the handlers: farmers rating positive on attitude tend to have less fearful pigs. This finding is a strong argument for further investment in training courses that will help farmers understand the behaviour of animals, and to provide farmers with ideas on how to interact with animals in such a way that stress is minimised to benefit welfare and performance.

Xavier Bouvin
Work Package leader 3.1: Handling stress

More information: xavier@clermont.inra.fr